Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, May 4, 2009
Theater No More Hay Fever
Posted by Brendan Kiley on Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:18 AM
This morning, the Rep announced what Slog had speculated a month ago: It's pulling Hay Fever, a big Noël Coward play to be directed by Warner Shook, from its season.
From that old post:
The rumor that the Rep would cancel Hay Fever has been floating around for awhile. When asked whether it was true, Rep spokesperson Katie Jackman laughed grimly and said she couldn't comment.Which sounds like a yes—she added that the Rep is in the middle of its subscription-renewal campaign. The implication being, I presume, that announcing schedule changes might spook subscribers.
The Rep will replace Hay Fever with 39 Steps, a Broadway comedy in which four actors play all 150 characters from Hitchcock's chase-thriller.
And is it just me or does it seem a tiny bit unethical for the Rep to knowingly sell a month's worth of subscriptions on a season it knew it was going to change? To sell a month's worth of subscriptions on a fib? A small fib, yes, but a fib nonetheless.
1
That isn't a small fib, and it isn't a "tiny bit" unethical. It's absurd and someone should must be killed because of it.
3
It is unethical if they did so knowingly. That being said, I am far more excited for 39 Steps than I was for Hay Fever. A friend saw it on Broadway and said it was of the funniest plays he'd ever seen.
4
I think they'd have sold more tickets on 39 Steps than on Hay Fever for the reason above -- the play is a hit and damned funny to boot. If it was an attempt to hoodwink Seattle audiences, it was a fail and a pointless one. I could, however, believe that they couldn't release information (even a leak) because of contractual negotiations.
6
When will we be able to edit our comments? Will we ever get a neato profile page that shows how much time we waste on Slog? You guys could also hijack them and list handles you know we've used to say some daring shit behind the confines of anonymity. Anthony can just do a search for all comments posted under the "asd@asd.asd" e-mail. That's me. That should give me about 4,000. And some moar enemies.
8
This is an old argument, and one I've yet to convince anyone so far as ethical behavior is concerned.
For the most part, shows like Hay Fever, that is obvious crowd-pleasers, are put into seasons because there's an expectation they'll pull in subscribers, particularly the dwindling number of geriatrics with disposable income. There's an argument that can be made in some cases that the plays are bona fide "classics", thus presenting a justification for their revival. But at some point the accountants get involved, and once everybody realizes the numbers simply won't pencil out: the cast size is too large, the scenic elements tend to be very expensive (since these chestnuts usually involve naturalistic interior settings), and the draw of the show itself hasn't resulted in the expected massive influx of front-end subscriber $$, the show gets scrapped.
I don't think it's always a bad-faith effort on the part of management, and of course there's always the fine-print allowing the theatre to change the schedule at-will, but I think it's also the sort of thing that leaves a not-at-all pleasant taste in the mouths of subscribers and potential subscribers; they're not getting the season that was promised and advertised, but by the same token they can't get a refund for a show they're not going to see, and have to see a show they didn't originally sign up for, regardless of whether or not it's actually a better selection. They perceive themselves to have been hoodwinked somehow, and so why should they even bother buying a subscription in the first place?
All of this results in a sort of vicious downward spiral: management becomes increasingly desperate to pull in subscription monies to fund the season, so they add what they think will be big, popular shows to the slate, but patrons become increasingly dubious about the ability of the theatre to deliver all the shows promised, so they hold off on buying packages, which reduces the funding available at the front end of the season, which causes the company to cancel or substitute shows they can no longer afford to produce, which simply further justifies the patron's decision to only buy single-show tickets. Lather, rinse, repeat.
More...
For the most part, shows like Hay Fever, that is obvious crowd-pleasers, are put into seasons because there's an expectation they'll pull in subscribers, particularly the dwindling number of geriatrics with disposable income. There's an argument that can be made in some cases that the plays are bona fide "classics", thus presenting a justification for their revival. But at some point the accountants get involved, and once everybody realizes the numbers simply won't pencil out: the cast size is too large, the scenic elements tend to be very expensive (since these chestnuts usually involve naturalistic interior settings), and the draw of the show itself hasn't resulted in the expected massive influx of front-end subscriber $$, the show gets scrapped.
I don't think it's always a bad-faith effort on the part of management, and of course there's always the fine-print allowing the theatre to change the schedule at-will, but I think it's also the sort of thing that leaves a not-at-all pleasant taste in the mouths of subscribers and potential subscribers; they're not getting the season that was promised and advertised, but by the same token they can't get a refund for a show they're not going to see, and have to see a show they didn't originally sign up for, regardless of whether or not it's actually a better selection. They perceive themselves to have been hoodwinked somehow, and so why should they even bother buying a subscription in the first place?
All of this results in a sort of vicious downward spiral: management becomes increasingly desperate to pull in subscription monies to fund the season, so they add what they think will be big, popular shows to the slate, but patrons become increasingly dubious about the ability of the theatre to deliver all the shows promised, so they hold off on buying packages, which reduces the funding available at the front end of the season, which causes the company to cancel or substitute shows they can no longer afford to produce, which simply further justifies the patron's decision to only buy single-show tickets. Lather, rinse, repeat.
11
perhaps, but replacing yet another Warner Shook directed trip down Ye Olde Memory Lane with a newer (albeit based on a very old source from the same era) work is good news in my book...
12
I'm happy Mr Poe is back, but I'm worried about him...he's looking so old, drawn, tired and closety...
13
I don't think it was a conspiracy. More likely they were in indecisive limbo land. 39 Steps is a coup and they missed out not announcing it prior to the subscription campaign.
14
If I could punch every gay back in the closet, I would. So would Dan. Then he could be all "I was the furrrst."
15
As long as they're not selling 500% of their show and intentionally producing a bomb, all is forgiven.
19
I never said the movie was good or bad (and, yes, I watched it in a Hitchcock class in college). I stand by my statement of plays or musicals should not be made from movies + ironic winks. That's so yesteryear. New phase for Broadway, please.
20
Perhaps they were waiting to see what their subscriber numbers looked like before they made the decision to keep or get rid of Hay Fever.
21
wow, the commenters are more informed, reasonable and intelligent than the original poster... this may be a first for the intertu- oh, wait- It's a Kiley article. Of course the comments are better!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS