The Musicals That Flopped ‐A Postmortem

It seems as though the bottom fell out of the Broadway musical this past season. To be sure, “They're Playing Our Song,” “Eubie,” “Whoopie” and “Sweeney Todd” are doing good business nowadays, but none of them — not even “Sweeney Todd” with its freshly won satchel of Tonys — can be classified as a super smash. The last one of those was “Annie,” which opened on April 21, 1977. The big hit before that was “A Chorus Line.” Not in recent memory have there been so many musical flops and such staggering financial losses as this season, which more or less of fi cially wound up on May 31 when “I Remember Mama” (with Liv Ullmarin making her musical debut) drew sighs and snorts from the majority of the first‐nighters. Altogether there have been no fewer than 11 “turkeys,” representing a loss of almost $13 million. These flops include “Alice” (estimated loss: $1.05 million), “King of Hearts” (estimated loss: $1.5 million), “Platinum” (estimated loss: $1.25 million), “A Broadway Musical” (estimated loss: $1.1 million) “Oh, Kay!” (estimated loss: $1.2 million), “Back Country” (estimated loss: $500,000), “The Grand Tour” (estimated loss: $1.3 million), “Carmelina” (estimated loss: $1.1 million), “Home Again, Home Again” (estimated loss: $1.25 million), “The Utter Glory of Morrissey Hall” (estimated loss: $600,000), and “Ballroom” (estimated loss: $2

Of course, this was not the whole story. These disasters were the dark side of an otherwise outstanding Broadway season in which attendance figures and box‐office revenues broke all previous records. It was also a season that saw a resurgence of the serious play, beginning with Arthur Kopit's “Wings,” which achieved a respectable run, and including the current runaway success of both “The Elephant Man” and “Whose Life Is It Anyway?” In addition, booming business has led to the restoration of the Apollo Theater as a legitimate house, the refurbishing of the Billy Rose and the conversion of the old Latin Quarter nightclub into a new theater, the 22 Steps.

Nevertheless, the 1978‐79 pileup of musical wreckage would have been spectacular during any season. Most of these shows were adapted from proved material, and were produced, directed, written and composed by an honor roll of Broadway alumni. The pertinent questions are: Why can't the most gilt tering names in the business produce shows that critics and audiences will respond to positively? Why do the most experienced and creative talents get involved with projects which seem to inspire no one to do his or her best work? In short, what happened?

A wide‐ranging survey of the participants suggests a number of factors which may have significantly contributed to the flock of musical failures: spiraling costs, poor marketing techniques, inexperienced producers, a reliance on past formulas, and finally just plain bad shows. I'll start with what I've managed to learn from the participants themselves, and then try to provide some more detached analysis.

To begin with, it costs roughly a million dollars to put a musical on Broadway; and that's just to raise the curtain on opening night. A number of producers this season patted themselves on the back after having raised that sum, but they patted too soon. Such milliondollar budgets often did not include extra money for a post‐opening budget, which is now understood as absolutely essential to spread the word, no matter what kind of critical reception a show gets. After “The Wiz” opened back in 1975 to a mildly negative critical reception, Twentieth Century‐Fox pumped thousands of dollars into it during its first few weeks and turned it into a hit. According to many theatrical advertising men, several of the shows that closed on Broadway this season, such as “Ballroom,” “The Grand Tour,” “Carmelina” and “Platinum,” could have had respectable runs if they had budgeted for a post‐opening promotional campaign.

Until very recently, Broadway has lagged far behind the general business world in terms of its use of sophisticated marketing techniques. The old theory and practice has been heavy reliance on newspaper ads and, one hoped, good critical opinion. Many of the producers of this season's flops operated on that philosophy, and consequently were left baffled and helpless In the wake of unenthusiastic or even downright negative reviews. More versatile producers, however, are aware of the importance of an effective TV commercial and know how to make sophisticated use of print advertising in order to exploit any favorable aspects of a lukewarm or even negative review, and to counteract negative reviews by seeking out new audiences. Indeed, some new producers with a strong marketing orientation believe that today, given enough money and good promotion, a mediocre show which has been given a weak reception by the critics can be made into a popular “audience show.” But not many Broadway producers are skilled in the use of these techniques, and their general lack of skill and experience in this regard may go a long way toward explaining some of the season's failures.

Another cause of trouble this season has been the involvement of movie companies on Broadviray. In this case, the problem hasn't been any lack of commercial expertise, but rather that the intent has been to launch material for future film exploitation rather than to create shows specifically for the Great White Way. Sometimes that can viork, but more often not. For example, last season, Universal produced the successful “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” with a future movie clearly in mind, and so this season Paramount followed suit by putting a bundle into “Platinum,” just so that it could secure the screen rights. Paramount executives evidently thought. that the idea of a 1940's movie musical star having a love affair with a rock musician would have wide‐ranging appeal. They couldn't have been more wrong, at least given the material they banked on. Later, going on the strength of the names of Cy Coleman, Barbara Fried, and Russell Baker, Warner Brothers Communications. dropped $450,000 into “Home. Again, Home Again," which folded in toronto.

Many professional New York producers had been offerred one or another of these musicals but politely turned them down, presumably because they were thinking strictly in terms of Broadway and knew a loser when they saw one. “We had auditions for most of these shows,” said Gerald Schoenfeld, chairman of the Shubert Organization, “but In each case we decided not to get financially involved. That didn't stop us from booking them into our theaters, though.”

The other generally perceived reasons for failure this season, revolve around the role of the producer. To most people, the Broadway producer is simply the money raiser, but in fact his job is more complicated than that. Every show is in, reality a political arena with the producer the strongman at the top. He is the one who puts together the entire package. He is the one who decides who will compose the score, write the book, design the sets and lighting. The producees taste often outweighs everyone else's and can be the decisive factor in whether a show becomes a hit or a flop. A creative Broadway producer ‐ a Hal Prince, a Joe Papp or a Mike Nichols ‐ can sometimes turn a failing production arotind by tearing the show apart and putting it back together again the way A Selznick or a Zanuck did with movies. It is generally acknowledged, for example, that Mike Nichols had a lot to do with the final success of “Annie.”

Most of the creative people involved in this season's flops claim that the producers in question couldn't hold a candle to Mike Nichols. They say the producers were, by and large, artistically =supportive, occasional liars as to the shows’ financial health and generally undermined the efforts of the creative people when the shows got into trouble. The producers, on the other hand, claim that the creative people always blame them when the shows fail. “The fact is,” said one producer of his creative counterparts, “we gave them the money and they lost it.”

Tommy Tune, who first directed “Platinum” when it was called “Sunset” at Buffalo's Studio Arena in the fall of 1977 said, “A director looks to his producer for support. A director needs a producer when he needs help. `Platinum’ had three producers, one supportive, one merely present, and one frankly destructive. I just couldn't trust their eye.” Mr. Tune left “Sunset” after its Buffalo engagement and was replaced by Joe Layton.

Joe Kipness, producer of such hits as “Applause” and “Seesaw,” this season produced “King of Hearts,” which ran for 48 performances last fall. “I have always felt the role of the producer was one of the unsung hero,” Mr. Kipness says. “My function is to get things together. If things aren't going right, a producer must interfere. Anybody who tells you he doesn't isn't telling you the truth.” Between the Westport tryout engagement of “King of Hearts” and its Broadway opening, Mr. Kipness dropped director A.J. Antoon and bookwriter Steve Tesich for the more commercially experienced Ron Field and Joe Stein.

Norman Kean, producer of the oneperformance flop, “A Broadway Musical,” about a white producer putting on a black musical, also decided on a directorial switch after seeing his show in tryout at the Riverside Church last October. “George Faison was making his directorial debut with the show, so we had anticipated some trouble with him,” explained Mr. Kean. “He was terrific as a choreographer, but as a director, something was missing. One Sunday night I took Gower Champion to dinner and asked him if he'd be interested in collaborating with George on the show. Gower was very excited about the idea. But it just didn't work out. When the work isn't getting done, you have to change captains; you don't change lieutenants.”

Roger L. Stevens, who has produced more than 200, this season was the coproducer for the Alan Jay Lerner and Burton Lane musical, “Carmelina.” It was “mainly for tax purposes,” he says, but “I didn't produce it to lose money.” Mr. Stevens has a reputation for letting his creative people do what they want to do. When he first heard the score of “Carmelina” at a run‐through, he said lie had not been as excited about a musical production since “West Side Story,” which he co‐produced in 1957. “Carmelina” opened in March in Wilmington, Del., where the critics praised its score and felt that the show had “potential.” “The trouble with “Carmelina” is that its creators did no work whatsoever on the road,” said Mr. Stevens. “It's an example of the most unprofessional behavior I've ever witnessed. Of course, I don't know how they could have possibly worked together, since half the time they weren't speaking to one another. As a producer, my hands were tied. I'd given them all the money. I'd gone along with their casting and other decisions, some of which I disagreed with. But when a producer signs a Dramatists Guild contract, he signs his life, wife and children away. The only thing a producer can do is close a show. That is his sole right.” “Carmelina” closed on Broad

Composer Burton Lane feels that a strong marketing and advertising campaign could have kept “Carmelina” alive longer. “I have a theory that you have the right idea for a show, you'll come out on top,” said Mr. Lane. “I think we had the right idea for a show.”

Eugene V. Wolsk produced an early failure this season, “Back Country,” a musical version of Synge's “Playboy of the Western World,” which closed during its Boston tryout engagement. “We got bad reviews in Boston,” said Mr. Wolsk. “We weren't doing any business and it was not economically feasible to continue. There were some wonderful things in it, but it did not, in my opinion, have mass market appeal.” A few weeks later, Mr. Wolsk opened another show in Bpston, “Sarava,” a musical by Mitch ‘Leigh based on the novel and film, “Dona Flor and Her Two Hun bands.” Again, the Boston critics were lacking in enthusiasm. But “Sarava” was budgeted at $1.25 million, with a quarter of a million built right in for a heavy advertising and television campaign. “We felt 'sarava’ had the potential to be a popular success,” Mr. Wolsk said. “The story worked. The Latin disco‐style music worked. Even with bad notices in Boston, the grosses went up every week. 'sarava’ had audience appeal. We also had the money to bring it in, work on it and try to sell it.” Mr. Wolsk has always felt the theater has been “30 years behind in terms of marketing.”

It should be noted that Mitch Leigh, the producer‐composer of “Sarava” and “Man of La Mancha,” comes from an advertising background. At one time, Mr. Leigh was king of the jingle writers. Now, thanks to a strong television campaign featuring its catchy title tune, “Sarava,” which has never officially opened, is enjoying one of the longest runs of the season.

Some surveyors of the Broadway scene felt that if “The Grand Tour,” Jerry Herman's musical adaptation of “Jacobowsky and the Colonel,” had had a stronger television commercial, giving a better play to its star, Joel Grey, the show could have survived its mixed reviews.

Bernard Gersten, the co‐producer of the season's biggest financial disaster, Michael Bennett's $2‐million musical, “Ballroom,” said: “Perhaps the biggest mistake we made was not providing in our budget for a post‐opening campaign.” Why not? “It just never occurred to us. Michael Bennett's name from ‘A Chorus Line’ just didn't seem to translate to ‘Ballroom.’ He didn't prove as strong a selling point as we thought he would.”

Matthew Serino of Serino, Coyne and Rappi, the advertising agency which handled “Ballroom,” says, “Everyone expected good reviews. At the opening night party, it was like mass cardiac arrest. ‘Ballroom’ was suddenly like an ugly child. Everyone ran away from it. Then, again, it was winter, too. A bad time to advertise. Every time we tried to get some things.going, the producers would say, ‘Wait. Let's see what happens at the box office.’ Before you knew it, the closing notice was up.” Mr. Serino, who also represents such shows as “The Elephant Man,” “Grease” and “Dracula,” says that he is now advising all producers to overbudget their shows from $200,000 to $250,000 to give themselves “a fighting chance.” “I can't understand how people can budget a show at $1 million and not have an insurance card. I believe that, given the right amount of money, any

Some producers, on the other hand, think that too much money is being spent, as it is. Gladys Rackmil, the producer of “Platinum” (33 performances), feels that costs are already too high. “Platinum,” she maintains, closed not because of bad reviews (one pan, one so‐so, and one favorable) but because the operating budget was too high: “In this business you're geared for a hit. Maybe that's what's wrong. To be realistic, a producer should start off a show knowing that the show could close in two weeks and that two years of his life could go down the drain unless he starts saying `no’ to demands for money from day one.”

Jerry Herman, the composer of “The Grand Tour,” thinks he has a better solution. “Just to pay the staff salaries, ‘The Grand Tour’ had to earn over $100,000 a week,” he said. “If you gave me the money to go to a craps table in Atlantic City, the odds would probably be better. Broadway economics and the unions are hard to get around. High backstage costs will'probably mean the demise of the American musical as we know it. There is no way one can expect every show to be a standing‐room‐only hit. If ‘The Grand Tour’ had had a normal operating budget, it could have

“I will find a way to do a big lavish Broadway musical and make it financially feasible,” he went on. “I know there's an audience for it. I think we have to face the fact that the Broadway musical no longer means just Broadway any more. Broadway economics have become impossible, but the road is not. The ‘Hello Dolly’ tour I did last year with Carol Charming paid off before it even got to New York. Maybe now New York can be just a stop on a tour‐an important stop, but no longer the beginning, the middle and the end." Mr. Herman's next project will be a revival of “Mame” starring Miss Chanfling. It will tour for a year with a limited New York engagement.

The truth in all these theories and assertions is tricky to sort out. Many of the participants’ observations are selfservirig. There's the ever‐present compulsion to “blame the other guy” and it could well be that those who have suffered failures talk more readily about marketing than about quality, because the former is easier to improve upon than the latter. Nevertheless, one gets the drift: almost everything that could go wrong did go wrong. However, this lugubrious recitation of failures cannot disguise the fact that a great number of musicals which were at best marginal got produced this season. The reason for that is probably very simple. Over the past few years, Broadway has bounded back its to glory days of old, and, deceptively, it looked easy. To the inexpdrienced, musicals were a “hot” investment. The result was that new and uncritical investors rashly sprang forward, and the standards and caution of seasoned professionals grew lax. Second‐rate shows came into being, and met a predictable fate.

The lesson is not that Broadway's bubble has burst. Far from it. The possible rewards of Broadway success are greater than ever, as every investor in “Annie” can testify. The ultimate lesson of the 1978‐79 season would seem to be just Ibis: creating a hit musical isn't easy.