I'll say it again. Broadway is ruining theatre.  

The issue with the WGA strike and the Local one strike is essentially the same - Producers are getting too much out of the profit pie. The difference is what each union is asking for. Sounds to me like the stage hands want to become salaried, to the point where they get paid for time not worked. They want a regular paycheck.

If the producers feel that the Local One is trying to featherbed - chances are good (if I know producers) that they've been undercutting labor on shows, and going with a hand or two short, so I'm sure there's more than one hand who is doing the work of 2 or 3.

but you know, there are several shows on Broadway (though not musicals) that probably aren't being affected. If you're in NYC, I have sympathy for you. For the rest of you, go catch some regional theatre, where actors and stange managers are the only ones with unions, and the writer has already written the script.

...and she's called Henry and it’s a lot of explanation but don’t worry about it kids, Ok? Just tune in, turn off, drop out, drop in, switch off, switch on, and explode.

I've seen you say "Broadway is ruining theatre" in a post before and it's an awfully broad generalization for a fairly large, complex industry. It is tough when art (theatre) and commerce intersect, but the commerce part does allow a lot of theatre to flourish that would otherwise not see the light of day. Producers take enormous financial risk and should therefore be amply rewarded (although very few shows recoup their investment). And I assure you that Local 1 is not suffering in terms of compensation or employment numbers. (I'm on the writers side, but not Local 1).

Thanks Ace for continuing to cover theatre issues on AE!

Thank you for continuing to cover theatre on AE. As theatre is my profession and my passion, I truly am grateful (and my rants have absolutely nothing to do with your coverage, just my own bombastic nature :).  

...and she's called Henry and it’s a lot of explanation but don’t worry about it kids, Ok? Just tune in, turn off, drop out, drop in, switch off, switch on, and explode.

I don't pretend to be a theater expert, but I'd ammend the sentiment that "Broadway is ruining theater",  to "Disney is ruining theater."  But that's too long a story to get into.

I also won't pretend I know enough to take a side in the Local One strike.  I've been fortunate to see both sides of contract negotiations, and I can honestly say, neither side is ever the right side.

A couple of things I do know ... I was not only lucky to see Cyrano before it closed, but I also lucked out again by having tickets to one of the few shows that hasn't closed.  My wife and I will be seeing Young Frankenstein in a few weeks.  We don't have high hopes for it, but it is the only game in town.

And let me echo the thanks to Ace for continuing to cover the theater!

Lisa

Oh I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels that way about Broadway.  It saddens my heart to see true art is lost.  I have an English degree in Creative Writing.   My final thesis was a play. I still work on plays but I'm like who would produced them? 

 However, I was just not feeling it with Broadway anymore.  If I were to put a play up I rather do it in a minority circuit; I defintiely would retain my artform.

After Rent, Bring Da noise,Bring Da Funk, Stomp, I didn't see anymore plays that wowed me you know.  How manytimes are going to do revival plays?  Broadway is becoming more like Hollywood. A recycled of BS entertainment. 

When I was in NYC in Aug my best friend asked me if I wanted to see a Broadway show.  I scanned over my choices and said no. Broadway didn't have any good plays.  I laughed my ass off when I saw Legally Blonde became a play.I'm like WTF! What's happening to Broadway?

Also,

It's not just Broadway or Hollywood, look at current books at your local bookstores.

I rather stick to my old school classic playwrights and writers to study goodwriting, to perfect my art form, to create a good dose of old school themes like mistaken identity such as Oscar Wilde, or Neil Simon's portray of everday people, or William Shakespeare's complex,psychological monologues of various issues.

Although,

 I am quite surprised that the best writing comes from the SCi-Fi/Horror genre.

You're so right PG, we need to support our local theatres!It's in local areas where maybe good art can be saved from bad producers.

It's only truly "Broadway-Broadway" shows that are affected. All off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway shows seem to be running (as are some that I would have considered to be Broadway shows too). So there's still a lot of really good theater to see. But the strike is really hitting a lot of businesses that depend on the crowds at the big shows (including wait staff in restaurants, hotel staff, etc). Ace, those hordes of tourists you're avoiding in Times Square are pretty important to this city - particuarly the overseas tourists as the dollar sinks lower and our economy stalls. And they'll start cancelling their entire vacation here if they can't get into shows, which means galleries, stores, hotels and everyone they employ and all the associated small businesses (eg cabbies) will all take a hit. It's 20 times bigger than the writer's strike in impact, but doesn't seem to be getting the same attention nationally.

And I don't support this strike. It isn't about pay. It's about requiring theatres to employ certain numbers of stage hands, regardless of need. Last time I looked, we weren't a communist collective. It's an absurd demand, it's an unfair strike, and too many of us will take a hit for this to be justified. But one benefit might be to push some of the crowds into the less well-known theaters and to generate some income for some of the smaller producers/theater groups out there, including queer theater. Here's hoping.

Love Pussy xx

Pirategrrl, there's a play opening on Broadway this season as ambitious and epic and risky as Angels in America.  It's called August: Osage County.  And you know what?  It might not open now at all because of this strike.  A bunch of producers got together and put millions of dollars of their own money into August, a play with little chance of turning a profit, and now look what they're getting for it.  Nothing.  Not even the chance to bring mind-blowing theatre to the broadest audience who goes to theatre, the Broadway audience.

The idea that the producers are raking in the big bucks while the poor stagehands suffer is absurd.  80% of Broadway shows don't make any money.  That means producers LOSE money on 80% of the shows they invest in.  Do the stagehands?  No, they make money every day they work (and many they don't).  How is it possible to argue that there's all this money sitting out there that the producers are keeping for themselves? 

Now, if the stagehands were arguing for a two-tiered pay structure, where they earn lower wages before a show breaks even, and higher wages after it breaks even, then I'd perhaps be a bit more supportive to their side.  But right now they're butchering Broadway, and it's the side of Broadway you'd theoretically like: 10+ new plays (many by American playwrights) opening this fall.  Couldn't be a more un-Disney few months, and now it's destroyed.

--abzug

Visit http://www.badgirlsannex.com!

Just to clarify, I never once suggested that August Osage County or any of the others would go on a national tour.  I agree the idea is absurd--no producer would attempt it. However, I do believe that a Broadway production of a play increases its chances of being produced in regional theatres (large or small), as well as theatres outside the US.  For instance, you mentioned Topdog/Underdog.  I wonder if that play would have been as widely produced if it hadn't been on Broadway?  My suspicion is it would have been produced by theatres which specialize in works by African-American writers, and perhaps not that many others. (The fact that it won the Pulitzer complicates things, but I think the example still stands.)

> So you're talking about potentially 10 or more shows that won't get produced on Broadway, and this is what's going to butcher the industry?

Well, now, you're deliberately misunderstanding me I think.  Those 10 shows which won't be produced will be the most interesting and risky.  Perhaps not interesting or risky enough for you (and that would be a fair judgment on your part), but more interesting and risky than the musicals that have been running for 10+ years.  To me, a Broadway which is only the megamusicals is a Broadway which has been "butchered."  (On this point I think perhaps you and I agree?)

I also want to be clear: I don't believe Broadway is "the be all and end all" of the theatre industry.  I do think it's the theatre equivalent of "mass-media" and because of that, I think it's vitally important that interesting and challenging work continue to appear on Broadway.  The reason I hate this strike is because I think it's the interesting and challenging work which will suffer.  And while you may think I sound "desperate," any desperation is a result of actually being on the front lines on this one (professionally-speaking), and caring deeply about the well-being of Broadway.

--abzug

Visit http://www.badgirlsannex.com!

 For instance, you mentioned Topdog/Underdog.  I wonder if that play would have been as widely produced if it hadn't been on Broadway?  My suspicion is it would have been produced by theatres which specialize in works by African-American writers, and perhaps not that many others.

yes, in fact I do think it would have been as widely produced. It won the Pulitzer Prize. And sure enough, minority theatres would have shown it, but I don't think that the various productions in LA, Chicago, Seattle, etc. would have not happened. I will concede that there are many other plays which might not have become as popular had it not been for Broadway.

Well, now, you're deliberately misunderstanding me I think.

LOL ... if my misunderstanding is apparent, I can assure you, it certainly wasn't deliberate. I have too much fun in trying to understand. ;) And yes, on the point of megamusicals, I certainly do agree. Although a Broadway which is trying to get film stars (without theatre backgrounds) in plays as selling points I also think is a form of butchering, but that's a discussion for another time.

I do think it's the theatre equivalent of "mass-media" and because of that, I think it's vitally important that interesting and challenging work continue to appear on Broadway.  The reason I hate this strike is because I think it's the interesting and challenging work which will suffer.

I also agree with you about this. Just like in journalism, I think Broadway has a responsibility to do the challenging risky work in which you're so passionate (and I am as well). I was writing from the perspective that the mega-musicals would suffer more than the projects which you've mentioned, as they tend to have the big huge load-ins, light-hangs, sound issues, etc. But from your perspective, I can understand how if a producer is losing money on his block-buster, his "indie-art" piece is going to suffer as a by-product.

The fact that you are on the front lines, gives you my respect. The fact that you put up a good fight earns you some more. :) Like I said - it isn't for me. But please don't think that I don't understand what it's like, or that I am scoffing at what you do, or that I am unintelligent. It isn't easy, and I of all people know that. I just hate the present machine, just like the parallel American journalism cousin.

...and she's called Henry and it’s a lot of explanation but don’t worry about it kids, Ok? Just tune in, turn off, drop out, drop in, switch off, switch on, and explode.