My friend Chris adds some insight to the article I linked to earlier……  See below.

theshowroomboulevardier:

kuwaitaminute:

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!)

I also really hate when people compare things like this. It’s apples and watermelons! Some shows have large expensive sets because they are told in that language. For example, Phantom is a a grand story that takes place in the Paris Opera House and involves a falling chandelier. The lavish set and bells and whistles are part of the plot. Whereas Next to Normal is about a contemporary family dealing with metal illness, hence the simple set and lack of complicated scenery. To compare different productions and their stagecraft or lack thereof and attribute that to it’s success is retarded.

I totally agree with you, Jackson. I feel like some of these theatre journalists should probably understand the industry before they spout these things out. And really in regards to any sort of trend - there are always people willing to dole out $10 million for something they believe in, whether it’s good or not, or big or small - part of the American theatre system, is that Broadway will find those hits and misses based on commercial merit - not whether the overhead is low or high. As far as big musicals, Adam’s Family and Spiderman are coming down the pike and there are a 1/2 dozen others registered in the Thearical Index for next season. Big hits and big flops endure whether the economy is good or bad, whether sets are big or small. To try and pinpoint what makes Broadway shows successful or not is an exercise in trying to define good taste - almost everyone can recognize it but, almost no one has it.