A pretty bizarre statement. Broadway right now is for the general public; hence the more common usage of TV and movie actors in the plays. Broadway is so expensive that you need big names and “big event” plays in order to fill a house.
As for the groups you mention, let’s take a look at what’s current on Broadway and if they cater to any of the groups you mention:
Musicals:
Wicked – nope. It’s from the universally popular Wizard of Oz, and a popular best seller. Appeals to general audiences
The Addams Family – not really. It’s derives also from a popular TV show and movie series. General appeal.
Chicago – Nope. General appeal.
Memphis – set in the south, with a story about the birth of rock and roll… Nope again. Probably trying to skew a bit younger, but still general appeal.
Promises Promises – Revival of a hit show, based upon a movie with no particular ethnic issues. General appeal.
Million Dollar Quartet – About Johnny Cash, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Carl Perkins. Hardly stereotypical Broadway. Country music/rock and roll audience, I suppose.
South Pacific – Revival of another classic. If it didn’t pander to those groups in 1949, it’s not doing it now. General appeal
Phantom of the Opera – Andrew Lloyd Weber. Possibly the “New Yorkers” you mention, except most New Yorker hipsters hate Andrew Lloyd Weber. General appeal.
The Lion King – Appeals to tourists, especially those with kids. General audiences, in other words.
Billy Elliot – perhaps a nod to the gay community, though Billy Eliott isn’t gay. Definitely appealing to general audiences.
A Little Night Music – definitely sophisticated New Yorkers that you mention. But general audiences love it, too.
Mary Poppins – more middle America/Kids/tourists
Mama Mia – some gay interest, but the show is also packing them in in Las Vegas, so it clearly appeals outside that community.
Jersey Boys – possibly New Yorkers.
In the Heights – New Yorkers.
That’s a pretty wide range of general audiences (Unless you subscribe to the myth that musicals are just for gay men).
Plays
A Behanding in Spokane – Hard to say any audience this is targeted for. It’s a black comedy.
God of Carnage – Maybe the “New Yorkers” you mean, but the play deals with some serious issues and will probably end up at community theaters all over the country.
Love, Loss, and What I Wore – Appeals to women. There aren’t many of them outside of NY, though, right?
Race – David Mamet. One of our top playwrights. Hard to say who it’s pandering to here.
The 39 Steps – definitely for general audiences, though it’s most enjoyable if you’ve seen the Hitchcock film (they do every scene in the film, using a cast of four), which is one of the most beloved films of all time.
Collected Stories – Probably fits into your “appeals to New Yorkers” stereotype.
Next Fall – Finally, a play about gays.
Looped – About Tallulah Bankhead. I suppose she’s something of a gay icon.
Fences – About a black ballplayer. Black audiences.
Lend Me a Tenor – hilarious farce (I saw it a couple of weeks ago). Definitely for general audiences.
Even Off-Broadway has such general audience fare as Our Town, The Glass Managerie and I Never Sang for my Father,
I could go on, but the list indicates that the plays are designed to appeal to all sorts of different audiences, including general audiences. Judging by the ones listed, the most common “subculture” for plays are Blacks – but 77% of all theatergoers are white and only 5% were Black (at least in 2005, the most recent year I could find that statistic broken out).
63% of theatergoers in 2009 were tourists. This means that the plays and musicals have to appeal to more than just the groups you mention. People travel to New York to see musicals, and for a musical to succeed, it needs to appeal across more than just the subcultures you mention.
Ultimately, there are no facts to back up your assertions.
But do the colonels like it?
Well, you’ve certainly done your homework. I was probably focused more on the critical establishment and the industry itself than on the paying patrons.
I’ll save what little face I may have left by rephrasing my thesis. I believe that Broadway is no longer very near the center of mainstream popular culture, and that much more of its self-image is influenced by groups that predominate among its creators, backers, and critics, than was formerly the case.
Lane’s good in the right role- I liked him in The Producers (the film, didn’t see him onstage), Birdcage (I won’t rehash past threads but I had major problems with the movie itself- so did Lane for that matter) and some other movies, but in the wrong role he’s disastrous. The sitcom he did- which also had terrible writing- was unwatchable, and listening to him as the lead in The Frogs was painful, especially when singing the show’s prettiest song (Ariadne, a song about his dead wife)- I don’t care how many musical comedies he’s been in, he simply cannot sing when it’s not a comedic book song. Whether it’s because he’s gay or not I won’t speculate, but he’s not good as a romantic lead.
Before I ever read a review of The Addams Family stage musical I knew it wouldn’t work just based on the cast. Nathan Lane? Gomez is a romantic- Brian Stokes Mitchell maybe, somebody believable as somebody you could swoon over. (True, John Astin doesn’t get many swoons, but he’s handsome enough and believable as a romantic nut.) Bebe Neuwirth was jokingly called Morticia on Cheers a couple of times but Morticia is very warm and- sorry for saying this- needs to be younger, something that brings both Anjelica Huston and Carolyn Jones “you believe this woman sexually captivates this man”. From what I’ve read, the songs are also completely forgettable.
Out of curiosity, how do they handle Things in the stage show? Is he back in the box?
Note to Lane: Raul Julia had a Hispanic accent because he was Argentinian, it’s not because the character is named Gomez. John Astin had no foreign accent and handled the role beautifully.
There is one overwhelmingly gigantic impossible-to-overcome problem with this premise. It’s what happened on every other episode of The Munsters. And the whole point of the Addams is that they aren’t the cute monsters like the Munsters, but a twist on our whole reality. You liked one or the other in the 60s and all people of sense and taste liked The Addams Family. 
Turning them into The Munsters is automatic fail. You can’t come back from that premise no matter what else you do.
It’s hard for an actor to measure up to a role that’s been done really, really well by two different actors. People either like the Astin version or the Julia version or both, and so there’s not a lot of room for a new take on the role that people will like.
But I can’t for an instant believe Nathan Lane could be Gomez Addams. Totally impossible. Not on Broadway, not on film, not on TV. It would be like casting Steven Seagal as Marie Curie, or asking Macaulay Culkin to play the title role in a Hollywood blockbuster biography of Martin Luther King.
Would that I could erase the mental image of MLK with his hands on his cheeks in the Home Alone poster, but since I can’t I mention it so that you must share it.
Please define “critical establishment.” Quotations welcome!
In what “Golden Age” were no gays & Jews involved in the theater? When homophobia & anti-Semitism were more acceptable, so theater people tried harder to hide their differences?
Without paying patrons, the show will not go on. What aspects of “mainstream popular culture” are neglected on Broadway?
Lane is closer to the original conception of the character in the Charles Addams cartoons.
He *is *correct that in the past, mainstream popular music more often came *from *Broadway rather than the other way around. Broadway showtunes were often the hit singles of the day.
Thanks E0D. At least now I have a beat to assemble some sort of argument.
Are you involved in the theater yourself, Bridget? It’s been my experience that people who are don’t react positively to unsolicited opinions from people who aren’t. I haven’t forgotten, several years ago, lamenting the second-class status of musicians in musical theater, and being roundly attacked for suggesting it should be any other way.
Reminds me of the line from the Mel Brooks remake of To Be or Not To Be.
Bronksi (Brooks): Hitler has decreed that no fags, Jews or gypsies are to work in the theater. Without fags, Jews and gypsies there is no theater.
I don’t get it. Are you saying Nathan Lane LOOKS more like the comic strip Gomez than does John Astin (I agree) or Raul Julia (maybe a little)? If so, well, sure, maybe, but I wasn’t going for just a physical description.
No, I’m not involved in the theater. Am I to understand that you are? Rather than look up material to support your thesis, why not just tell us how those Jews & Gays are keeping you down?
This is an internet forum. All opinions are solicited.
There are many incorrect assumptions posted on this thread. As someone who has spent many years in and around theater, let me start by saying that stage acting is NOT TV or movies. In order for an actor to be seen and heard in the balcony and to have his or her facial expressions understood, that actor must be broad in gesture and expression. SO…when Lane plays a character on TV or in movies, he is distinctly different than when he is on stage.
Secondly, the part of Gomez Addams in the Broadway musical is NOT based on the TV show. It is based on the single panel Charles Addams cartoons (which are VERY different from the TV show and movie). You can’t compare the character Lane is playing to John Astin (who by the way saw the preview performance at the Lunt-Fontane) since it is NOT supposed to echo the TV show. The Gomez Addams character in the cartoon is, in fact, a short guy who is not dashing but thinks of himself that way. That is his charm, I think.
As for Lane’s appearance on Letterman…Letterman counts on Lane to be entertaining so he DOES dial up the craziness when he is on that show. He is playing a character…NOT portraying himself. In fact, Lane is quiet and somewhat shy in person…not at all what you might expect.
Finally, if you believe Lane does not have the range to ‘act’, then you haven’t seen him in Butley, Trumbo, Dedication or Love! Valor! Compassion! to name a few or in the movie ‘The Boys Next Door’, ‘Laughter on the 23rd Floor’ or any one of a number of other dramatic turns. The biggest problem for him is that, like Ethel Merman and others in the musical theater, most actors are not given the opportunity to play the parts they want to play or the parts they are capable of playing because they are typecast in what the audience WANTS to see them do.
In summary, its sounds like there are many false assumptions and incorrect statements flying around. We all have our opinions, but it is always better when we work from the correct premise and don’t make rash assumptions to reach our conclusions.
Are you connected with the show?
Darn, my opinions were discounted because I’m not in the theater. Now somebody is put down because he might be…
Where did I put anyone down?