There was some consternation on Broadway last week over the abrupt closing of “Shuffle Along.” A few people blamed producer Scott Rudin for not supporting the show after leading lady Audra McDonald starts maternity leave on July 24, which is to be the show’s final performance.
Rudin doesn’t need me to defend him — there’s nobody tougher in this business — but the criticism is absurd. “Shuffle Along” is a for-profit production, and an expensive one at that. Rudin and his investors laid out more than $10 million for an original, at times inventive and always engaging musical that wasn’t based on an old movie or TV show.
And while the songs weren’t new, they weren’t culled from the back catalog of some ’60s rock group or ’80s boy band. Aside from “I’m Just Wild About Harry,” most of the songs, by Noble Sissle and Eubie Blake, haven’t been heard on Broadway since a few popped up in the revue “Black and Blue” in 1989.
Even if the stork hadn’t dropped in on McDonald, keeping “Shuffle” going would have been difficult. The reviews were respectful, but in today’s feast-or-famine Broadway, respectful isn’t enough.
“There was talk that the winter would be tough, with or without Audra,” a production source says.
Rudin and his co-producers looked at the numbers and decided they couldn’t shoulder the losses — or recover them once McDonald returned.
But there’s another, less discussed reason why “Shuffle” struggled: Let’s call it the “Hamilton” effect. The official line on Broadway is that a smash hit is good for everybody. It gets people talking about the theater and, since most of them can’t get into the hot show, they’ll settle for another.
But as many producers are starting to realize, “Hamilton” isn’t lifting all boats. It’s sinking quite a few.
The reason, these producers say, are the “Hamilton” ticket prices, real and hyped. The top price is now $850, but the headlines trumpet scalper prices of $5,000 and up. And it appears that people want to see “Hamilton” so much, they’re willing to pay those prices for seats months, even a year, in advance.
What they’re not willing to do is to spend big on “Hamilton” and see something else in the meantime.
‘I’ve never seen this before. People are splurging on one show — “Hamilton.”‘
- a Broadway producer
“I’ve never seen this before,” a top producer says. “People are splurging on one show — ‘Hamilton.’ ”
Another producer calls “Hamilton” “a great big vacuum.”
Look at the competition. “Waitress,” “School of Rock” and “Shuffle Along” are doing more than $1 million a week, but sources say they haven’t been building huge advances. In a “Hamilton”-free zone, they’d be bigger hits.
On the scalper market, where “Hamilton” has a near-monopoly, the other shows are “worthless,” says a broker.
The “Hamilton” effect isn’t limited to New York. The show opens in Chicago at the end of September. When tickets went on sale earlier this month, there were reports of long lines and prices hitting $10,000 on the black market.
What wasn’t reported is that “Hamilton” sales there seem to have hurt “The SpongeBob Musical” and the recently closed tour of “The Sound of Music.”
“I just got back from Chicago, and everybody’s complaining that the only thing people are buying is ‘Hamilton,’ ” one theater executive says. “The other shows are suffering.”
I think “Hamilton” will cool once several members of the original cast depart July 9. But the cooling will be gradual. “Hamilton” will be the big kid on the block for a few more seasons.
It’ll be interesting to see if anything else can stand up to it.
It’s no secret that this isn’t the best time to be a theater critic — whale-oil salesmen have a brighter future. But Matt Windman’s new book, “The Critics Say . . .,” reminds us that critics can sometimes be as entertaining as the shows they cover.
Windman, a critic himself, interviewed more than a dozen of his colleagues. They’re insightful, waspish, at times snobby, and, it must be said, terrified of the ax.
Michael Sommers, who took a buyout from New Jersey’s Star-Ledger years ago and has since been freelancing, says, “We’re a passing breed. We’re passing right in front of your eyes.”
Here’s John Simon on chat rooms: “While everybody should have his own critical standards, it doesn’t mean they should bother us or other people with their opinions.”
Asked if he wishes he’d rather have done something else with his life, Charles Isherwood of the New York Times says, “Oh Lord, yes.”