What's Wrong with Neil Simon?

Because those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, a quick look back. On October 2nd, 2009 we got this from Playbill.com - The salad days of Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Neil Simon are conjured anew on Broadway Oct. 2 with the first preview of his 1983 autobiographical play Brighton Beach Memoirs, at the Nederlander Theatre...the comedy is being presented (in its first Broadway revival) in a unique pairing with the related play Broadway Bound.

All in all, sounds like a lot of fun. I mean, who doesn't like Neil Simon, for pete's sake? These were huge hits when done back in the 80's, never really had a NYC revival, the plays are very funny and surprisingly substantial for Neil Simon, so really, unless the reviews are lousy, this could be around for a while.

On October 25th "Brighton Beach" opened and the reviews were not lousy. In fact, they were raves. The Post, Newsday, NY1, Associated Press, Variety, USA Today, Talkin Broadway and Entertainment Weekly gushed, with special attention going to the director, David Cromer. Linda Winer of Newsday said, "Brighton Beach Memoirs" is not as good as it was in 1983. It is even better." The Daily News gave it three out of five stars. John Simon was mixed, but conceded "...it is cleverly enough contrived -- jokes abound -- to prove for a hefty majority pleasantly relaxing fare." Even Ben Brantley...who was not a big fan...found some nice things to say, writing There are definitely moments in Mr. Cromer's gentle production - particularly in intimate, tightly focused scenes between two characters - that are genuinely, freshly stirring.

In an ideal world, this should have run for years. Instead....

Playbill.com, October 31st. - The producers of The Neil Simon Plays, the in-repertory Broadway packaging of Simon's Brighton Beach Memoirs and Broadway Bound, announced on Oct. 31 that the works would not continue beyond Nov. 1. Brighton Beach Memoirs, which opened at the Nederlander Theatre on Oct. 25, will close Nov. 1 after nine performances and 25 previews. The sequel, Broadway Bound, recently in rehearsal, will not go forward.

The producers issued the following statement - "A lot of nice people on stage and off will be out of work and a lot of good partners and investors will have lost a great deal of money. They all deserve better. It makes us sad."

So what went wrong?

The short answer, of course, is that despite the reviews, despite the excellence of the cast, despite it coming from the most successful playwright in Broadway history, people just weren't buying tickets. Sales were expected to take off after the reviews. Instead, the sales were terrible. But why?

The truth, of course, is that no one knows. If they did, they would know the difference between a show based on a movie ("High Fidelity" 13 performances) and a show based on a movie ("42nd Street" 3486 performances). If they did they would know the difference between a show based on a classic book ("Anna Karenina" 46 performances) and a show based on a classic book ("Les Miserables" 6680 performances). If they did, they would know the difference between a show focused on teen angst coming to grips with their sexuality ("Glory Days" 1 performance") and a show focused on teen angst coming to grips with their sexuality ("Spring Awakening" 859 performances and 8 Tony Awards).

If they did they would know the difference between "Brighton Beach Memoirs" 1983 and "Brighton Beach Memoirs" 2009.

From the LA Times - Everyone knows that the old days of premiering a play on Broadway without a big star are over...The stakes are just too high.

This is the easiest and most common theory, that the shows closed because it didn't have any real bankable stars and Neil Simon is no longer NEIL SIMON, thus people are not going to spend $100 or more per ticket. It definitely has some points to it. Replace Laurie Metcalf with Glenn Close and perhaps ticket sales would be through the roof. Plus there's the idea that this is a straight play and not a musical. People will take chances with a musical; they simply won't with a straight play with a lot of characters and no real stars in the cast. Just can't happen. No, sir. Not in our lifetime.

Unless it's "Coast of Utopia". Or "The Norman Conquests". Or "August, Osage County". "The History Boys". "Noises Off". "Angels in America". "The Grapes of Wrath". "Nicholas Nickleby". "The Kentucky Cycle".....

From Howard Kissel of the Daily News we have this - Broadway lost its national audience as well as a lot of its local audience starting in the '60s, when it became increasingly politicized and intellectualized. The audience that had grown accustomed to turning to the theater for emotional catharsis no longer found it.

I respect Mr. Kissel a great deal, so I will not be the one to point out that the first go round of "Brighton Beach Memoirs"...which ran for 1300 performances...came well after the 60s, many years after the supposed loss of both national and local audiences.

From Patrick Healy of the NY Times - "What went wrong with "Brighton Beach Memoirs" is a case study in success and failure on Broadway today. There were no big stars like Jude Law in ..."Hamlet," there was no marketing campaign that framed the Simon play as a can't-miss theatrical event, and there was no wow factor that brought the period piece to life, like the breakneck pacing of the popular farce "Boeing-Boeing" last year. But the failure also reflects America's evolving sense of humor and taste."

This is nice for what it is, but then Mr. Healy seems to wander all over the map, bringing into the argument (among other things) "American Idol", "NCIS", "Desperate Housewives", "The Office", "Up", "The Hangover" and "Two and a Half Men". So basically everything is the reason "Brighton Beach" failed. Forget about what went wrong with Brighton Beach Memoirs, what went wrong with Mr. Healy's article?

Michael Reidel of the Post reported as way back as October 2nd, 2009 that there was friction between the cast and the director, with Laurie Metcalf at war with David Cromer but obviously they worked that out or the reviews wouldn't have been as strong as they were. Besides, if every show which had personality disputes closed we'd have about six shows on Broadway.

All of which brings us back to the top. No one knows. And I don't know. I don't know why "Brighton Beach" didn't attract audiences. It should have. But I do have some idea as to what made "Brighton Beach" such a hit the first time. Timing. "Brighton Beach Memoirs" opened at the Alvin Theater March 27th, 1983, directed by Gene Saks. The biggest name in the cast was Joyce Van Patten, hardly a reason to open the pocketbook. But it was, after all, Neil Simon, who at that point still was a draw. And it did have an appealing, young, relatively unknown lead actor in it as well, named Matthew Broderick.

In June of 1983...a month after the play opened....a small film about a geek who unintentionally almost starts World War Three is released, entitled "WarGames". Suddenly Broderick was a star. Suddenly you couldn't GET tickets for "Brighton Beach Memoirs".

Is it possible that "Brighton Beach" wasn't really that strong a piece to begin with, and that going to see Broderick was the real attraction? That without Matthew Broderick...or a similar star...the piece itself just doesn't hold up anymore, doesn't wow people, despite the reviews?

Like I said, I don't know. They're all theories and none of them are right. Perhaps all we can do is take away from the experience the following quote.

"I'm dumbfounded. After all these years, I still don't get how Broadway works or what to make of our culture." - Neil Simon.

And let's face it. If HE doesn't know, who does?