Posted 24 October 2008 - 05:34 AM
Shows do close. It's the nature of theatre. It baffles me that people keep on going on about what shows they'd like to see opening and at the same time expect everything that's currently running to keep going forever. For any show to open - and for anyone on the creative side of theatre to find work - a show must close.
I see organised closures as a sign of health in the theatre. (It's obviously a different matter for a show that closes within days, leaving an empty theatre with nobody to occupy it.) A closure creates employment opportunities: a new show employs many more people than one that's already up and running, especially on the design and construction side. During the planning and rehearsal stage a new show doesn't even need a theatre, so for a while the closure of a show results in the simultaneous employment of two sets of people: those on the departing show plus those preparing the incoming show. Providing a show announces its closure well in advance, the positive aspects of a closure far outweigh the negative ones.
As for the current situation, this isn't a time to take risks. If a show is hovering around its break-even point then it's likely to fall below it in the near future and in the current climate there's little chance of audiences picking up. In those circumstances it's best to opt for a controlled winding down of the show rather than try to keep going and create a financial emergency that requires shutting up shop in a matter of days. I would expect a slight rise in the number of closures as shows that are teetering on the brink make the decision to accept the inevitable. I'd also expect the proportion of crowd-pleasers over new and unknown shows to rise as audiences become even less willing than usual to spend money on shows they may not like. But the thing about theatre is that it cheers you up, and people need cheering up.
In my opinion anyone interested in improving himself should not rule out becoming pure energy.
(Jack Handey)