Broadway + 3D = Hmm...?

Today it was announced on Playbill.com that at the Broadway League's annual Spring Road Conference, a company named Fugobi pitched the idea of filming Broadway productions to be shown on movie screens in 3D! Their hope is to "capture five 3D films of Broadway shows for international release within the next 18 months.”

Over the past couple of years, every time I saw a movie that was advertised to be shown in 3D, I must admit that I chuckled a bit. For many years, 3D had been present in smaller doses. Recently, we can see anything from Hannah Montana to Harry Potter in 3 dimensions. Why do we want this? Is there something we’re not getting from the film itself that we need to see in 3D to fully understand? Also, with the little experience I’ve had with 3D film, it seems that the choice of what elements are made 3D can be awkward, and thus distracts me from the plot.

The prospect of having Broadway shows filmed for distribution in 3D troubles me on many levels. First of all, nowhere in the article does it mention that they will explicitly only film musicals. Is there really a possibility that we might see August: Osage County or Blithe Spirit in 3D? Or how about Joe Turner’s Come and Gone or Waiting For Godot? Let’s just hope for our sake and our children’s sake that we don’t have to see 20^th century masterpieces seen in 3D.

So let’s say that they meant filming musicals. What musicals today would be enhanced or work at all in 3D? Maybe a piece like Hair could be aided by this. Since concert movies are continually made into 3D extravaganzas, maybe the scale of Jersey Boys might work. Other than that, looking at the current fair on Broadway, there doesn’t seem to be any other musical that could survive being shown in the distracting form of 3D.

We then have the next issue: how does the 3D medium serve the musical? A good musical is well crafted with many layers and dimensions without the extra visual extravagance. The reason a musical is written for the stage is that it’s meant to be performed in a theatrical setting. If a musical is written or adapted for the screen, the audience has an informed expectation and will not expect a theatrical experience.

Ok, given the problems I foresee with Broadway shows being seen in 3D, this is a great opportunity to discuss whether Broadway shows should be filmed for wider distribution. My answer is an emphatic YES, under the right circumstances.

First of all, I think it’s important that filmed versions of Broadway productions be seen AFTER their Broadway engagement closes. I was dumbfounded when I heard MTV was showing all of Legally Blonde the Musical before it had closed on Broadway. Although it did run for months afterward, you are giving a potential audience member a great reason for not spending $100 on seeing the show live, being that I can see it for free on television. Waiting until after the Broadway run becomes problematic for two reasons: 1. The original cast most likely will not be intact at the end of the run. Maybe there’s a way, after discussing this with Actor’s Equity, to get actors back into shows for them to be filmed. Maybe it can be done under a separate contract? 2. How would this affect the business of national tours? If an audience member in Philadelphia has the choice of seeing the national tour of Shrek at the Kimmel Center for $75 or the filmed version at the musical at the movie theatre for $10, in this economy people are going to choose the latter. This option might also be an advantage for shows that are not planning on launching a national tour. This gives them a way to maximize their profit and visibility of the musical around the country and around the world.

From a technical point of view, I think that the shows needs to be filmed with an audience and without. Having the audience there helps the viewer still have that sense of intimacy while watching the piece on the screen. At the same time, film gives us the advantage of getting close ups, something that audiences would want to see if we are watching a screen. This might be achieved by having the cast perform the show with no audience and have the director have the option of having cameramen on the deck and use cranes to get wider shots that might be distracting to mezzanine patrons during a regular performance.

There are many ways of packaging a Broadway show on film. One is having an initiative where every Pulitzer Prize winner’s New York production is filmed for distribution. These types of initiative work would especially benefit plays because it could potentially help a piece that would struggle to recoup its investment.

Lastly, here’s another thought. I would love to see this concept done in reverse as well. What if productions at major regional companies that are considered exemplarity and marketable are filmed and shown around country or in special engagements in large cities like New York and Los Angeles? Here’s an example: Signature Theater in Washington, D.C. (which suitably just won the Regional Theater Tony Award) is producing Michael John LaChiusa’s massive musical adaptation of the Edna Ferber novel Giant. Most likely, a musical of this scale will not be able to transfer to New York. So what if that production was filmed and shown in a special engagement in New York City? Since he’s had his work produced at Lincoln Center, what if on the dark night of South Pacific they showed Giant in the Vivian Beaumont?

There’s lots of ways to make filming Broadway shows profitable if inventive thinkers sit at a table and hash out the details. In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts so please comment!

For more information, click this link to the Playbill.com article: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/129511-Will_Broadway_Productions_Be_Seen_as_3-D_Movies%3F