Stage Right

It's no secret that Broadway theatre owners are generally members of the Democratic Party. The late Gerald Schoenfeld, long-time Chairman of the Shubert Organization had the honor of certifying the ballot for then-Gov. Clinton at the 1992 DNC in New York. Rocco Ladesman of the Jujamcyn Theatre chain is a big contributor to Democratic nominees as is James Nederlander (although he has spread a little bit out to some GOP causes).

So, given their party affiliation, it was surprising to see them make a pilgrimage to Albany to protest a proposed tax on theatre tickets on Broadway.

"The theatre leaders, according to the Times, argued that the taxes would not
only hurt ticket sales but could set off a chain reaction that would affect
other tourist-related businesses, including restaurants and hotels, as well as
such theatre-dependent businesses as carpentry shops, costume makers and even
dry cleaners, who handle theatre costumes.

Landesman, testifying before the Assembly and Senate leaders, said, 'With the ongoing demise of the financial sector, policy makers must fight to nurture and protect industries, such as Broadway, that have been proven to generate tourist dollars . . . . I ask you to also recognize the dire consequences this tax proposal may have on the hard-working men and women employed by Broadway, as well as the thousands of other businesses that rely on Broadway spending.'"

Is it me, or does this sound like a better argument for supply-side economics then Jack Kemp could give? I thought "trickle-down" concepts like giving tax relief to a strong, big, corporate business like Broadway Theatre owners would in turn benefit the middle class economy by helping the "hard-working men and women employed by Broadway, as well as the thousands of other businesses that rely on Broadway spending" was an old, tired idea from the past.

Why would Rocco Landesman not embrace a tax on large corporations to help fund.. no, wait... to INVEST in important programs that the Democrat controlled government will impose on the willing and grateful citizens of the Empire State?

I'm looking forward to next season's new hit: "NIMBY, the musical!"

I am just so sick of this. it is one of those lies that the Bush administration never confronted or rebutted and it is nauseating.

This week, Frank Rich in the NY Times repeats the slanderous and easily verified mis-quote:

Op-Ed Columnist - Herbert Hoover Lives - NYTimes.com: "(Though that’s exactly what the G.O.P. demanded of Democrats with Bush: You were either with him or with the terrorists.)"

President Bush NEVER, and I mean NEVER said or even implied that if the Democrats were not with him they were with the terrorists... NEVER!

There is only one time where President Bush came CLOSE to uttering a phrase like this. Here is the context and the passage of President Bush's speech from September 21, 2001:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

It is clear who President Bush is talking about, and what he means by "With us". And, by the way, this is still our policy, and it SHOULD be. If we find that a country is wilfully harboring Bin Laden, they are our enemy.

By the way, I hope you click on the link I provided for the full text of this speech.... it's from the Iranian Press Service. That's right, the Iranian Press Service does a better job of properly quoting President Bush then theatre-boy Frank Rich.

A natural disaster.

People dying.

No end in sight.

FEMA a "No Show".

The President reads a book to school children.

Where is the outrage?

The Associated Press: Life after ice storm dire, getting worse in spots: "At least 42 people have died, including 11 in Kentucky, and conditions are worsening in many places days after an ice storm knocked out power to 1.3 million customers from the Plains to the East Coast. About a million people were still without electric Friday, and with no hope that the lights will come back on soon, small communities are frantically struggling to help their residents.

One county put it bluntly: It can't.

'We're asking people to pack a suitcase and head south and find a motel if they have the means, because we can't service everybody in our shelter,' said Crittenden County Judge-Executive Fred Brown, who oversees about 9,000 people, many of whom are sleeping in the town's elementary school.

Local officials were growing angry with what they said was a lack of help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In Grayson County, about 80 miles southwest of Louisville, Emergency Management Director Randell Smith said the 25 National Guardsmen who have responded have no chain saws to clear fallen trees.
'We've got people out in some areas we haven't even visited yet,' Smith said. 'We don't even know that they're alive.'

Smith said FEMA has been a no-show so far."

Hate to say "I told you so", but as I suggested in my post "Chicken Little Comes to Broadway", If business is so bad on Broadway, why is a popular revival of The Cripple of Inishmaan not able to move up to a larger house because all of the theatres are booked?

"Inishmaan"; extends run - Entertainment News, Legit News, Media - Variety: "Insiders say theater availability is the main uncertainty delaying transfer plans, with a dense schedule of openings through March and April keeping most of the Rialto real estate occupied."

I thought this was the worst things have been in New York... Why are we stuck in thei self-perpetuating cycle of doom with no one in the theatre industry explaining that even though some shows closed, there are plenty of new shows coming up and by May 1st all of the Broadway houses will be booked? What could possibly be the incentive for producers to talk down their own industry?

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » NEA Grantees Should “Spread the Wealth”
Although Broadway - and by extension National Tours of Broadway shows - tend to be the showcase for the American theatre industry, the vast majority of the works that end up in that showcase are born and nurtured in the vast network of non-profit theatres stretched across the country.



New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco as well as smaller cities like Minneapolis, Houston San Diego and beautiful Costa Mesa (!) have major producing organizations that act as feeders for Broadway and the road. New playwright programs designed to nurture writers and their works are a staple of most non-profit and institutional theatres. And these theatres are funded, in part, by federal grants from the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA).

Rather than waste time (and Mr. Breitbart’s precious bandwidth) arguing the legitimacy of the federal government’s role in using taxpayer dollars to fund the arts (let’s face it, Republicans didn’t even TRY to get rid of the NEA when they controlled congress, it’s here to stay, let’s be realistic), I would instead like to propose a more fiscally conservative set of ground rules for recipients of NEA grants. In short: If the NEA funds a play or musical that becomes a huge hit, we, the taxpayers should get our cut!

It always astounded me that “A Chorus Line” ran for over 6,000 performances, was the longest running show of its time, remains the longest running show originally written and produced in America, made fistfuls of money, and yet the producer - the non-profit Public Theatre - continued to be funded by tax dollars, and continued to beg for money from its patrons. Consider that “A Chorus Line” had a 19 person cast - none demanding star salaries, a basic unit set, and each character had one costume change. What I’m saying is “A Chorus Line” was a cash cow! And since “A Chorus Line” was developed with some tax payer funds through city, state and federal grants, we, the tax payers were investors. Where is our cut?

If you think we got our money back via corporate income taxes from the profits of the show, think again. Non-profit theatre means these companies are 501(c)3 organizations… meaning: THEY DON’T PAY TAXES! Joe Papp, the Artistic Director of the Public Theatre had a nice, tidy 6-figure income thanks mostly to the huge success of “A Chorus Line,” but we got nothing back for our investment, except an annual request for more money. This just doesn’t seem right.

Sometimes a non-profit theatre will mount a world premiere of a new play and it gets enough recognition that commercial producers mount a Broadway production of it. In these cases, the non-profit is not the producer of the show, so they are not in line for any additional revenue from the commercial success, right? Wrong! To ensure that they continue receiving royalties on future productions of a play they premiere, the non-profit theatres often contractually obligate the playwright to give up part of their royalties of future productions in exchange for the non-profit mounting the play in the first place. So, the non-profits make sure they get THEIR cut, but again, the taxpayers who actually funded the play via government grants get nothing.

What also irks me about the whole set up is that the larger non-profits these days are using their funding to produce plays that don’t require the non-profit protection. For example, the latest revival of “South Pacific” at Lincoln Center theatre has been a bonafide hit. And, again, all of those profits are coming in tax free to LCT. But come on, are we supposed to believe that the NEA needs to fund a theatre and the government needs to grant tax-exempt status to a producing entity so they can mount a production of “South Pacific” as though otherwise this great important work would not have been done? How many revivals of “South Pacific” have there been over the years? Why do we need to subsidize another one?

Here is my proposal: If a play or musical is developed at a non-profit institution which receives NEA grants, then a percentage of that institution’s revenue from any commercial production of that play should be paid back to the taxpayers as a return on their investment. And, while we’re at it, why is it that I’ve never seen a cut of any of the merchandise sales from the Muppets? Didn’t the taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting System pay to develop and promote those characters which in turn got turned into every toy, article of clothing and trinket imaginable? Shouldn’t we get a cut of those sales as well? I want my cut of the Tickle-me-Elmo and I want it NOW!

In the commercial theatre there is a word for a person who puts money into a show for the sheer joy and satisfaction they feel and never expects any return on their investment even if the show is a success: Sucker.



Stage Right is on Facebook.

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Richard Dreyfuss Can’t Remember His Anti-American Dialogue

Richard Dreyfuss and Elizabeth McGovern have travelled across the pond to star in a play about America’s torture of terrorist suspects. That’s right, not “alleged” torture. It’s a fact as far as this play is concerned. And, the funny thing about the Variety review is that the fact that the whole world knows that America is guilty of torture undermines the effect of the play:

The terrible timing is not Kevin Spacey’s fault: He couldn’t have known “Complicit” — U.S. dramatist Joe Sutton’s fictional indictment of his country’s possible condoning of torture and rendition — would premiere after President Obama had taken steps to dismantle that practice.



Clips of a TV interview with real-life BBC senior political commentator Andrew Marr provide details of Ben’s inflammatory publication, none of which can be news to British audiences with even a cursory knowledge of Guantanamo and other widely exposed scandals.

The idea of starring in a play directed by Kevin Spacey at The Old Vic along with the opportunity to slander and indict his country on foreign soil must have been too great a temptation for Dreyfuss to pass up. But, according to Bloomberg, he should have taken a little extra time in trying to learn his lines before taking to the boards:

The U.S. actor has often spoken of his poor memory. In “Complicit,” the director Kevin Spacey takes the unusual step of allowing Dreyfuss to wear an earpiece for word prompts. In Spacey’s minimalist in-the-round production at the Old Vic, the device is fully visible.

Although this was probably a more elegant solution for Dreyfuss’ problem than Val Kilmer’s infamous use of teleprompters in Ten Commandments, The Musical, it’s still pretty embarrassing to stride the same boards as Edmund Kean, John Gielgud and Alec Guiness with a production assistant whispering lines in your ear… Weak call, Mr. Holland.

But a minor detail like learning ones lines for a play shouldn’t stop an actor from seizing the moment and trashing your country with lies and innuendo. I love how the “US tortures prisoners at Gitmo” is just accepted as common knowledge in some circles. I can’t stand up at a cocktail party and gently question the accuracy of such a statement without being inundated with a barrage of ad hominem attacks on my intelligence. If you don’t agree with the premise, you’re just an idiot!

I may be an idiot, but for the chance to play the Old Vic, I could learn my lines in a week… and I’m not even an actor!

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Musical: You Feeling Lucky, Punk?
The recent trend of converting hit movies into Broadway musicals (”Shrek,” “Billy Elliott,” etc.) may have reached the point of ridiculous with today’s news that a stage musical of the Clint Eastwood film “Magnum Force” is in the works:

Magnum Force, the 1973 sequel to the Clint Eastwood thriller Dirty Harry, is getting a musical makeover and may even be Broadway bound, according to The Guardian. English singer-songwriter Robyn Hitchcock, an admitted Magnum Force obsessive, will compose the score and intends to produce the show with MTV executive Bill Flanagan.

Hitchcock emerged in the late 1970s with the band the Soft Boys before earning cult status as a solo artist in the 1980s with college-radio staples such as “The Man with the Light Bulb Head,” “Balloon Man” and “Madonna of the Wasps.” In 1998, he made the concert movie Storefront Hitchcock with Academy Award-winning director Jonathan Demme and has since made cameo appearances in two other Demme films, The Manchurian Candidate and Rachel Getting Married.

Hmmm… a British punk rocker with heavy Jonathan Demme influences making a Dirty Harry musical…..? Please, PLEASE don’t end up making this turn into an anti-gun story! KEEP ROSIE O’DONNELL OUT OF THE WORKSHOP!