One of my favorite books (for reasons that should be obvious if you’ve been reading this blog for a while) is Ken Mandelbaum’s Not Since Carrie: Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops
. Mandelbaum’s book takes its title, of course, from the Broadway production that lost an estimated $8 million (in 1988 dollars).
It looks like we have a new “Carrie”.
Tuesday’s announcement of the 2010 Tony nominations set off the usual closing reverberations, most spectacularly for “Enron.” Lucy Prebble’s lavish docudrama folds Sunday at a loss of $3.5 million-$4 million, making it one of the most expensive flops of a play in recent years.
The production, directed by Rupert Goold, opened last month to largely unenthusiastic reviews, including downbeat notices from The New York Times and The Associated Press. It will close after only 15 performances and 22 previews.
(NYT review.)
Setting aside my personal opinion of the Enron debacle, I find myself asking, “Who thought this was a good idea?” Enron’s bankruptcy was in 2001. It has been nine years, people. Move on!
As the NYT points out, though, that question actually has a good answer:
First produced at the Chichester Festival Theater in England, “Enron” transferred almost immediately to the Royal Court Theater in London and subsequently settled into what looks to be a long and comfortable run in the West End, where I first saw it. British reviewers have piled on the superlatives, admiring the show’s thematic audacity, moral severity and all-out razzmatazz.
On the other hand, “Carrie” was produced by the Royal Shakespeare Company, which I guess just goes to show that neither the British nor Americans know everything.
I hadn’t really thought about blogging the announcement that Newsweek is for sale, but as the day wore on, the discussion at Jimbo’s site just got more and more amusing.
For example, Jon Meacham:
“I believe this is an important American institution,” he said in an interview. “I just do. Maybe that’s quixotic, maybe that’s outdated, but it’s what I believe.”
The Saturday Evening Post was an institution at one time, too.
“I decline to accept that Newsweek in some form does not have a role to play going forward.”
There may have been a point in time, in the 1970’s and 1980’s, when a weekly magazine that provided a summary of the news, with analysis, played a useful role. With all due respect to Mr. Meacham and the folks at Newsweek who may lose their jobs, I just don’t see that kind of publication being needed in the Internet age, where everyone has instant access to all the news and analysis they want. What does Newsweek have to offer? What can they offer?
“Here Are Five People We Think Should Consider Buying Newsweek“. Nick Denton? Seriously? “Yeah, let me take my profits from my Internet empire and throw them down the drain on a money losing print publication that nobody reads unless they’re stuck in a doctor’s office.” Good plan! Glen Beck? If you don’t think Denton has the money to buy Newsweek, what makes you think Beck does? Arianna Huffington? Don’t think so; to start with, she’d actually have to pay writers.
Edited to add: Lawrence reminds me that he has a poll up on his Battleswarm site related to the Newsweek fiasco. That had completely slipped my mind; I was off the clock when I was writing this post, and was in a hurry to finish before I left work.
, call your office, please:
” on Amazon.
will be released.
.
, a book which I strongly recommend. (When I say “genuine freaking weirdo”, I mean it. Parsons did seminal early work on rocketry; he was also a leading follower of Aleister Crowley and an active practitioner of thelmic magic. He also lost one of his lovers to none other than L. Ron Hubbard, and died under rather bizarre circumstances.)