I’ve previously drawn attention to the large numbers of producers it sometimes takes to put a show on; as I pointed out here in March, “It has long been a sport on Broadway to count the number of producers on the billing outside the theatre or in the programmes: that new production of Hair, for instance, that I saw on Friday has 30 separate producers, executive or associate producers listed. But that number has been eclipsed in London by the names attached to the West End transfer of Spring Awakening, where a total of 31 (23 above the title, plus 8 more associates below it, including - curiously - Kevin Spacey) producers have lined up to put their money into it (and is two more than it even had on Broadway!). This simply reflects a new reality to producing apparently risky shows - you need lots of friends and you have to spread the risk between them to get them on nowadays.”
Of course, a big part of that billing was inherited from Broadway; and the rest of it came from passionate supporters over here, who believed in it and wanted their names publicly attached to it. As Matthew Byam Shaw, one of the producers told me at the time in an interview that ran in The Stage, “Producers are going to have to get used to being teased about this, but the reality is that in the great days of theatre, it used to cost fifty quid to put on a play, but now you have to pay an awful lot of money to everyone from the theatre owners to marketers, and a producer has limited currency if he’s not returning a profit on a successful show nowadays. Quite simply, I cannot supply a million pounds out of my own bank account. I have to raise that money - and people who put in decent-sized cheques want to feel part of the ride.”
He went on to offer a practical solution — “As a producer who has an aesthetic eye on the production, it does clutter the bill; maybe we should just take off billing altogether” — but then came back with a more pragmatic reality: “But if that what it takes to get the show on, I’d do it every time.” And, despite the losses they subsequently incurred, it is to be applauded that so many people were willing to put their money where my mouth was in supporting such orginal and daring work in the West End.
But if money buys you credit, in every sense, sometimes lending your creditable name can also be about getting you money. Whoopi Goldberg’s above-the-title celebrity endorsement of the London stage version of Sister Act isn’t producing in the traditional, creative sense, but just like Ophrah Winfrey lent her name (and PR value) to the Broadway stage version of The Color Purple, her biggest contribution is more likely to be out of the coffers rather than into them, as both offered a seemingly priceless connection to the original film version of each show.
According to a story in the New York Times this week, Jay-Z, Will Smith and his wife Jada Pinkett Smith have just signed on as producers on the new Broadway musical, Fela, currently previewing at the O’Neill Theatre, and will attend its opening next Monday as a result. There was even talk of delaying the opening to the next night, owing to a scheduling conflict for Jay-Z, but “the alignment of the three stars has been worked out” now. Thank goodness; their presence on the red carpet is actually likely to be their biggest contribution to the show. As the New York Times puts it, “Their artistic involvement in the musical is bound to be minimal, given that the show is already in previews and had a critically acclaimed run Off Broadway last year.” The New York Times was also unable to establish how much money they had invested in the show; but it seems that their real value lies in the marketing: as the story puts it, “There are no widely known stars in the cast, which makes the involvement of Jay-Z and the Smiths even more of a boon for marketing purposes.”
On the other hand, the theatre traditionally has lots of far more silent partners - the armies of investors, historically known as “angels”, who invest in shows without expecting creative input (or even billing). And just the week before last, Jeffrey Archer outed himself officially as one: talking to the Sunday Times, he said that he and Mary are “both regular theatre-goers — there’s so much amazing stuff on right now. I’m also a big investor in it. I own 50% of Grease all over the world, and about 35% of The Sound of Music. Having lost lots of money over the years, they’re very happy investments.”
On a completely different note, I regularly take note of differences of critical opinion amongst my colleagues -but I love the one I spotted in Tuesday’s reviews for Public Property at the Trafalgar Studios, which revolves more around clear differences in personal taste. According to Michael Coveney, “Nigel Harman is as smooth as a creme caramel dessert as the PR man Larry De Vries (wearing exceedingly fine shoes)”; but for Henry Hitchings in the Standard, “Nigel Harman brings both self-assurance and a curious geekiness to Larry, a master manipulator in a sharp suit and shockingly bad shoes.” I couldn’t help sneaking a look at Michael and Henry’s footwear at last night’s Royal Court opening of Cock, as they sat a few seats apart: Michael was sporting a well-polished pair of old-fashioned brown lace-ups, while Henry was wearing a pair of brown boots.
I believe that Oprah actually put a million dollars ( and all her promo and marketing saavy) to The Color Purple , whereas Whoopi Goldberg actually got money ( and a portion of the profits) for lending her name and face to Sister Act . The same is true for Fela! and Jay Z and the Smith's. This isn't so much producing as giving a "Good Housekeeping" Seal of Approval. The challenge for these celebrities is to limit their number of endorsements of shows because the public soon grows wary of people who endorse everything. Look at what happened in the US with Rosie O Donnell and her Broadway enthusiasm. She helped save one show: Titanic but then she started praising and endorsing every show and soon her influence became a negative rather than a positive.
All of those people above the title of a show are "angels" they aren't producers. it's unfortunate that the job of producer is so vague that anyone can be one. Maybe SOLT should hold a contest to come up with a new title for those people that acknowledges their contribution and yet puts them in a more appropriate place.