Somehow I have no difficulty imagining Harvey Fierstein pining after a guy whose motorcycle jacket says MARY and MOM and HELL’S ANGELS. I’d love to see or hear this. The CD of the Actor’s Fund of America concert has Annie Golden doing “Frank Mills,” while Harvey does “Air.”
With respect, that is really a paranoid theory. As if it’s likely theatrical producers wouldn’t prefer to make skillions of bucks from these hypothetical unwashed masses than cater to the hypothetical elite NY snobs who want to keep these theatrical productions some kind of secret rite. I mean … seriously? That’s just not part of the mindset I’ve ever experienced. Do you also think operagoers and balletomanes here think: “oh, it’s simply ghastly that PBS exposes our beloved Met and ABT to the hoi polloi!”
DVDs aren’t created for currently-performing shows for the simple reason that producers don’t believe it’s fiscally smart to cut off their potential audience for ongoing productions and touring companies by having DVD competition. Why would people go out and see the live version touring their locality for $25 a ticket when they could Netflix a DVD of the original B’way production for a fraction of the cost?
Theatrical productions are such huge financial gambles anyway, those who back 'em aren’t willing to take an even bigger risk.
There’s a KISS ME KATE that’s not bad.
My own wild guesses on why there aren’t more:
Length: Typical show runs for longer than what one DVD might hold. I’m guessing here, based on length of a show compared to length of a movie.
Camera location: Where do you put the camera? You can’t dolly it around the stage, it would interfere with the action. So, basically, you’ve got cameras at a couple of locations around the audience, and you can perhaps swerve them slightly to get some movement, or you can cut between them. That tends to make a static and somewhat jerky thing to view, which gets boring or annoying fairly quickly. I’ve got a DVD of the Joseph Papp production of PIRATES OF PENZANCE and it’s almost unwatchable.
Quality of photography: Start with camera location as above: the camera is (let’s suppose) at various places around the audience, aimed at the stage (which may be well-lit, but may be partly darkened in some scenes.) Thus, lighting is a problem, and the film (or digital, whatever) can come out grainy.
If you’re filming a live performance, then you get audience coughs and sneezes and rustling into the sound track. You’d need to film a special no-audience performance for best quality, and that’s expensive.
Legal rights: Pure speculation: Once a studio has the rights to a play, there’s probably a contractual clause that prohibits the theatre production company from producing or selling a competing DVD.
Financial: The theatre production company certainly doesn’t want the DVD available during the run of the show: they’re rather sell tickets at $100 a pop than sell DVDs at $15 to people who then probably won’t buy tickets.
Anyhow, them’s my guesses.
Didn’t useta be. I grew up 45 minutes from Midtown Manhattan, and we used to go to Broadway shows all the time. Even without going to the “twofers” and last-minute booths, shows weren’t terifically expensive. More expensive than the movies, certainly, but by no means astronomical. (When I saw Sherlock Holmes with John Wood and the Royal Shaekspeare Company on Broadway in 1975, it cost me — I swear this is true —
$2.50
Two Dollars and Fifty Cents.
They were SRO tickets, but I bought 'em at the box office.
I’ll agree that there seems to be some sort of snobbery attached to Broadway, even from the time of cheap tickets. Paul Fussell complained in his book Class about Broadway shows advertising on television “as if the same audience that went to shows watched television” – another example of why I hate the guy. Nowadays Broadway prices are outrageous, though.
David Hasselhoff’s most famous video was Frank Wildhorn’s Jekyll & Hyde. That is, until recently.
I think that’s the #1 reason right there.
HA!
Broadway shows today are almost exclusivly for TOURISTS. Snobby New Yorkers look down on Broadway musicals.
The real reason is that there are union contracts that prevent the recording of a show. You would have to work out the royalty payments to the actors, musician, and tech unions before you can simply set up a few cameras, and make a dvd.
Yeah, that’s pretty much it. And for most shows it’s simply not cost effective to go through all the legal & financial hurdles. Some recent shows, as I posted in the thread I linked to, have been filmed though so it is possible if they get enough financing.
Actually, when they filmed Legally Blonde in September they had a huge crane camera that would swoop in and around the stage, as well as a stedicam operator who would walk on the stage amongst the actors to get close ups. However, this was an invited performance, held on a day the show is normally dark, so there was no paying audience to deal with. They did film Company on a regular performance day, but as that has not yet aired I don’t know how it will be cut together. I did read from those who went that they had several crane cameras that would move up and down & that the audience was made aware of this fact before the show.