Interesting article … but, as often with the theatre articles in the NY Times, Mr. Healy misses his point all together.  Sometimes I think journalist forget the basic analytical writing taught in high school… anyway I digress…

Mr. Healy is suggesting that due to the economic realities of Broadway the big budget musicals are being produced with smaller sets.  He points to big musicals such as “Shrek” and “Mermaid” as shows that closed early, possibly because they had huge sets.  Um, does he read his own paper?  These musicals closed because they sucked and their producers were hoping that the theatrics would hide this fact.

He also keeps pointing to “Billy Elliot” as a successful show with a minimal set.  Again, I ask Mr. Healy if he’s even seen this show?  While it doesn’t have a single “oh my” piece like the famous chandelier or helicoptor - it has a really expensive automated set.  I mean a whole two story set spirals out of the center of the stage and then can collapse into various different configurations … not cheap.

To maybe help his point, though, the two best shows on Broadway right now (in my opinion) “In The Heights” and “Next to Normal” have minimal sets, at best.  These shows are successful, though, because they have great stories and music — as the “Billy Elliot” producer points out in the article.  The sets don’t make the show.

I hope the big budget musical continues.  I think it’s still alive an healthy — I just think the current shows don’t require the massive Phantom style sets — but the very next show might (such as the Phantom sequel!)