Why wasn't the 2009 Ragtime revival a success?

[Younger Brother]

I know this threads which examine every little detail about a show's demise can be tedious however..

Why didn't the 2009 Ragtime revival run longer? Were running costs that high? From what I remember, all the set was pushed on and off by the cast bar set that was flown from above. Was it the large number of people working on the show (cast,crew etc) needing to be paid weekly?

On another note, what did people think about the revival?

[SporkGoddess]

I saw it and thought it was fantastic.

[temms]

I can't speak for everyone, but personally I felt like I'd just seen the original, which I liked very very much (even though it was actually about 10 years). Plus, the cast I had "just seen it" with was Marin Mazzie, Aurda McDonald, Stokes, etc. and the perfectly capable group they assembled in '09 didn't scream "must go" compared to that.

Plus, when I really stopped to think about it, despite how much I loved it the first time around, I really ultimately didn't feel the need to sit in a theatre for nearly three hours and have that score yelled at me again. Time has made the score seem just as exhausting as thrilling, to me at least.

So I was happy enough with my memories of the original and spent my time/money on seeing other things.

[Kad]

I agree that it was a fantastic production. Although technically it was sparse, that show demands a large cast. And it had no name recognition, not even in the form of Broadway names. It also didn't help that Riedel had it out for the production for no real reason.

I don't recall what the critics said, but I don't think they were negative at all.

[dramamama611]

I thought it was incredible. Caught it a second time, just before it closed.

It just comes to this: it couldn't find an audience. Was it too soon? Maybe. Was a November opening into the winter the kiss of death? Maybe. Were the producers too cheap/scared to fund it through what is always a rough winter? Maybe. These kind of questions can almost never be answered with anything other than speculation.

I DO think that we are going to see fewer and fewer shows (that are hoping for an open run) open in the fall/winter -- too big a financial risk not to be around for Tony buzz/consideration.

[AlanAntonio]

Why is a piece of trash like Mama Mia still running, but a gem like Ragtime is not? A big reason is advertising or inadequacy thereof. Ragtime is - in my opinion and shared by countless others - the BEST musical ever made on so many levels. It is a financial failure because of lack of marketing push.

[ACL2006]

it was a brillant production and a real shame it closed so soon after getting glowing reviews. I just think it might have been a bit too soon for a revival of Ragtime.

[TheaterBoy7777]

Because the Simon has been cursed since Hairspray

[dramamama611]

Not much of a curse since Hairspray only closed 4 years ago. (and since more shows are failures than successes.)

[lupone76]

In my opinion Ragtime is one of the best American musicals of the modern era. Is it THE BEST? Not quite, one of the best, for sure. The original, which in my opinion was considerably better than the revival was actually quite underated as well. For some reason this musical gem has never found the audience and buzz that it deserves.

[Wildcard]

Saw the production and loved it. There were great performances in it but the cast didn't have big enough names to bring the crowds in. Then again, the sparseness of the production made it feel more appropriate for regional theater than a Broadway production.

I sat next to Lea Michelle's parents and they reminisced about the greatness of the original production.

[GlindatheGood22]

Saw it twice, the second time on closing day. Best thing I've ever seen. Bringing it to Broadway was a bad idea, but I'm selfishly so grateful they did.

[Wishing Only Wounds]

Wow, it's been that long already? I saw the revival and loved it. The show could've been advertised more, but as others have stated, a myriad of factors led to its closing.

If I recall correctly, the closing notice wasn't given far in advance at all.

[beaemma]

I loved both the original and the revival. Although the revival had a less impressive physical production than the original, it was far from shabby. The revival was well staged and beautifully performed. I agree with the person who said that RAGTIME is one of the best musicals of the modern era. It had a tremendous emotional impact for me and many others. I'm sad to say it, but my conclusion is that the show didn't last because it assumed that the audience would give it a degree of attention and thought that most successful Broadway shows don't require. It also effectively presented some still valid truths about change in our country that many people don't want to confront. It horrifies me to realize that the failure of musicals like RAGTIME and SCOTTSBORO BOYS makes production of future challenging, complex musicals less likely to happen.

[dramamama611]

You are correct. In fact the response to the closing notice was such an impact on ticket sales, they extended past that date...by a week (or maybe two).

[Mister Matt]

Why is a piece of trash like Mama Mia still running, but a gem like Ragtime is not?

1. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

2. You're comparing apples to oranges. Do you believe that if someone likes Mamma Mia then they should automatically like Ragtime?

I thought the score and the original cast made the first production of Ragtime worth seeing, but was disappointed in every other aspect of the show. Personally, I feel like the staging of the revival with the cast of the original would have been an ideal production even if the book was rather inconsistent and often unbalanced and unfocused. But there was nothing about the revival of Ragtime that demanded the public's attention and the producers didn't seem to raise enough money to raise awareness of the production other than leaning on the reviews. The same thing happened to Finian's Rainbow, which opened a couple of weeks earlier.

As for Mamma Mia, I wish that bit of trash had been my idea that got produced. Entertaining audiences worldwide for nearly 15 years now is hardly doing anyone any harm. I remember loving it when I saw the original London cast just a couple of weeks after it opened and the little old Japanese lady sitting next to me, who couldn't speak a word of English, waving her arms during Dancing Queen seemed to as well. That's why Mamma Mia was produced and why it continues to run.

[EricMontreal22]

Well said, Matt!

I think the question could be made about why the original Ragtime wasn't more of a success as well. Of course that show did cost a lot more to run (I imagine...) I know when the revival played I personally--not having seen it--resented some online reactions that the show had been forced into a too lavish presentation in its first production, and this proved that that was the wrong way to go--I saw the LA/Vancouver cast of Ragtime three times as a teen and loved nearly everything about it.

[FishermanBob]

The question could also be asked...with the original production having run for 2 years and having closed slightly less than 10 years before, what made them feel the time was right for a revival? I think we all recognize theater tickets aren't cheap and most people who don't qualify to join TDF or aren't students have to plunk down at a minimum $150-$200 for a couple of orchestra seats to a show even when buying them at TKTS or using a coupon code. Lots of folks may not opt to see a show a second time they've seen before even if they enjoyed it if there are other shows they haven't seen and want to, especially if they don't live in New York and there is a limit to the number of opportunities they have to see a show. Regardless of the quality of the revival and its cast, they might need to do a better job of analyzing their potential market. Case in point, the just closed revival of Virginia Woolf never really found an audience despite being IMO the best thing on B'way this season. I usually get to NY twice a year and since I had "just" seen the 2005 revival wasn't going to bother. I decided to go on my last night because the reviews were so uniformly good and was so glad I did. But a lot of others probably didn't. All things to consider.

[qolbinau]

Well I assume what made it the 'right time' was that a high selling, acclaimed production happened to be playing at the Kennedy Center. What I mean is, I doubt that they planned to revive it on Broadway from the start - but after the success in DC they wanted to try (and thought they could) repeat it in NYC.

[aasjb4ever]

I've talked a lot about this with my friend who was heavily involved in the show, and it all came down to the advertising, or sheer lack thereof.

He used Memphis as an example:Memphis had no stars, no selling points, but it was on every taxi top, subway station, etc. Ragtime had a billboard in Times Square and that was it. First-time producers from the Kennedy Center who re-built the set for Broadway during the transfer instead of re-using the one from D.C. and spent the bare minimum on advertising.

Heartbreaking.

[aasjb4ever]

And the only time I saw it was the final performance and I'm still moved to tears just thinking about what a beautiful show it was. I'll never forget the 2 minutes of applause we gave to the cast during the opening tableau. My favorite show/production I've ever seen and I hate myself for not seeing it more than once.

[ljay889]

NIGHT MUSIC opened a month later with much more buzz, excitement, and star quality.

I don't think that helped RAGTIME.

[sowren1020]

I absolutely agree that the advertising and presence of getting Ragtime out to the public was a huge failure. The poster was a mess, a mishmosh of a trombone and sneakers that did nothing to help the brand. The producer didn't come up with enough capitol to be in the mix, as evidenced by no billboards, taxi or bus promos. When you land at the airports, there is a plethora of advertisement to let you know what is currently playing. At the time of the Ragtime revival when I came to NYC, there was plenty of Lion King and Wicked, but you wouldn't know Ragtime was playing from the normal sightings of advertisement of other shows. The tag line they decided to go with on the TV promo was inane, "Their time, your time"..it was head puzzling. Granted the ad agency they hired to promote their show may have limited shows, but as Memphis proved, if you get what the show is out there and get more than just theatre word of mouth going, sales have a better chance to build. Poor Poor planning and execution on the producers' end for this lovely show. And Wicked nor Memphis had celebrities, they had smart, concise advertising and a market audience they pitched the campaign to in their artwork.

[Mister Matt]

First-time producers from the Kennedy Center who re-built the set for Broadway during the transfer instead of re-using the one from D.C. and spent the bare minimum on advertising.

I could be wrong, but aren't there union requirements regarding the creation of sets on Broadway?

[HeyMrMusic]

They also had a cast of about 40 and a full orchestra. To break even required some decent figures. They couldn't go on for long with poor attendance, unlike many smaller shows. It's too bad. An example of why producers may not want to hire a full orchestra, which is an absolute shame.

And yeah, I thought this production was wonderful.

[aasjb4ever]

^Also that.