No sleep till Brooklyn…

…is not what you will find any Chicago theatre saying when they pick out their season.

Despite Broadway In Chicago’s attempts to make themselves the head of Chicago theatre, with everyone else merely  “Off-Broadway In Chicago,” Chicago theatre is not what you will find in the touring houses here, any more than you would find a Chicago-style hot dog under a pile of ketchup.

There have been some great discussions going on lately about Chicago vs Broadway, as well as commercial vs storefront.   But much of the media, and the general public, continue to use “did it go to New York” as a measure of quality.  Granted, this has become more noticeable currently due to the number of Chicago shows that have been heading to New York in the past year.  But it’s a false measurement of success, or artistic merit.

As I commented over at Storefront Rebellion:

Commercial theatre is theatre that exists with the intent to make money for those producing it. If the producers did not believe they had a product with the potential to turn a profit, they would not invest their money, and as such, the particular show would not be produced (by them).

Non-profit theatre is theatre that exists to produce good theatre. If the artistic director/management think a particular show has merit, they produce it. While they certainly want to the show to do well, and would not complain if the show turned a profit or broke even, they do not close the show if it loses money.

We all have our target audiences, and sometimes they change depending on the show. But non-profits rarely modify the show to better sell to their target. Commercial theatre does. Commercial theatre is also more likely to be either flash-and-dance (minimal substance), or substance with “big names” in the cast, either way looking just for the largest audience draw, not telling a story. Of course they want it to be good, because no-one wants to do, or see, a bad show But they can’t take as much of a risk, because the only reason they have put money into do the show, is to get more money back.

Because a non-profit does not need to recoup on every show, they can take risks on shows that that may be good, but not “mainstream” enough to be done by a commercial producer. But yet when a non-profit has a great production, it is usually overshadowed by the commercial theatres, with the bigger budgets for promotion, as well as audiences that will only go to what they see on TV. The problem with this “Broadway is Better” logic, or even the incredibly insulting “off-Broadway In Chicago,” is that it would also mean that you can get a better burger at McDonalds than you could at the neighborhood bar, just because McDonalds is more well known.

Every so often, a non-profit will produce a show that is such a hit, it gets the attention of commercial producers.  If the show seems to have the elements they believe will bring in a large audience, they offer to produce the show.  This is not a theatre “sending” their show to Broadway.  The show was bought, essentially prepackaged and ready to go.  Commercial producers love getting shows from non-profits, because the non-profit has already taken most of the risk. The non-profits like it because it serves as great advertising for their theatre.  But in the end, it’s just a tour.  Shows tour all the time, sometimes between non-profits, and not always to New York.  Non-profits sometimes choose to share a production with other non-profits, with the hope of sharing the costs of production. But no non-profit picks a show to produce based on the hope that it will go to Broadway, if for no other reason than they almost never end up being the producer of the commercial run, which means no chance to  profit from the risk they took.

Chances are good that when the shows that started in Chicago end up back here as part of Broadway In Chicago’s touring season, they will play to larger houses then they did  when they started here.  But most of those people will never go to the theatre that it originated at.  Some will, but most will be content to continue giving their money to support the commercial theatres, instead of the ones that created the production in the first place.

Commercial theatre can do great work, and is able to include production elements that no non-profit could ever justify the spending to include in just one show.  It supports thousands of actors, dancers, stagehands, and design professionals at the highest pay levels in the business.  It’s financial risks are quite real.  But because of that, it is very rare for them to try anything really new, unless it is a flashy effect.  Non-profits take the artistic risks that commercial theatre can’t afford to.

Non-profit theatre will never be able to bring in the crowd that only buys the “greatest hits” cd’s.  Non-profits need to get those that actually buy entire albums.     Chicago’s touring houses offer shows that have already proven themselves as popular in other towns.  They have even less risk than the original commercial producer.  But the major touring show producers are now trying to say that THEY are doing Chicago theatre.  The non-profits need to make sure that they are the one claiming to do Chicago theatre, before we see a ticket package to Spamalot, Addams Family,  Moving Out, and Light in the Piazza titled “Now THAT’s what I call Chicago Theatre!”

I think theatre in Chicago is some of the best in the world.  But I don’t think that good theatre can only be produced here, or New York, or any other single location.  A good show is a good show.  It is not made better by where it is, where it’s going, where it’s been, or if it’s being done for profit.

Tags: broadway, Chicago, non-profit, NYC, theatre

This entry was posted on Friday, September 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm and is filed under Chicago, General, audience, economy, tours. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.