Times Have Changed...

I have been known on occasion to declare that the Rodgers & Hammerstein musical is dead, that it is no longer relevant to the world in which we live. As I often argue, there was a thick cultural line drawn in the late 1960s, dividing mid-20th-century America from late 20th-century America. The last R&H show opened years before the new Age of Irony, before the Sexual Revolution, before Vietnam and Watergate and Hair. It's a much more ironic, neurotic, but also more self-aware culture now than it was in the 1940s.

But really, though it's pretty easy to argue that we've moved on, well beyond R&H, I'd argue we've also moved on beyond Sondheim, to the neo musical comedy and the neo rock musical of this new millennium. Our new heroes are Bill Finn, Jason Robert Brown, Amanda Green, Andrew Lippa, and Tom Kitt. But that doesn't mean we can forget our past.

I often post to New Line's Facebook page questions for our fellow musical theatre fans to ponder. Not long ago, I posted "Name your favorite musical that debuted before you were born."

As soon as I typed it, I realized almost every one of my favorite shows debuted after I was born in 1964. (In fact, most of them debuted after 1990.) I'll always love that I was born that year, because it was such a critical pivot point for the art form (so critical, in fact, that Peter Filichia has written a whole book about that season, called The Great Parade). It was a pivot between Rodgers and Hammerstein and old-school musical comedy on one side, and the emergence of the Brechtian concept musical on the other side. It was the year the last great R&H-style musical opened, Fiddler on the Roof, but even it had more than a touch of concept musical about it. It was the year of Hello, Dolly!, the last great, non-ironic George Abbott style musical comedy, the form invented by George M. Cohan at the turn of the last century. It was the year of Anyone Can Whistle, Sondheim's first great experiment. It was the year Hal Prince directed his first musical, She Loves Me. It was the year the avant garde musical Marat/Sade opened in London. It was the year Cole Porter died.

Everything was changing.

So I started making a list of my favorite shows before 1964. At first, every show I considered had opened after I was born. Then I started thinking of some older shows I really love. Finally, I went to a list I keep from the first draft of my history book – every show I wanted to include, even though many of them didn't make it the final cut. But it's a great list of the most interesting shows, from some not-quite-but-almost musical comedies in the late 1800s, up to the early 2000s, when I wrote my book.

So I went to that list, chopped it off at 1964, then started deleting any show I didn't really love. When I was done, I had exactly ten shows left, shows I really love, a few of which I'd love to work on, and five that I have worked on (two with New Line). It's a cool list of shows...

No, No, Nanette (1925)
Unlike many of the show that had come before, Nanette had something to say, a lesson to teach us, one which we never learned, a lesson perhaps newly relevant again post-2008. This is one of those shows that feels silly on the surface until it hits you what the show's really about. Every character has a very complicated, potentially destructive relationship with money, and every plot element turns on money, who has it, who needs it, who wants it. Jimmy is a near-millionaire who loves giving people money just to make them happy. He's met these three gold-diggers and just can't help making them happy too with generous and frequent handouts. Jimmy’s wife Sue is thrifty as hell and hates the idea of spending money foolishly. Yet Sue’s best friend Lucille is a compulsive shopper, buying things just for the sake of buying them, and not incidentally, to keep her husband Billy (Jimmy's lawyer) on a short leash by making him work like crazy to pay her shopping bills. Nanette feels imprisoned because she has no money of her own and thus, no independence. The maid Pauline even has a song early in the show to set up this central theme, “Pay Day Pauline” (cut from the 1970s revival).

Money, Nanette tells us, is a weapon, a source of power, a prison, and a sure road to victimization. Most interestingly, Jimmy has made his fortune as a Bible publisher, a not so subtle reminder of the Bible’s admonition that the love of money is the root of all evil. America in 1925 and its rampant consumerism was right there on stage to be laughed at, but also to be slyly and accurately assessed. Just four years before the Crash and the Depression, this quirky, modest little comedy was offering up some killer insights into American culture, warning us not to make money too central to our lives. We should have listened.

Doesn't that sound like my kind of musical?

Of Thee I Sing (1931)
George and Ira Gershwin’s masterpiece Of Thee I Sing became the first musical to win a Pulitzer Prize for Drama, beating out Eugene O’Neill’s Mourning Becomes Electra. It's wild, smartass, cynical, goofy, and openly political. How could I not love this show? In the New York American, Gilbert Gabriel wrote of the show, "It was a new genre for a new decade. We first nighters were in at the liberation of musical comedy from twaddle and treacle and garden-party truck. We were laughing gratefully at a new date in stage history."

Of Thee I Sing both told a conventional musical comedy love story and also ridiculed that love story, standing with one musical foot in the 1920s and one in the future of the musical theatre. Here in the midst of the Great Depression, Of Thee I Sing railed angrily and oh so cleverly at the triviality, insincerity, and uselessness of American politics. The story told of the hand-picked, easily manipulated presidential candidate John P. Wintergreen, who runs on a platform of Love -- which doesn't sound a whole lot more ridiculous than anything Donald Trump says these days.

The campaign holds a nationwide beauty pageant and promising to the winner a proposal of marriage in every state of the union and a wedding at the inauguration. Of course, Wintergreen falls in love with Nice Girl Mary Turner instead, and he rejects the contest winner Diana Devereux, almost causing an international incident – and war, of course – with France. (Again, no sillier than the real world today.) Devereux is, we discover, the illegitimate daughter of an illegitimate son of an illegitimate nephew of Napoleon! As Wintergreen is about to be impeached, Mary announces that she’s pregnant, so all is forgiven. Vice President Throttlebottom assumes the President’s duties, as the Constitution prescribes, and he marries Diana. And in last touch of satiric genius, the Supreme Court decides the sex of John and Mary's baby – and they can't agree so the couple ends up with twins. What's not to love about this show?

And I ask again, doesn't that sound like my kind of musical? Problem, I don't think we could scale it down enough. It really needs a huge cast...

Anything Goes (1934)
Cole Porter’s most perfect musical comedy hit Broadway like a steam engine, starring the powerhouse trio of Ethel Merman as Reno, William Gaxton as Billy, and the hilariously stoic, nasally, trembly-voiced comedian Victor Moore as Moonface. Nearly every song in the show would become an American standard, and the show’s success and popularity would never diminish. But not everything about the show was conventional. This sharply satirical story focused on two themes, the way religion becomes show business, and the way Americans make celebrities out of dangerous criminals, both themes still fiercely relevant today. The plot was constructed on the familiar building blocks of mistaken identity, misunderstandings, and surprise revelations before the final curtain, along with satiric swipes at contemporary celebrities like Aimee Semple McPherson and Baby Face Nelson. But like Of Thee I Sing, Anything Goes offered up some fierce social commentary, dressed up as good-hearted musical comedy. And really, just imagine the context for a second – right in the middle of the Depression, here are carefree rich folks boozing, dancing, and singing on a transatlantic cruise.

New Line will produce this show sometime soon, and you'll all see that it really is a New Line show.

The Cradle Will Rock (1937)
Maybe the most famous show the Federal Theatre Project produced was Marc Blitzstein’s 1937 concept musical The Cradle Will Rock, both a fascinating piece of political musical theatre and a remarkable piece of theatre history. Blitzstein called his show “a labor opera composed in a style that falls somewhere between realism, romance, vaudeville, comic strip, Gilbert & Sullivan, Brecht, and agitprop.” It was the first American musical from a working class perspective. It laid the groundwork, in its politics and its episodic construction, for later shows as varied as Cabaret, Hair, Pippin, Chicago, Assassins, and Rent. And like Chicago, it is thoroughly of its time and yet it doesn’t feel dated. It was the first musical comedy Marc Blitzstein ever wrote, even though he was already, at age 32, an internationally respected classical composer and music commentator. Completed in only five weeks, its subject matter is very serious and yet it lives in a world of cartoon characters and melodrama.

It’s one of the funniest musicals of the 1930s, but even though the audience laughed at all the characters, Blitzstein somehow managed to create an emotional investment that paid off in the show’s very passionate, very dramatic ending. Its politics were socialist and unionist, yet it was unmistakably an American musical comedy and it still today holds a place of honor in musical theatre history. It’s the kind of theatre for which the term “agitprop” was invented (condensed from “agitational propaganda”) and yet, even though it was heavy-handed and didactic, and even though its motives were altogether transparent, it's still a funny, thoroughly entertaining musical, still strongly relevant, especially in this era of decreasing union membership and a disappearing middle class, so appealing precisely because of the honesty about its intentions.

New Line produced Cradle in 2001, and I'd like to return to it. If you don't know the story of this show's historic, dramatic first performance, watch this video...

Pal Joey (1940)
Rodgers and Hart’s 1940 musical was about casual sex, predatory men, and promiscuous women. Sounds like a New Line show, no? Sex had been lurking in musical comedy for a long time, especially in the bawdy songs of Cole Porter, but never before had a musical tackled real sex, recreational sex, sex worth regretting, cheerfully adulterous sex. This was something new and really shocking in 1940. Musical comedy had always been about romance, but never before had a musical been so clearly and exclusively about copulation. Both leading characters (Joey and Vera) want very little besides sexual intercourse. It might be fair to say that musical comedy hit puberty with Pal Joey, and it would hit maturity three years later with Oklahoma! Other musicals had already featured less than heroic heroes, like Gaylord Ravenal in Show Boat, but Ravenal wasn’t Show Boat’s central character. And even so, these two were nothing alike. Ravenal was a tragically weak man, but Joey was a dick. Until Pal Joey, no musical comedy had centered on a genuine scoundrel. Describing the show’s characters, Rodgers said in an interview, “They were all bad people. Except the girl. And she was stupid.”

That's got New Line written all over it. We will produce this show someday.

Guys and Dolls (1950)
After moderate success with his first Broadway score for Where’s Charley? in 1948, composer-lyricist Frank Loesser hit the jackpot with his next show, Guys and Dolls, opening on Broadway in November 1950. The show many people today consider the most perfect musical comedy ever written had a book by Abe Burrows (the twelfth bookwriter the producers had hired for this project), direction by playwright/director George S. Kaufman, with athletic choreography by up-and-comer Michael Kidd. Guys and Dolls was based on three of the legendary Damon Runyon’s short stories, “The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown,” “Pick the Winner,” and “Blood Pressure” (later in his life, Runyon would actually marry a showgirl like Miss Adelaide), although some of the characters in the show came from other Runyon stories.

Most people know this show, but if you don't... The central plot line focused on Sky Masterson who makes a bet he can make Salvation Army doll Sarah Brown fall in love with him; of course, in the process – it’s musical comedy; opposites attract – Sky falls in love with her too. The secondary plot focused on Sky’s pal, Nathan Detroit, his floating crap game, and his show girl fiancée Miss Adelaide, who’s been engaged to Nathan for fourteen years. The continual postponement of their wedding has given the dumb but sincere Adelaide myriad comic, psychosomatic illnesses, described in one of the theatre’s most perfect character songs, "Adelaide’s Lament."

I can't say New Line will ever produce this one, but I do love it. I was lucky enough to see Nathan Lane and Faith Prince in the 1990s revival and they were utterly brilliant.

West Side Story (1957)
Opening on Broadway in 1957, West Side Story was one of the American musical theatre's few great tragedies, appearing just when American cinema and theatre was discovering (or re-discovering) social problem stories, just when America was beginning to no longer ignore its greatest evils. West Side Story told a story in which a happy ending is not possible, a musical about hatred and prejudice, a musical that says that love cannot triumph over all.

When director-choreographer Jerome Robbins, composer Leonard Bernstein, and bookwriter Arthur Laurents first discussed this story (lyricist Stephen Sondheim wouldn’t be joining them until later), it focused on tensions between Catholics and Jews, and it was called East Side Story. That this group of rich, white, Jewish, gay men eventually changed the focus as they did to Anglo-Americans and Puerto Rican Americans, that the team recognized the profound racial prejudice in America (and especially New York) against Hispanics may excuse the awkwardness and unintentional racism in their final product. But to its credit, strictly as a work of art and ignoring its flaws as a social document, West Side Story is certainly a perfect blend of the many disciplines that make musical theatre, More than with most musicals, the book, music, lyrics, and staging come together as a perfectly unified whole, speaking with one voice. Musical theatre is by its nature a collaborative art form, but rarely do the many parts make such a consistently crafted statement. Driven by the vision of Jerome Robbins, the greatest talents on Broadway created a musical that is specific yet universal (as Robbins would also do with Fiddler on the Roof), as current as today's headlines yet also timeless.

It is a Broadway fable whose final curtain brings not hope for tomorrow but inconsolable grief over today; what little hope the final moments may imply, we know that hatred does not die. In a country where hate crimes multiply exponentially each year and gang warfare has turned our streets into war zones, West Side Story is heart-breaking and also somehow cathartic. It was a big shock to the Broadway audiences of 1957, with its intricately integrated dance, dissonant, driving, jazz inspired score, its gritty, simple sets, its assault on the well-protected sensibilities of theatre-goers. It was not a big hit. But today, we don't mind the seeing the ugly truth in our musicals, as long as it's the truth.

The Music Man (1957)
The Music Man was West Side Story’s polar opposite in most ways. One of the greatest of all the American musicals, it is not the sweet slice-of-life, all-American musical many people think it is. After all, it's the story of a con man in 1912 Iowa who seduces an innocent young woman merely to keep her from mucking up his plan to swindle the honest, hard-working people of a small Midwestern town, including the young woman's emotionally troubled little brother, who's mourning the premature death of his father. Still sound like a family musical...?

Along the way, the show also takes gleefully wicked pot shots at most of what Americans hold dear -- small town generosity, family values, representative government, education, the 4th of July, European Americans' view of native American culture, classical western culture, and the great hope of so many parents that their child might have the talent to play a musical instrument. Yet somehow, amongst all this dark commentary and savage satire, we manage to find quite easily a soft, gooey center that winds up as a pseudo-traditional musical comedy love story (though just barely). Why is it we consider this show just another sappy, happy, old-fashioned musical?

Are we just afraid to admit how much we love, even identify with, this unrepentant con man?

The Fantasticks (1959)
In the 1950s, mainly thanks to the monster hit revival of The Threepenny Opera, off Broadway was becoming an incubator for unusual musicals that would never work on Broadway. Threepenny had been the first mega-hit off Broadway, but The Fantasticks would leave it in the dust, making theatre history.

Another musical theatre outgrowth of the Beat Generation, the story of The Fantasticks began with Edmond Rostand’s French 1890 play Les Romanesques, a kind of anti-Romeo and Juliet, in which two fathers and best friends concoct a fake feud in order to get their rebellious kids to meet behind their backs, fall in love and marry. Its cynical view of love and marriage was right in sync with the mood of America’s youth in 1959. Directed by Word Baker, commedia dell’arte was the governing style. Their rhyming Beat-inspired dialogue and Schmidt’s dissonant, polytonal jazz vocabulary came to the forefront, especially with their new orchestration, scored for just piano and harp. They found another translation of Les Romanesques, called The Fantasticks. They had found their title. In an earlier version, the story was set in Texas, so even in its new form, the narrator/bandit was still named El Gallo (which is Spanish for The Cock or The Rooster).

After a limited production of just the first act, the writers expanded the show into a full-length musical. They dubbed the romantic Act One “In the Moonlight” and they went to work on Act Two, “In the Sunlight,” exploring what happens to the two families and the new marriage in the harsh light of day. As El Gallo says:
Their moon was cardboard, fragile.
It was very apt to fray,
And what was last night scenic
May seem cynic by today.
The play’s not done.
On no – not quite,
For life never ends in the moonlit night;
And despite what pretty poets say,
The night is only half the day.
So we would like to finish
What was foolishly begun.
For the story is not ended
And the play is never done
Until we’ve all of us been burned a bit
And burnished by the sun!

Act Two was the Beat Generation’s answer to the traditional romantic Broadway musical, a kind of gentler companion piece to The Nervous Set, commenting on the increasingly unhealthy isolationism and insularity of suburban America during the Eisenhower years. In Act One of The Fantasticks, Matt and Luisa found a traditional Broadway musical Happily Ever After. But it was tainted – it was predicated on a deception. In Act Two, the disillusionment sinks in and they find that love can't be built on false romanticism. The Happily Ever After they had been promised all their lives ran smack up against the reality of Life. As with many young people in post-war America, they found that Marriage is Hard. All the lovely lies of the American establishment, the Happily Ever After the end of World War II had promised, that mythical American Dream that only a few Americans actually got to enjoy, was revealed to be a lie. Act Two of The Fantasticks told us that life was complicated, difficult, confusing, but that it was possible for clear-eyed realists to navigate this decidedly un-musical-comedy terrain. The Fantasticks was the beginning of the end of the Rodgers and Hammerstein revolution, looking back to some of the great elemental myths but also looking forward to the concept musicals to come, not only rejecting the naturalism of their musicals but also the false romanticism and optimism their musicals propagated.

New Line produced this show in 2004. People were surprised, but this has always felt like a New Line show to me...

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (1961)
The director Antonin Artaud once said that the theatre “causes the mask to fall, reveals the lie, the slackness, baseness, and hypocrisy of our world.” Only a few musicals since Of Thee I Sing have successfully tread the dangerous path of satire. It took thirty years for another to equal the biting wit of Of Thee I Sing. It was called How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, and it won a Pulitzer Prize for Drama, the best musical Tony, and the New York Drama Critics Circle Award for best musical. The show dishes out a savage satire of the world of big business, complete with the grumbling boss, lecherous executives, secretaries that really run the company, and a generous dose of lying, cheating, and stealing.

Another show New Line will produce someday...

You'll notice my list is chronologically light in the middle, with no shows that debuted between 1940 ad 1950. The war years were pretty bland artistically...

Making a list like this is a worthwhile exercise, particularly for younger musical theatre fans, not just to explore, but to get to know the classics, whatever that word may mean to each of us. Not the boring shows that are called classics just because they're old (Brigadoon, anyone?), but the real gems that still speak to us.

And as a further exercise, even if you still love Rodgers & Hammerstein shows, make your list without any R&H shows, to see what else is out there. And if you don't know enough about musical theatre history to make a good list, then give yourself a Twelfth Night present of my history book, Strike Up the Band: A New History of Musical Theatre. (Wasn't that smooth?) And while you're waiting for Amazon to deliver it, you can see the original list of shows I was working from when I wrote the book...

Because I've really grown to feel very lukewarm about Rodgers & Hammerstein, people assume I don't like any older shows, which obviously isn't true. What I like are shows that are beautifully crafted and relevant to the our world today. That includes both The Cradle Will Rock and Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.

What shows would be on your list?

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

'Twas a Year Full of New Line 2015


'Twas a year full of New Line – our twenty-fifth year!
(Just lasting that long is a reason to cheer.)
More than accolades, tributes, the raising of glasses,
Our shows this year knocked everyone on their asses.
No, we didn't rest on our laurels, no way;
We brought you great stories, with something to say
About us and America, how we should live;
We gave you the greatest gift artists can give,
A piece of ourselves (a tad alternative).

First up was a jaw-dropping moral subversion,
A psycho- and socio- inward excursion –
That's what Jerry Springer the Opera provided,
An MRI scan of a country divided.
This show was a deep, philosophical statement
On what's good and bad, and on what love and hate meant,
Yes, Springer was more than a dark, vulgar side show,
A literate trip to where some who have died go.
(The same place where critics most unqualified go.)

Our next trip was back to a London most gritty,
As Threepenny painted a picture quite shitty
Of amoral businessmen lie-cheat-and-stealing,
Betraying each other, 'midst much double-dealing.
This classic of theatre, all these many years later,
Is still just as edgy, its punch even greater.
It still tells the truth about human society,
Man's inner demons, his fake human piety,
And timely as hell, economic anxiety.

We then opened Heathers (one more trip to hell),
As the first show to play our new space, the Marcelle!
This musical comedy thriller had died
Off Broadway, but we saw it's smart and clear-eyed.
This show wasn't made for young families and tourists;
It only can thrive in the hands of real purists.
So we took it seriously, dug deep inside,
And we took our huge crowds on one hell of a ride.
We left them all shattered but still satisfied.

And speaking of space, our new home, the Marcelle,
Has got us all under its beautiful spell.
Designed by Rob Lippert, paid for by the Kranzbergs,
It's all that I've dreamed (there's no rhyme for "the Kranzbergs").
For so many years we were promised a theatre,
At long last it's real, and it's never felt sweeter.
It's gorgeous, there's storage, no leaks or distraction,
So close-up, you're practically inside the action.
An unqualified hit, judging by the reaction.

So onward we march – there's no rest for the gritty – it
Is time to move on to American Idiot.
Then to Atomic, then Tell Me on a Sunday.
(So many shows I would like to do one day...)
Twenty-five seasons (I can't be that old!),
Twenty-five years being ballsy and bold,
More shows still to come, not a one ordinary,
From this vulgar but passionate arts missionary.
We wish you good cheer and a Christmas So Very!

Happy Holidays! Long Live the Musical!
Scott

P.S. If you want, also check out my 2013 and 2014 year-end poems...

Wintergreen for President: Musical Theatre Presidential Doppelgangers

During recent Presidential elections, many of the candidates have borne the burden of resembling cartoon or sitcom characters. I remember John McCain was often referred to as either Grandpa Munster or Grandpa Simpson, Paul Ryan was Eddie Munster (the widow's peak did it), Mitt Romney was Mr. Burns, Ron Paul was Mr. Magoo...

As my longtime readers know, I'm quite the political junkie, so much so that I often enjoy watching C-SPAN. I also watch a ton of cable political news shows. I realized a while back that most cable news shows are essentially just SportsCenter for political junkies. And watching one of the political news shows this week, a thought occurred to me...

Donald Trump is essentially Caldwell B. Cladwell, the filthy rich, sociopathic antagonist of Urinetown. True, Cladwell is a cartoon character, but so is Trump. But Trump is also Mr. Mister, who pretty much owns all of Steeltown in The Cradle Will Rock. All three of them are rich, completely, comically lacking in compassion or empathy, and endowed with a preternatural sense of self-confidence.

I marveled at the accuracy of my comparisons, but only for a minute, before I realized that, of course, public figures will conform to certain fictional characters. That's the point of fiction, after all, to show us reality, but filtered and focused to help us see more clearly. There's always been reality in the characters of Cladwell and Mr. Mister; it's what makes them interesting and funny characters. That this reality is particularly timely and potent at this moment shouldn't be a surprise. That's what art does.

The more I thought about all this, the more I saw musical theatre equivalents for every candidate running. See if you agree with me...

Hillary Clinton wasn't easy to match up, but I think I found her musical theatre doppelgänger in Mrs. Vernon-Williams, Allison's high society grandmother in Cry-Baby, a little stiff, a little uptight, a little old-school, sure, but good-hearted, empathetic, and willing to evolve with the world around her. Just as Hillary eventually embraced gay marriage, so too does Mrs. V-W (as we like to call her) embrace the Drapes. And vaguely parallel to Hillary's real life politics, as Cry-Baby opens, we think Mrs. V-W is the antagonist, but she ends up being Allison's "Wise Wizard" instead.

Bernie Sanders is the mad genius Dr. Prospero in Return to the Forbidden Planet. He seems a little crazy, but he's really brilliant and knows exactly what's going on; he just doesn't bother with most social niceties. They say there's a Back to the Future musical in the works, so once that opens, maybe I'll change this one to Doc Brown...

Ted Cruz was hard for me. I think he's such a detestable human being, I hesitate to couple him with any of my beloved musical theatre characters. My first thought was Harold Hill (since I can't use Eddie Haskell, since there isn't a Leave It to Beaver musical... yet). It's a decent comparison – both Cruz and Hill know that much of what they're saying is bullshit, but those lies are a means to an end. The difference is that Hill really does have humanity in him; I don't think Cruz does. I can't quite picture Marian Paroo falling in love with Cruz (who bears an unfortunate resemblance to Joseph McCarthy in both his looks and his rhetoric, BTW), can you? He'd probably sell Winthrop into white slavery. No, Cruz is too much of an asshole to be Harold, and weirdly enough, Cruz is also too much of a phony, even for Professor Harold Hill.

Maybe a better fit for Ted Cruz is Bud Frump. Yes, much better.

Marco Rubio might seem like a good match for handsome, all-American John P. Wintergreen, presidential candidate in Of Thee I Sing, but I think Wintergreen is too innocent and decent to match the calculating, triangulating Rubio. A better fit is J. Pierpont Finch in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, dripping with charm and a killer smile, which they both use to manipulate those around them. There's a cocky, college-boy-confidence in both Rubio and Finch that serves them well. And hey, Ponty had presidential aspirations too, right...?

Ben Carson is...who...? Olive Ostrovsky? Brad Majors? Alexander Throttlebottom? Martha Dunnstock? Kristine DeLuca? Judge James Wilson? Sandy Dumbrowski? (I wonder how Carson would look in leather pants and Fuck-Me Pumps.) The more I think about it, the only character who really fits Carson is King Pellinore in Camelot, a decent, nice guy, past his peak, a bit confused, a bit muddled, and most significantly, forever lost. For all his apparent good qualities, he's not someone you'd consider a leader.

Mike Huckabee first suggested to me Marryin' Sam from Li'l Abner, since they're both clergy, but Huckabee would be a Marryin' Sam with a considerable Dark Side. Despite his religious leanings, Huckabee is one of the nastiest, most dishonest of the candidates. So I don't want to do that to Marryin' Sam. Perhaps a better fit is Jonathan Peachum, from Threepenny. Now that I think about it, Huckabee totally seems like a Brecht character.

Chris Christie is clearly Threepenny's hero-villain Capt Macheath, a man who carries the whiff of legitimacy but everybody knows he's corrupt, and also mercurial, insulting, and condescending. He makes things happen through the sheer force of his personality, but only because he's a bully, with virtually no redeeming qualities.

Carly Fiorina is, without a doubt, the ice queen Phyllis Stone in Follies, a stone-cold bitch who says everything with a sarcastic bite (quite often with sarcastic over-enunciation), always seems disappointed in everyone around her, and constantly "performs" Strength and Control. I considered Joanne from Company for this slot, but Joanne is much more passive-aggressive. Fiorina is openly mean, no question, but more sophisticated-mean, like Phyllis, than angry-mean like Joanne.

Jeb Bush is Sheriff Reynolds in Bat Boy, a good-natured, decent, amiable guy, a bit awkward, a tad uncomfortable in his own skin. He's trying his best, which is never quite up to the task at hand. I also considered Charlie Brown for Jeb, but Jeb has won during his career, just not lately...

Rand Paul is Baldwin Blandish in Cry-Baby, the "good kid" who's really a bad kid, petulant, self-aggrandizing, always proper and polite on the surface, but with abhorrent ideas bubbling underneath. Just not someone you want to spend time with. Or maybe he's Chip Tolentino...?

John Kassich is Mr, Panch in The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, dorky, awkward, odd, not always entirely sure what's going on. He doesn't really seem like a leader or authority figure, but he hangs in there...

Lindsey Graham is Man in Chair in The Drowsy Chaperone, someone who seems like a decent guy; and no one mentions it, but he couldn't be gayer if he had a dick in his mouth and he was humming the score to La Cage aux Folles. Or maybe Graham is more Edna Tunrblad, to John McCain's Wilbur? Can't you just picture the two of them singing "You're Timeless to Me"...? Or maybe Graham is really a war-mongering version of Mrs. Letitia Primrose, the religious nut, in On the 20th Century...?

How much more fun would the next year be if these musical comedy characters were running for President instead of the real-world politicians...?

As I've thought about all this, it also occurs to me that the Republican electorate, much of which is swooning for Donald Trump right now, also has a musical theatre doppelgänger. Trump supporters are Sandy Dumbrowski, usually doing what they're told but fascinated by Bad Boy Trump in the role of Danny Zuko. All these years, Republican voters have accepted the mainstream candidates forced upon them by party elites, just as Sandy has always done what adults tell her. But GOP voters have shown up in black leather pants this cycle, finally free to express their real feelings.

This was an interesting exercise for me, partly because I love politics, and partly because it reveals to me yet again, how timeless and universal great writing is. We New Liners are very lucky, because we only work on great material, so with every single show we work on, we see real relevance to the world outside. Maybe some of these shows take on extra resonance during certain historical moments, but for the most part, I think it's just that great art stays relevant for a long time. Just look at how relevant many of Shakespeare's plays still are...

Yet another lesson in how storytelling serves and nurtures us. It's a good to be a storyteller. And it's amazing living through this pivotal moment in history... As the Chinese curse goes, "May you live in interesting times..."

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

When You Help Others You Can't Help Helping Yourself!

A number of years ago, in a local online discussion group about theatre, someone declared that if a theatre company has to rely on grants and donations, it's not being run very well.

Of course that's moronic. That presupposes that the only art worth making is the most commercial art. And we know that's not the case.

Here's the real deal...

Live theatre is one of the most labor-intensive of human endeavors. There are no economies of scale because every show is different, so every show is starting from scratch. So it's really expensive to create theatre. Right now, if New Line's ticket sales had to totally cover our expenses, tickets would cost north of $60 each. And that would price out a huge part of our audience, who could no longer afford to see our shows.

So we'd go under.

Many moons ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that arts organizations should be tax-exempt because the arts are inherently educational and socially beneficial. They contribute to the welfare of a community in the same way that schools and churches and hospitals do, and in fact, we believe as a society that experiencing art is fundamental to human existence. It feeds the soul. So as a national community, we give a small advantage to companies like New Line, the Rep, the Muny; we don't make them pay taxes, and the rest of us make up for that.

Of course that's built upon the understanding that arts organizations need help. We also give our citizens a tax-deduction for donating to the arts, because we think that's an important thing to encourage.

But there's another part to this as well.

When I worked at Dance St. Louis in the early 1990s, I got into a comical argument one afternoon with another staff member. We were talking about whether or not to raise prices for the following season. She declared that of course we should because Dance St. Louis' purpose is to make money. I argued that, no, Dance St. Louis' purpose is to share dance with the community, and part of that – a necessary evil – is that we have to charge for tickets. In a perfect world, the tickets would be free. The sharing of the art experience is the point, not the money.

This idea drove her nuts. Free tickets?

It usually makes me wanna punch someone when I hear – and I hear it often – "Don't forget, it's show business!" Well, no, unless you're doing commercial theatre in New York, it's not. No business on earth could survive by operating at a huge loss, which is only made up by customers giving the business their money, often after buying the product! What we're doing is not business. The core purpose of a business is to make money. The core purpose of a nonprofit theatre is to serve the community.

But since we're talking about it, why do people give us their money, often after already buying our product? There are two main reasons I think. One is to be a part of the art-making, to participate in bringing the art to an audience, to help with creating something they love. The other is because our donors believe what New Line does is important and they know that without the community's support, New Line can't keep going.

We succeed only if we serve the community well. And our funders, like the Regional Arts Commission and the Missouri Arts Council, look at our support from the community when they consider our grant applications. They want to know we are serving our community, and donations are one measure of that success. If the community won't support a nonprofit, maybe the community doesn't need it...

I learned two valuable lessons back when I worked at Dance St. Louis, when my boss sent me to a week-long fundraising course. Which was so amazing! Lesson One: the worst possible result of us sending a fundraising letter is that the recipient throws it away. That's the worst outcome. No one will be mad. Either they'll decide to send a contribution or they'll throw it away. That's an important lesson. You can't be afraid of your donors. Lesson Two: You're not begging; you're offering an opportunity for involvement and ownership. That's so true. And realizing it is so freeing...

Our donors don't just come to see New Line shows; they are part of New Line shows.

Before I took this class, we sent out a fundraising letter once a year. After I took the class, we started sending out a letter before every show, and our donations skyrocketed. In quite a few cases, people who had been sending us $100 a year were now sending us $100 three times a year. And all because I had learned not to fear my donors and to realize I am not a beggar.

What beggar puts on musicals?

One other new thing we're trying recently is seeking out $5,000 "sponsors" for each show. We've been doing okay with this so far, but if we can get to a point where every New Line show has one or two sponsors, our budget would be so much healthier...

There's always another mountain to climb...

So is this whole blog post just an excuse to ask you for a donation, here at the end of the year?

Well, yes.

(It's not too late to get that year-end tax deduction! And yes, New Line is registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, so your donation is tax-deductible to the full extent of the law. If you were wondering...)

But not only that. I want to make sure people understand how nonprofits work, why we need donations, what it means to us and to you and to the community. We are the tribe shamans, we artists and storytellers, but we can't do it without the rest of the tribe. We need you.

We could probably lighten our money struggles considerably by producing Nunsense and Hello, Dolly!, but then we wouldn't be New Line anymore. And really, Stages and the Muny do those shows better than we would. But they'll never do the kind of shows we do. We've never, ever, in twenty-five seasons, violated our mission statement, and we're not going to start now. By the very nature of the kind of company we are and the kind of work we do, we will always struggle. And that's okay.

One of our greatest and longest struggles – for space – has finally ended now that we have a new, permanent home at the Marcelle. So I guess I can't really complain that the money struggle continues...

I've been a donor to the Rep (when I can) for many years, just because I love the Rep and I want to be a small part of their success. When I see their shows, I do feel a little pride that I helped in my small way. I'm sure the same is true for many of New Line's donors. It is not an exaggeration to say New Line would not be here today if not for our donors, big and small. And I think our donors know that.

We're very proud that just in the last couple weeks we've gotten donations from Stephen Sondheim and John Kander, and in recent years, also from Amanda Green, David Lindsey-Abaire, and other famous people. Sondheim has been donating to New Line since our second season!

And you know what Avenue Q teaches us...



Many, many, many thanks to the thousands of people who've donated to New Line over the last twenty-five years. Your confidence in us and our work is really wonderful and energizing. We will not let you down.

And if you haven't donated to New Line before, why not just follow this link and click on the Donate button. You know you want to. When you help others, you can't help helping yourself...

Long Live the Musical! And Happy Holidays!
Scott

Connect, George!

"Connection in an isolating age."

The Rent kids, the Spelling Bee kids, Bobby, George Seurat, Edgar the Bat Boy, Rob Gordon, Cry-Baby Walker, Hedwig Schmidt, Fosca, Barfée, Ferderick and Desirée, Veronica and J.D., Queenie and Burrs, even Frank N. Furter and Sondheim's assassins – all of these characters, and many others who've appeared in our shows – essentially seek one thing.

Connection.

And that's harder than ever right now, in this toxic culture of ours. While social media has connected us in ways we could never have dreamed before, it has also accidentally given us powerful tools to demonize and Other-ize.

Because we are still in the infancy of the Information Age, we're still learning how to navigate its treacherous waters. Most of us have not yet learned how to distinguish between legitimate information and bogus information online. Because the World News Daily site looks on the surface as legit as the New York Times site, those who don't know any better can't tell the difference. And we know from research that conservatives succumb to confirmation bias (seeing and believing only the information that supports your own position) more easily than liberals.

On top of that, most of us have not yet learned how to tame our Inner Beast who has discovered how easy it is to be really mean and nasty when you're anonymous.

Couple that with the fact that most Republicans are both manipulated by and driven by fear, and you get a heady brew that manifests itself as anger and outrage, but quite often outrage over things that don't exist or aren't true, as long as they match their confirmation bias.

Too many conservatives fear Others, so they don't seek out connection. But we all crave human connection (just look at the success of Facebook), so those who fear those connections create for themselves even more disconnection, which leads to even more anger and outrage, as they perceive the world only in terms of Us vs. Them.

Some folks think social media is the problem, but it's not. Connection is connection, whether it's in person or not. The appeal of connection is not necessarily the proximity of other people's bodies; it's also about emotional and social connection, and Facebook delivers that.

The reason humans tell stories is to make sense out of life, to make order out of chaos, to connect us all through the shared experience of being human in this time and place. We learn about ourselves and the people and world around us by experiencing stories. They teach us lessons, they show us our history, they explore human conflict, they deliver truths that we need.

Many people were freaked out by Jerry Springer the Opera earlier this year, but the central message of that show is Don't Judge. "Energy is pure delight. Nothing is wrong and nothing is right. And everything that lives is holy." Could there be a more potent, more timely, more important message right now?

What can we learn from George and Edgar and Rob? That connection is always better than disconnection, that disconnection leads to fear, misunderstanding, isolation, and sometimes violence. Just look at Ferguson.

Which is why live theatre is both awesome and important. It's pretty hard to disconnect when you're in the same room with the storytellers and an audience. The more we connect the better humans we become. The more we understand others and their experiences, the better we understand ourselves and the more fully we live.

When we produced Rent, several of the actors talked to older people after the shows who told them that they weren't "pro-gay" before seeing the show, but now they understood that gay people are just like straight people. They were all so moved by the relationship between Angel and Tom.

That's what connection can do.

The thing a musical does best is emotional connection, mostly because the abstract language of music conveys emotion so much better than words can. It's hard to sit in an audience and not forge a connection with the characters in Spelling Bee or bare or Hands on a Hardbody. We are those characters onstage, so we automatically connect with them. We are reassured as we sit in the darkened theatre that everybody goes through trials and tribulations, and that we all survive them too.

If you need any proof of the connection I describe, watch a theatre audience sometime. They become a single organism, responding together in unison. Any stage actor or director can tell you that each audience has a collective personality, some quieter, some more rowdy, some more focused, some more emotionally engaged. A room full of strangers, with no previous agreement among them, all act together. If that's not connection, I don't know what is.

And let's be honest, for those of us working in the theatre, connection is also the appeal for us, the act of coming together for the common purpose of storytelling binds us more powerfully than "civilians" will ever understand.

Even John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald crave connection, at least in Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman's Assassins...
Free country –
Means you get to connect!
Means the right to expect
That you'll have an effect,
That you're gonna connect –
Connect!

I've always wondered if this is a constant theme in Sondheim's shows because Sondheim himself has trouble connecting, if this is a way for him to work through his demons...? Almost every show he wrote is about this. Or is he just holding a mirror up to the times?

It's interesting in Heathers that Veronica connects with the one social clique, only to find that some connections are bad ones... Particularly in high school... The central through-line of the show is about raging against this culture of cruelty and disconnection. J.D.'s rage manifests as even more aggressive (even violent) disconnection. Veronica realizes the only way to fight disconnection is with connection. And by the end of our story, all of Westerberg High has learned this lesson.

Once again, life imitates art, as we now watch Donald Trump forge a toxic but powerful connection with his voters by being J.D. (not coincidentally, "J.D." is mid-century slang for juvenile delinquent).

Trump does with his followers almost exactly what J.D. does with Veronica, a surprisingly subtle psychological seduction. Like Trump's followers, Veronica feels shit on by life, beat up, cheated, like she has no choice but to accept the abuse, the social nightmare, and her only escape is her brief daydreams into a better future. Doesn't that sound like what the folks think who go to Trump rallies? Like Trump, J.D. convinces Veronica that her fears and her hatred of this unjust world are Legitimate, that She is Right. And that leads to some really bad shit...

Both at Westerberg High and in the real world.

Musicals have always reflected their times, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes accidentally. In the 30s and 40s musicals were primarily about assimilation, fitting into a community. Either the hero assimilates or is removed. I think this is in large part because so many of these shows were written by American Jews who had fled Europe, who were working hard to assimilate into American culture.

In the 60s and 70s, many musicals were more about the Hero Myth, about a personal journey largely outside any community, as Americans looked inward, and grappled with the moral complexity of the Sexual Revolution, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and lots more.

Starting with the dawn of the our new Golden Age of musical theatre in the early 1990s, many musicals turned to stories about connection, in response to the selfishness and disconnection of the 80s.

Our musicals always reflect our collective lives. One of the reasons that in my books, I almost always discuss the political and social context in which a show was written, is because our art always reflects our culture and politics.

To some extent, all musicals are political, some more wholly political like Assassins, Camelot, Cabaret, or Hair; some only partly so like Purlie, Li’l Abner, Finian’s Rainbow, Hairspray, or Ragtime; and some even subliminally political like Man of La Mancha, West Side Story, or The Rocky Horror Show. But once you look for politics, you find it everywhere.

Political trends have been present in almost all musical theatre storytelling over the years. Casts became integrated as America became integrated. Female characters became overtly sexual when American women became overtly sexual. Musical comedy morality became more ambiguous as mainstream American culture moved away from the certainties of traditional organized religion. Every choice made by writers, directors, and designers was political, and each choice either reinforced or challenged prevailing social and political values. No, No, Nanette was about wealth and its implications. Anything Goes was about America's habit of turning criminals into celebrities, and religion into show business. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was about America’s reinvigorated postwar hypermaterialism. These shows are about us.

There is a powerful connection forged every night in the musical theatre, but that connection must evolve with our culture. The connection that once came from Rodgers & Hammerstein shows has diminished over time, as we have moved further and further away from the simplistic, mid-century morality on display in R&H shows.

To forge a connection with the audience now, today's shows have to connect to the culture, and they do. Just look at Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Next to Normal, Hands on a Hardbody, Bonnie & Clyde, so much great art that speaks so powerfully to our times.

I remain in awe of the power of my art form. And I can see so clearly what it gives each of us. We need connection in America, perhaps more than ever before. It seems there couldn't be a more perfect time for Hamilton to appear...

The Information Age will still be tough going for a while, as we learn collectively how to live in this new technological age. It won't be easy anytime soon, but in the meantime it's up to us artists to provide that life-giving connection whenever and wherever we can. To quote Ben Kingsley, "The tribe has elected you to tell its story. You are the shaman/healer, that's what the storyteller is, and I think it's important for actors to appreciate that."

Director Gregory Mosher once said, "I have great faith in audiences. We only create problems when we treat them as customers instead of collaborators in an artistic process. . . We can let audiences down in all kinds of ways: by being dishonest with them, by betraying our own intentions and, therefore, betraying the audience's trust. All they ask the artists to do is what the artists want to do. Audiences say, 'I want to see what you want to show me'." All they want is human connection, and we betray them if we don't deliver that.

After all, that's our job: "Connection in an isolating age."

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

Happy Talk: 25 Cool Musical Theatre Interviews

From 2000 through March of this year, I co-hosted a local radio show on KDHX called Break a Leg: Theatre in St. Louis and Beyond, "the only show in town where working theatre artists interview working theatre artists," with my co-host, New Line board member and actor Deborah Sharn, who is also the company manager for the Rep.

It was a blast talking to the amazing array of guests we interviewed, local theatre artists, touring artists, Broadway and off Broadway artists, and a few cabaret artists sprinkled in as well.

We kept a list of our guests, including many of my musical theatre heroes (nothing makes me happier than talking about musicals), like Stephen Schwartz, Adam Guettel, Larry O'Keefe, Henry Krieger, Rupert Holmes, Jeanine Tesori, Amanda Green, Bill Russell – you'll notice my biggest heroes are all writers – also Barbara Cook, Eartha Kitt, Ted Neeley, Ken Page, Patrick Cassidy, B.D. Wong, Marin Mazzie, Norbert Leo Butz, Liz Callaway, Judy Kaye, Doug Storm, Deven May, Steve Ross, Rocco Landesman, Frank Rich... and one of my all-time directing heroes, Anne Bogart.

Sadly, most of these interviews weren't preserved by the station, so you can't access them. But starting in the fall of 2011, KDHX began posting all our radio shows online as podcasts. The station has since switched to a new website, but the old podcasts are still up, at least for now.

So here are the cool musical theatre artists we interviewed in the last few years, each linked to the podcasts...

Glen Berger

Ron Bohmer

Norbert Leo Butz

Dee Hoty

Rita Gardner

Jason Graae

Amanda Green on Hands on a Hardbody
Amanda Green on Bring It On and High Fidelity

Karen Mason

John McDaniel

Mary Gordon Murray

Ken Page

Faith Prince

John Rubinstein

Thom Sesma

Marc Shaiman & Scott Wittman, on Smash, Season One
Marc Shaiman & Scott Wittman, on Smash, Season Two

Christopher Sieber

Doug Wright

Karen Ziemba

And also, the wildly successful Broadway producer Jhett Tolentino.

I left Break a Leg last spring to launch my own podcast, Stage Grok, but Deborah is still hosting Break a Leg. So far, I've talked to four great musical theatre artists for Stage Grok:

Bill Finn

Amanda Green

Michael Mayer


And also, three of my favorite people connected to New York musical theatre, Jennifer Tepper, Peter Filichia, and Adam Feldman, president of the New York Drama Critics' Circle.

When I was a kid I devoured every book I could find about musical theatre, but there weren't all that many back in the 1970s and 80s. Just as New Line's founding accidentally lined up with the birth of the new Golden Age of the American Musical Theatre; in the same way, me writing my first book in 1994 accidentally lined up with the beginning of a whole new era in musical theatre scholarship. Now there are a ton of books about our art form.

And because of the radio show and my new podcast, I actually get to talk with people like Bill Finn and Amanda Green and Adam Guettel and Stephen Schwartz. And that's mind-blowing. And thrilling. I'm so grateful to all these artists for taking the time to talk to Deborah and me. It's always such an honor.

For the longest time, I've been wanting to collect all these links together, so more people can enjoy these interesting interviews. So now I've done that. I hope you enjoy them.

And meanwhile, check in with Stage Grok every once in a while. I have some very cool interviews coming up...

Long Live the Musical!
Scott

Swaggy and Unexpectable

Every once in a while, we put up an online survey, to take the temperature of the community, our audience, and our own success through the eyes of people we don't know. Survey Monkey allows us to create 10-question surveys. The results are here, but if you haven't taken our survey yet, please do. The more responses we get, the better we can assess where we are and where we should be heading.

You can still take the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SLKV2YC.

So here are the responses we got, quite a lot of them very encouraging...!

1. How many New Line Theatre shows have you seen?

1 or 2 – 26%
5-10 – 24%
A ton – 24%
3-5 – 23%
None – 3%

2. Did you know this was New Line's 25th Anniversary Season?

Yes – 77%
No – 23%

3. What do you think of our $25 top ticket price?

Just about right – 79%
Too high – 14%
Too low! You guys are awesome! – 7%

So far, all good information to have. I was hesitant to raise our prices last season, but it looks like it was a good decision.

4. Describe New Line Theatre in one or two words.

Here are the most common answers people gave us, with the number of times they were mentioned.

edgy – 9
innovative – 8
awesome – 5
bold – 4
different – 4
fantastic – 4
progressive – 4
bad-ass – 3
daring – 3
interesting – 3
inventive – 3
original – 3
cutting edge – 2
entertaining – 2
fresh – 2
fun – 2
risk-takers – 2
thought-provoking – 2

That top word is funny to me, because I never use the word edgy myself. But I love these other answers. The whole list of answers is really long, but there are a few more that just delighted me. My two favorites were "swaggy" and "unexpectable." The internet tells me "swaggy" means confident and stylish..!? And I didn't know this, but "unexpectable" is a real word, meaning "incapable of being expected." We'll take it! There were also these: accessible, ballsy, delightfully profane, dynamic, eclectic, electric, fearless, fuck yeah! (a favorite of mine), great theatre, heart, honest, in-your-face, jaw-dropping, luscious, people die, pushing boundaries, sexy, smart, stunning, visionary, and what we need (another favorite), among a couple dozen more, So nice to read all these.

There was only a single negative comment among a couple hundred responses, which was childishly nasty, so I won't copy it here.

5. What do you think of New Line's new space, the Marcelle Theater in Grand Center?

Haven't been there yet – 39%
I really love it – 38%
It's okay – 19%
I hate it – 4%

But if you filter out the folks who haven't been there yet (you should have gotten your Heathers tickets in advance!), then 63% said they love it, and another 31% say it's okay, for a total of 94% who like our new theatre. Rob Lippert, who designed the Marcelle, will be glad to hear that.

6. What kind of musicals would you like to see at New Line? (You can choose more than one.)

The newest musicals – 75%
Musicals that challenge me – 75%
Rock musicals – 64%
Musicals I've never heard of – 50%
Musicals I know – 38%
Outrageous comedy – 36%
Older musicals – 31%
Serious drama – 30%
Rodgers & Hammerstein – 12%

Okay, who were the jokers who chose R&H? I know, I know, it's my fault for putting it in there... I was testing you. I love which answers got the highest response, "the newest musicals" and "musicals that challenge me." What an affirmation of our artistic agenda! And fully half of the people responding want to see musicals they haven't heard of before. I love that. Audiences don't only like what they already know; they like what's good.

And speaking of good...

7. Do you think the American musical theatre is in a Golden Age?

Yes, just look at all the amazing new work! – 87%
No, today's shows don't compare to the classics – 13%

I agree with you, my friends! We are in a new Golden Age of the American Musical Theatre. I've been arguing this point since 2008, and explicitly calling it that since 2010. We're in a Golden Age that started in the mid-1990s and is still going strong... Just look at Hamilton...!

8. Would you come see a hip-hop / rap musical?

Yes – 56%
Yes, if it's Hamilton – 23%
Not sure – 13%
No, not my thing – 8%

Those are encouraging numbers...

9. Would you come see an all-Black musical?

Yes – 92%
I really don't know – 5%
Probably not – 3%

I asked this because most of our regular audience did not come to see Passing Strange, which really surprised me. Then again, maybe not everyone will answer this question honestly...?

10. Anything else you'd like us to know?

I like putting an open-ended question at the end, and just see what people want to tell us. Here are many of their answers... and my responses...

– I would love to see more diversity in principal roles.
          There is a lot of diversity in our casting, including in leads. In our last show, Heathers, the leads included a Latina woman as Veronica, two black actors and one Asian actor. In Threepenny, three of the four leading women were actors of color. In Bonnie & Clyde, one of the leads was Filipino. This person should pay more attention.

– New Line productions are the best in St. Louis (and also undoubtedly in the Midwest!)

– Thank you for your free college student tickets! I love how accessible you guys make quality theatre for young people in StL!
          Music to my ears.

– Thank you for helping St. Louisans take chances in theatre. Keep up the good work!

– Night of the Living Dead is probably my favorite show you guys have done (although N2N and Heathers were AMAZING and Bukowsical was pretty great), so you should just do NOTLD every year. Cool thanks.
          You're not the only one who thinks so.

– We discovered your theatre when you put on Rent, and we have been to every musical since. You are really top-notch.

– Love u guys

– Though I like newer, more obscure shows, it can be difficult getting friends and family interested. Having one show a season that's more accessible (yet, still has that thought provoking New Line spin) makes it easier to introduce my loved ones to the company that I love so much.
          We do that often but not always...

– You rock...fully.
          A Bat Boy reference! Yay!

– Your productions are awesome!!! Please do Hamilton ASAP!!
          The minute they let us have it...

– I love that New Line is a part of St. Louis Theatre. You all are always the place to go to see new, interesting and provocative shows I can't see anywhere else, at a very reasonable price!

– New Line is my favorite live theater in St. Louis! I brought my teen son to see Rent and Hands on a Hardbody and now he is a big fan too.
          Get 'em while they're young...!

– Keep up the good work. Maybe add a close captioned night or ASL interpreter for a show.
          We are looking into that.

– A hip-hop musical would be fantastic. New Line does a great job going against the grain and casting very diverse casts. You represent this community. Ever thought about traveling to colleges to perform and Q&A with students at those schools? Having minored in theatre in college, a company like New Line to come visit and share the knowledge of theatre and more importantly. professional theatre in St. Louis would be amazing.
          It's pretty much impossible for us to travel shows, because many of our actors have day jobs. I do often go to schools to talk about our work or about the musical theatre.

– The new theatre is too small!!! I knew a lot of people that wanted to see Heathers but were boxed out too quickly. Can you please do Sweet Smell of Success?
          Yes, it is small and we love it. We've been dying to get back into a more intimate space again. The Heathers run didn't fully sell out until three weeks in. The people who got their tickets in advance got to see the show. And yes, we will do Sweet Smell of Success.

– It would be interesting to see New line's take on a classic musical. No matter what, it is always an engaging evening of theatre.
          There aren't too many classic shows that can be effectively shrunk down to our dimensions. We did Camelot...

– Keep Doing YOU! You guys are awesome!

– You should hire Cameisha Cotton again. She was amazing in Heathera and I would love to see her in another performance.
          We agree. Is this Cameisha's mother by any chance...?

– So....Scott you must be thinking of producing The Scottsboro Boys?!?! Would LOVE to see New Line's take!
          I'd love to, but I'd have to feel much more confident that we could effectively cast it...

– Keep a few tickets for high school students, same as the college students...they would enjoy being introduced to this genre
          We do have a high school discount...

It's so nice to hear back from the people we work for. I do hear from a lot of folks in the lobby, which I also love, but doing a survey like this once in a while is a good way to take our temperature, see what we're doing right, less right, etc.

But then there was this guy...
I have only had one experience with New Line, and that was when I went to see Heathers: The Musical. While I didn't particularly enjoy the show itself (it's just not my thing), I really did appreciate the overall quality of the production. The ensemble is the perhaps the best ensemble I've seen in a community theater production (emphasis on community theater). Was it worth $25.00? To put it bluntly, no. I have tickets for the Broadway Series at the Fox, and those tickets are $25.00 a piece. There is a pretty significant difference in the level of talent. You can also go to The Muny for a much more reasonable price, too. While I have only attended one live performance, I have seen several videos posted on YouTube as I have actually considered auditioning for New Line, and many of the videos left me rather unimpressed. Was it the quality of the video? Who knows... Now, I am not necessarily saying that the shows were of poor quality for community theater, BUT I don't think they would have been worth the price of admission as New Line has been described to me on several occasions by its performers as a professional theater company. Even being represented as a semi-professional theater company is a bit of overstatement, don't you think? While what I've said may seem rather harsh (I'm working on my tact), I will say that New Line is a great thing for St. Louis community theater, and if it were represented as such, along with lower ticket prices, I do believe it would be a much more enjoyable experience. Just two cents from a guy whose opinion is probably worth less than that...

Well, yes, sir, I would agree that your opinion is worth less than two cents, though you're surely entitled to it. New Line has been a professional company for twenty-five years. And all those people quoted above disagree with you and so do our audiences, the press, and funders, along with The St. Louis Theater Circle Awards, American Theatre magazine, the Rolling Stones' Rex Foundation, and New Line supporters like Stephen Sondheim, Amanda Green, and John Waters. No one is forcing anyone to buy tickets, so if you think they're too expensive, don't buy them..

Still, all in all, we got really good information here, some awesome ego stroking, and some things to think about. This is not at all a scientific poll, but it does give us some snapshot of where New Line stands at twenty-five. Again, please feel free to still take the survey if you haven't already...

And also feel free to email us or FB message us anytime, and let us know how we're doing! And stop by and read our blogs when you can and leave us a comment or two... We want to hear from you!

Long Live the Musical and New Line!
Scott