B u I L BroaDway the structural transformation of american I musical theatre N G

ALANNA Browdy professor stephen scott, thesis adviser barnard college, columbia university senior thesis in anthropology 25 april 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I fell in love with American musical theatre while riding in a Toyota Camry. On weekend trips to the library, my grandmother would buckle me in and play Broadway’s best and most classic soundtracks: The Music Man, Gypsy, West Side Story, and, of course, Oklahoma!. We’d get to the library, she’d still be humming, and I’d head straight to the audio-visual section to pick out another album that I could bring home and listen to for hours. I’ve always felt a connection to the stage and the reciprocal dialogue it fosters with its audience, existent in both the theatre and at home. So, when it came time to choose a thesis topic, it made perfect sense to conduct research and analysis on something that never felt like just a finite two-plus hour experience. There’s something culturally significant to be said about this art form and the way it engages and collaborates with its specific public. Writing this thesis has not only been immensely fun and challenging for me, but also an important reawakening of a critical part of my identity. I feel so grateful for this opportunity.

Thank you to Professor Scott, an encouraging and introspective adviser, whose guidance and courses over the past few years have profoundly influenced my time at Barnard. I extend infinite amounts of gratitude to Professor Muir and the rest of the Barnard Anthropology department for providing me with thoughtful instruction and nuanced perspectives over the past four years. To Cameron Fegers, my intellectual spirit guide – your drive and passion for academia inspires me, and our friendship is pretty great, too. I’m equally thankful for my brilliant friends that teach me something new (and feminist and literary and political and artistic) every single day. To my family who has supported my theatre habit for over 22 years and who has also just endlessly supported me – thank you. Lastly, I express so much gratitude to my grandmother Beverly Jacobs who trusted me to care for and love what she cares for and loves. I aspire to live life with the same romance, attentiveness, and tenacity that you do.

I ABSTRACT

We normally look to the Golden Age of American Musical Theatre as a key moment in the making of Broadway, but when we do so we overlook a set of equally critical transformative processes that happened in the years following. During the Golden Age’s 25 year period, the musical found its legitimacy, introducing more audacious subject matter and thoughtful social commentary to the stage. But, as the musical evolved into a globally recognized art form, a duality emerged: artistry in a show was critical, but so was sacrificing certain artistic aspects in order to entertain a broader audience. Through this development, the stage was set for a gradual shift from luxury to mass appeal, artistry to generality. This shift occurred within specific social and urban transformations that have, together, come to shape what we think of as Broadway today. Supported by theoretical background and framed within explicit pieces of evidence and pivotal events, this thesis analyzes the popularization of the Broadway audience and stage. How did the two distinct but intertwined processes of gentrification and massification work together to develop American Musical Theatre as a genre, an institution, and a commercial industry?

II TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... I ABSTRACT ...... II

OVERTURE: ON BROADWAY ...... 1 SETTING THE STAGE – HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...... 6 STYLE ...... 7 EXPRESSION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY IDEALS ...... 9 “BROADWAY IS MORE THAN JUST A STREET” – GENTRIFICATION, MASSIFICATION, AND POPULARIZATION ...... 12 GENTRIFICATION ...... 12 MASSIFICATION ...... 14 POPULARIZATION ...... 16 ACT I: GENTRIFICATION – THE WORST BLOCK IN TOWN ...... 18 A NEW TIMES SQUARE ...... 19 HOME RENOVATION ...... 20 ACT II: MASSIFICATION – “APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE!” ...... 23 CAST ALBUMS AND NATIONAL EXPOSURE ...... 24 MASS MEDIA AND HOLLYWOOD FOR BROADWAY ...... 26 THE 21ST ANNUAL TONY AWARDS ...... 28 ACT III: POPULARIZATION – TASTE AND THE THEATRICAL MASS ...... 33 SHIFT IN TASTE: BOURDIEU ...... 34 A MASS THEATRICAL PUBLIC AND INSTITUTION: WARNER AND BALME ...... 36 FINALE: TODAY’S THEATRE ...... 39

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 41

III OVERTURE: ON BROADWAY

Today’s thriving Broadway theatre and its vivacious Times Square home are considered by most to be a central component of New York City’s identity. But ironically, the first time the importance of this relationship became clear occurred in a moment when Broadway went dark.

Between September 18 and October 13 in 1975, nine musical theatres closed down following a strike by workers affiliated with Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians. For 25 days, musicians laid down their horns, actors took leave from their “eight-day-a-week” home, stage managers put their headsets on the shelf, and theatre house managers kept the front doors locked shut. For 25 days, the growl of Times Square, usually overflowing with confused tourists and eccentric street performers, was dulled to a soft roar. For 25 days, no tickets were sold, no seats were filled, and no money was made. The broader consequences of Broadway’s nearly four-week break and what kind of economic rupture such a halt would create were unknown at the time. And so, the League of New York Theatres and Producers (now known as The

Broadway League) used the strike as an opportune time to seek answers. They commissioned

Mathtech, a technical research and consulting firm, to produce the first systematic investigation of theatre’s indirect economic contribution to New York City and beyond. In this moment of vulnerability, Broadway bared all.

Two years later, on February 22, 1977, the Impact of the Broadway Theatre on the

Economy of New York City report was published. The results showed “beyond reasonable doubt”

(1977: 40) that theatre’s contribution to the municipal economy extended beyond the neighborhood of Manhattan: Broadway existed as a driving force for the city’s economy and as such its success was paramount. By examining not only the financial statistics of the theatre and its producers but also the effects on surrounding industries, the report on the 1974-75 season

1 confirmed the mutual dependency of Broadway theatres and their audiences. For instance, while weekly gross before the strike averaged at $1,085,000 for all productions (musical and non- musical), during the strike this number fell to $229,500, and in the weeks immediately following the strike rose back up to $1,047,500. When the attendance for musical productions was zero, attendance for non-musicals only rose from 27,500 to 31,000 per week, and total combined attendance fell by 70 percent. Further, the report calculated that the industry directly contributed

$43 million to New York City’s economy and no less than $5.7 million in tax payments. The report is significant not only because it illuminated Broadway’s economic viability, but also because it qualified the theatre’s transformation into a consumable commercial product.

This thesis examines the structural transformation of New York theatre into the world- renowned popularized art form known simply as “Broadway.” It draws on the sociological concepts of gentrification, the physical revitalization of Theatre District, and massification, the use of mass media to make theatre accessible beyond the stage, to illustrate how popularization came about. Before gentrification efforts began, Broadway theatre had just emerged from its

Golden Age -- a time between 1943 and 1968 in which New York theatre sought to “gain enhanced cultural capital as the nation’s foremost indigenous theatrical art form” (Kowalke

2013: 133). Of the 334 original shows and 31 revivals that were produced during this era, 80 were “hits,” meaning that their financers recouped their investments (Ibid. 134). Each of these hits has since secured canonic status, considered core to the standard repertoire of musicals studied by scholars and performed by actors of all backgrounds. The musical also grew into a legitimate form by introducing more audacious subject matter and thoughtful social commentary significant to the American identity, and featured a generation of talent that integrated acting,

2 dancing, and singing into a seamless versatile performance. And so, when Oklahoma! opened on

March 31, 1943 to rave reviews, it catalyzed this iconic time of creative aspiration and risk.

Today, on the other hand, the Times Square spectacle seems to be the defining character of Broadway. It offers a series of choices: food (cheap, authentic, chain, expensive), shops

(souvenir, themed, department), and sights (exhibits, street performances, imitation Disney characters, famous buildings). For some, seeing a show is only possible if an early dinner reservation is made, which also ensures enough time before the show to pop into the department store down the block and catch a glimpse of the latest street performance. It is a game of mix- and-match within approximately .21 square miles, in which the ticket holder determines the parts that will complete his or her evening. Attending a Broadway show is no longer solely an event of culture; it is packaged experience.

I argue that the Golden Age period should not be perceived in stark contrast to this popularized Broadway of today. Rather, while American musical theatre during this time evolved into a globally recognized art form, a discordant duality emerged: artistry in a show was critical, but so was sacrificing certain artistic aspects in order to entertain a broader audience. A formulaic mode of composition and construction developed, which embraced a collaborative creative process that not only involved book-writer, lyricist, and composer, but also producer, director, choreographer, and designer. Each element was expected to reflect the overall style of production, feeding into the basic framework of the “book musical”: a two-act drama of characters in conflict. Further, theatre of this antecedent time period gradually began to seek partnerships outside the stage door. For example, in 1948 the 33-1/3 rpm LP record was introduced, and enabled musicals to be recorded on one affordable disc. These actions indicate the attempts made to commoditize a show by increasing accessibility to those unable to attend.

3 This popularization is a double-edged sword. From the perspective of a financer, investment is key and the success of a show is contingent on its ability to turn a profit. Questions of longevity and return-on-investment are equally as important as quality of product, and a hit is measured by the success of its mass appeal. But, as theorist Pierre Bourdieu (1984) has pointed out, the more popularized a production is, the less value it has on the market of “distinction.”

Cultural capital can only be accrued through the sustenance of a “genuine” artistic intent; that is before the Golden Age, theatergoing was viewed as a luxury, the elite dressed up and attended to affirm status, and what they were seeing was confined to this social space. What occurred, then, was a formal deconstruction throughout the Golden Age that allowed for a shift from luxury to mass appeal, artistry to generality. Simply put, there was a transformation in taste and an accompanying creation of a mass theatrical public.

In discussing the implications of such popularization, I draw on Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of “distinction” to illuminate how tastes, which were necessary to consume this packaged cultural good, were produced. I also look to Michael Warner’s and Christopher Balme’s respective works on public behavior to explicate how the theatrical audience became a mass. I explore the answers to the following questions: How has Broadway theatre, as a system of goods, changed so that the taste of the audience has changed? Conversely, how has an evolving audience taste shaped the identity of shows? How did gentrification and massification bring about popularization? And, how did Broadway’s audience form into a theatrical public sphere?

The structure of this thesis parallels the transformation it describes. I begin with important historical exploration of the Golden Age, its development of style and practice to solidify American Musical Theatre as a genre, and how such uniformity contributed toward the resulting popularization. Then, the key conceptual terms – gentrification and massification – are

4 discussed in their relationship to theatre production. The first section explores gentrification, a dynamic process that involves the social, economic, and spatial rehabilitation of a specific landscape (Lees 2015), within the context of Times Square’s grand revitalization, especially throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. The following section explores massification, a social transformation through which individuals become part of a vast collectivity (Chandler and

Munday 2014), in the context of mass media’s budding relationship with Broadway. The concluding section discusses the resulting popularization that extended through shifts in taste, theatre’s created mass public, and an inversion which allowed for adapted popular culture to integrate onto the stage.

We normally look to the Golden Age of American Musical Theatre as a key moment in the making of Broadway, but when we do that we tend to disregard a set of transformations and transformative processes that were equally critical. We have overlooked a set of more ordinary social and urban transformations that have, together, come to shape what we think of as

Broadway today. Supported by theoretical background and framed within explicit pieces of evidence and pivotal events, this thesis analyzes the popularization of the Broadway audience and stage by posing and answering the following question: How did the two distinct but intertwined processes of gentrification and massification work together to develop American

Musical Theatre as a genre, an institution, and a commercial industry?

5 SETTING THE STAGE – HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

On April 1, 1943, the New York Times published a glowing review of Oklahoma!, which has since been seen as the show that set off the Golden Age of American Musical Theatre. “For years,” the reviewer Lewis Nichols wrote, “they have been saying the Theatre Guild is dead, words that obviously will have to be eaten with breakfast this morning” (1943: 27). According to

Nichols, Oklahoma! exemplified the seamless integration of humor, score, and book as well as the stylistic overhaul that Broadway theatre creators needed to emulate. Songs from a musical like this one had the potential to be “headed for countless juke-boxes across the land” (Ibid. 27); which we know now was an astute prediction, these songs being standards of the American musical repertoire. With such futuristic claims, Nichols unknowingly identified a soon-to-be important expression of theatrical art and its potential for greatness. Perhaps it is a folk operetta, he pondered, or just a musical play. With neither a name for its existence nor a specific path to success, Oklahoma! played 2,248 performances, turned a profit for its financers, and won the

Pulitzer Prize for Drama. All of which happened because, as Nichols simply articulated:

“Whatever it is, it is very good” (1943:27).

Such recognition from the Times was indicative of the new legitimacy that this theatre had acquired and would continue to acquire. This review serves as a starting point from which the Golden Age and the resulting construction of the American Musical Theatre genre unfolded.

The evolution of the Golden Age, from 1943 to 1968, indicates a gradual development of stylistic conventions and creative collaboration that would solidify Broadway’s value as a mode of entertainment. With its roots in Oklahoma!, musical theatre forged its own path and emerged as a globally recognized art form with multiple subgenres and a critical stake in international commerce and culture. It is important to understand the Golden Age’s historical and theoretical

6 development as setting the stage for the popularization of Broadway. A set of transformations came later, taking Golden Age theatre’s style as a foundation to build from so that commercialization and accessibility could emerge. This structural intervention is crucial in the broader understanding of American Musical Theatre, and will be examined more thoroughly in the body of this thesis.

STYLE

Of the 365 productions produced during the Golden Age, 80 were “hits” and recouped investments for their producers and financers. Performing from the dozens of theatres clustered between 39th and 46th Streets at the time, the musical mediated treacherous cultural terrain as it sought out a mode of its own. Leading up to this era, Broadway produced a patchwork of productions with no particular pattern and in doing so had trouble tracking down a consistent audience (Riddle 2003). In contrast, the Golden Age engendered a set of generic expectations and structural norms in coordination with its audience’s response. As Kim Kowalke explains:

As an unsubsidized, high-risk commercial venture, [the Golden Age musical] sought to balance escalating artistic aspirations with financial exigencies and attempted to gain enhanced cultural capital as the nation’s foremost indigenous theatrical art form (analogous to the national forms of opera that had evolved in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) without sacrificing the entertainment values required to amuse and move a broad middle-class, family-oriented audience. [2013: 133-34]

This aspiring “indigenous theatrical art form” sought to establish itself within two butting characteristics: financial sustainability and artistic value. Further, it looked at such viability via its audience, who served as the “final critical arbiter” that indirectly impacted the creative process. In this moment, the consumption-production relationship between audience and theatre found its roots. Broadway theatre flourished in this unified environment and consumptive practices changed alongside it.

7 In the Golden Age musical, every element was expected to reflect and contribute to the overarching production style, now dictated by its particular situation and feeding into the basic framework of what would become known as the “book musical”: a drama of characters in conflict in two acts (Kowalke 2013: 138). This construction was achieved through a joint effort in the creative process, involving book-writer, lyricist, and composer as well as producer, director, choreographer, and designer. Further, the cast and crew found their place within this synergy by delivering a distinctive combination of acting, dancing, and singing that fulfilled specific character and plot functions (Ibid. 134). The works produced by composer Richard

Rodgers and lyricist Oscar Hammerstein II exemplify the book musical’s success as this team managed to consistently and innovatively perpetuate a new generic subtype: the integrated musical. The duo would compose musico-dramatic “scores” that expanded the standard 32-bar song form into complex musical scenes that often adapted existing and influential literary or dramatic writings into viable scripts (Ibid. 176). Teams similar to Rodgers and Hammerstein, like Kander and Ebb or Lerner and Loewe, produced some of the must successful musicals of the time by sharing a “dramaturgical model relatively stable in its generic conventions and resistant to radical alterations that might alienate audiences from the box office” (Ibid. 138). They found ways to explore a varied range of content, theme, character, and plot while still upholding the book musical’s basic framework.

This basic framework, however, is deeply embedded with theoretical intricacy and construction. Instead of imposing a seamless unity of content through song or dialogue onto its audience, as with an opera or drama, it provides a difference. “When the orchestra introduces a tune that causes characters who have been speaking dialogue to break into song or dance,” Scott

McMillin writes in The Musical as Drama, “The music has changed the book into something

8 different—a number—and the characters acquire a different dimension, the ability to perform that number” (2006: 3). The musical’s complexity stems from the tension between the number and the book. The book is the narrative structure and usually sets forth the turn of the plot that the number elaborates on. Song and dance usually do not further character development but instead insert a repetitive lyrical moment into the cause-and-effect progress of the plot; it provides satisfaction in its rhyme, melody, and meter (Ibid. 9). The interaction and reciprocation of the book and the number provides the musical with its momentum and its heartbeat.

Additionally, the “concept musical” emerged as a way for a show to focus on one theme or metaphor. In conjunction with book musicals, their coherent segments created content that was both memorable and distributable, which easily led to commercial success. Take the song

“Maria” as an example. Can you place where you’ve heard it before? Perhaps you don’t know what it is by simply reading or hearing the name… that is until someone plays it for you and it elicits a sonic recognition. Further, you might know the tune, but do you know the musical?

Have you seen it? Can you say what it’s about? During this era, the innovations of the book and the number alongside the “concept” style solidified the opportunity for musicals to become standards. The Golden Age musical, then, would find space to facilitate commoditization and popularization of theatre.

EXPRESSION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY IDEALS

What further contributed to the success and innovation of American Musical Theatre was what it meant to be “American.” In contrast to the opera or symphony, the American musical was a product that could be interpreted by a broad audience. It took hold of the post-World War II sentiment sweeping the nation, as the stage “reified egalitarian, secular, pragmatic, and anti-

9 elitist values basic to the predominant American self-image … Virtually every American could understand and enjoy a musical, itself the end-product of a ‘democratized’ collaborative process”

(Kowalke 2013: 141). Oklahoma! is a prime example of the projection of these ideals, as it celebrates “a brand new state” and the nation’s faith and heritage. Additionally, this musical concerns women running a farm on their own, violence between men over land, and how Indian

Territory should be appropriated (McMillin 2014: 19). In leaving behind farcical and fluffy theatrical material of the pre-Golden era, this musical and its successors perpetuated a new tone of American seriousness and realism through its production of challenging plotlines.

The remaining shows of the Golden Age found their content by exploring other social issues: racism, prejudice, gang warfare, unionism, moral and political decay, sexual politics, abuse and dysfunction, ethnic minority traditions, corruption, marriage, and capitalism (Kowalke

2013: 142). While they may not have tackled the topics directly, they frequently offered implicit critique by bringing forward issues of gender identity, class, race, and ethnicity. Fiddler on the

Roof, for example, explored the place of Jewish cultural traditions in a changing global society, which also engaged sub-themes of gender norms and religious freedom. In addition to being adapted into an Academy Award-winning film in 1971, it is currently running on Broadway in its fifth revival.

In April 1968, the musical Hair found its success by using rock-and-roll music alongside a loose structure to denounce the military draft, the Vietnam War, American work ethic, and norms of behavior and dress. Existing as a symbol of the broader cultural upheaval, it undermined the “aesthetic and socio-economic foundations of the American musical theater”

(Kowalke 2013: 142). For lack of a better term, it was the anti-Oklahoma!, negating the once- exalted idealized America that had been produced and celebrated in 1943. As such, it was widely

10 considered to be the final musical of the Golden Age, fostering the beginnings of a climate where revivals outnumbered originals and commentators lamented the genre’s death (Ibid. 143). What remained, though, was a foundation, a manual for use of developed techniques that could create signification and recognition for a specific audience. New teams of collaborators took the reigns; the American musical, its book, and its numbers would be repurposed alongside an altered, post-

Golden cultural landscape.

11 “BROADWAY IS MORE THAN JUST A STREET” - GENTRIFICATION, MASSIFICATION, AND POPULARIZATION

At the first national telecast of the 1967 Tony Awards, New York Mayor John Lindsay took to the stage and proclaimed his support for the theatrical arts: “Broadway is more than just a street” (Sullivan 1967: 37). A transformation had been underway, emerging out of Times

Square’s bad reputation and developing through the Golden Age, which sought to legitimize

Broadway not just as an art form but also as a product. Mayor Lindsay’s declaration, especially to a physical audience of over 1,000 and a national audience of over 40 million, simultaneously acknowledged the changes theatre had endured and would continue to endure. Broadway became more than just a street through gentrification and massification, two processes, in combination, that facilitated its transformation into a popularized mode of entertainment. This section delineates these two terms as conceptual tools, explicating their sociological definitions first and then how each will be repurposed for the ongoing analysis. Further, popularization, as a result of these terms and their relationship, will be explained through its products: an adapted popular culture and the mass theatrical public. This thesis will dedicate a section to understanding each process’s place within and contribution to Broadway’s tranformation through evidence and analysis. But first, it is integral to conceptualize the foundations of gentrification, massification, and popularization.

GENTRIFICATION

Gentrification is a loaded term with a history that informs its evolved definition. Loretta Lees,

Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly’s Gentrification text serves as the primary contact point in this elaboration. A staple of urban sociology, the term is used to explain social and economic processes of rehabilitation and physical transformation in particular settings. In 1964, British

12 sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term as a “new and distinct process of urban change” (Lees,

Slater, and Wyly 2008: 4). She did so by identifying the process within the English culture’s anti-urbanism movement, highlighting its inclination to rehabilitate old housing options, increase property value, and displace working-class residents with incoming middle class ones. While her observations lacked a broader, global aspect, they gave a starting point from which scholarly insight on the process could begin. Gentrification’s actual origins, however, can be cited in its early history, such as the 19th century “Haussmannization of Paris” when poor residential areas were demolished so that construction of the city’s famous boulevards could ensue (Ibid. 5).

Systematically, the process found its roots in 1950s metropolitan cities like Boston, Washington

DC, and New York City, and interestingly in forms that refused to use the actual term

“gentrification.” It was not until the early 1980s that the term had a set definition, but, as Neil

Smith argued in Gentrification of the City, gentrification was a “highly dynamic process … not amenable to overly restrictive definitions” (1986: 3) and encompassed a broad range of processes. As both a social and a spatial transformation, he wrote that one should strive to understand what connects these two seemingly separate elements: the relationship between the rules of society and its physical space.

Further, after grasping its dynamism, one can view the concept from two main theoretical frameworks: supply-side and demand-side. The supply-side theories explain gentrification as a product of uneven capitalist development, highlighting increasing social inequalities through what it means to transform and gentrify a landscape (Lees, Slater, and Wyly 2008: 43). The demand-side finds gentrification to be a consequence of the industrial and occupational changes in advanced capitalist cities, exploring questions of class constitution and asking questions, like who are these middle-class gentrifiers with “a disposition towards central-city living and an

13 associated rejection of suburbia” (Ibid. 90). Gentrification is an ever-expanding term that not only considers the traditional forms but also the newer wave definitions. Lees, Slater, and Wyly identify with sociologist Eric Clark’s 2005 “elastic yet targeted definition” that explains it as a

“process involving a change in the population of land users such that the new users are of higher socio-economic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment in fixed capital” (Ibid. 160). This delineation considers gentrification’s historical roots as well as its contemporary modifications.

In my repurposing of gentrification, I work within Clark’s interpretation to view gentrification as a social process that utilized Broadway’s physical space to aid in crafting a mass theatrical public. Framed against its early reputation as decayed, Times Square and its revitalization will serve as central evidence. Particularly throughout the 1970s to 1990s, there exist extensive efforts by producers, financers, and political figures to reform the run-down district into a mega-symbol of commercial success. Broadway’s gentrification sought to create an acceptable home for its shows that would attract a refined and consuming mass to the area; here is where massification found its footing.

MASSIFICATION

Massification, in short, is the process through which a mass audience is generated. The relationship between the two is key in media studies and essential in understanding the media’s vast economic and cultural power. The Mass Audience: Rediscovering the Dominant Model

(1997) by James Webster and Patricia Phalen delineates how key developments in social theory paired with methodological innovations in audience measurement engineered the concept of a

“man-made audience.” Dating back to the 19th century, social theorists began studying group

14 behavior ungoverned by law or social convention, such as the action of crowds or dissemination of fads, and turned this interest into a distinct field called “collective behavior.” Over time, they began identifying the conditions of a mass entity as a heterogeneous collection of individuals that must select a common object as the focus of their interest. This act of coming together not only defined individuality, but also created a “powerful social force” (Ibid. 7). In the 1930s, Paul

Lazarsfeld brought notions of the mass audience to fruition through his communications and audience research. He recognized the value in different research strategies, but tended to conceptualize problems within a marketing orientation that sought to differentiate factors that were characteristic of people, messages, and media. Measurement technology, research practice, and theoretical dispositions combined to produce this distinctive way of conceiving an audience:

“Exposure was both the key concern of marketers and the essential, unifying characteristic of the mass. It defined the audience” (Ibid. 9). The audience was an “imagined community,” defined by statistical analysis and utilized to map media audiences relevant to industry, government, and social theorists. It became the pragmatic option of comprehending media.

There exist two seemingly contradictory uses of mass audience: as an instrument of institutional control over the public and as the embodiment of audience power. The first transforms the audience into a commodity and a thing of value, serving the interests of the institutions doing the buying and selling. In doing so, it highlights that this economic exchange is only possible by massifying the audience (Webster and Phalen 1997: 17). The second empowers the individual as a critical component of an effective mass audience. There is a constant need to fathom and respond to the tastes of an audience, which allow for a cultural democracy to take form (Ibid. 18). These two uses authenticate one another: “…audience attendance to media offerings, especially in large numbers, says something about our culture and the things we

15 choose to celebrate” (Ibid. 21). Such implies a ritual, dynamic, and adaptable model of reciprocal communication between the audience and the media.

Webster and Phelan write that the mass audience is often used as a real, self-defining entity, and the path to understanding it stems in its exposure to media. Massification emerges as practitioners attempt to explain, predict, and control how and when people come into contact with their media (Webster and Paheln 1997: 23). As such, I repurpose massification to be the process through which Broadway’s audience was reached. Mass media forms, especially electronic modes like radio and television, were quintessential makers of the mass audience as they generated focus and attention to the object at hand. On Broadway, these forms were identified as potential theatrical collaborators because they could draw in audiences that producers desperately sought after. Evidenced by the specific intertwining of appealing mediums such as film, radio, and records, this massification section will show how the stage became a commodity for circulation and how this was a technique to generate a broader audience.

POPULARIZATION

Popularization, then, brings these two processes together. Taking cultural artifacts and media content produced for mass audiences, it identifies products of popular culture and makes them commercially successful. Popularized goods are seen as reflective of “the tastes and values of

‘ordinary people’ as opposed to the minority tastes of elite or high culture” (Chandler and

Munday 2014) and fit in with the conception of a society’s perceived collective identity. Popular culture itself is critical to popularization’s success and, similar to gentrification and massification, there is no straight-forward explanation. In Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, author John Storey begins by identifying six varying perspectives on this term’s definition.

16 Ultimately, he is able to conclude that they all have one common aspect: “…the insistence that whatever else popular culture is, it is definitely a culture that only emerged following industrialization and urbanization … [it] depends on there being in place a capitalist market economy” (2008: 12-13). This process can be exemplified through Britain, which once had a common culture and a separate elitist culture, and the popular cultural space that emerged because of industrialization and urbanization. Industrialization changed the relationship between employees and employers from mutual obligation to cash-influenced demand, while urbanization produced residential separation of class (Ibid. 13). The products of this society, therefore, were unaffected by the controlling influence of dominant classes.

The popularization chapter will be a discussion of the evidence presented, and how a popular culture became identifiable through the relationship between gentrification’s physical effects and massification’s distributive powers. It will utilize Bourdieu’s theories on taste to connect popular culture with popular taste and explore what this meant in regards to what was being consumed and produced for Broadway. It will also discuss Michael Warner in relation to his theories on generating a mass theatrical public and use Christopher Balme’s work to display how these three efforts connected in order to engage a mass theatrical public that persists today.

Bringing about more recognition and then more audiences to consume it, Broadway theatre transformed into a popularized product adaptable to the stage.

17 ACT I: GENTRIFICATION – THE WORST BLOCK IN TOWN

From as early as 1952, Times Square’s decline has been recorded as a district of prostitutes and peep shows. A 1960 New York Times front-page article titled “Life on 42nd Street:

A Study in Decay” informs our memory of what this area was like: grinder theaters that showed racy movies, game arcades of runaway kids, an influx of “the homosexual problem” and bookstores with pornographic magazines. The article explores the concerns of New Yorkers as well as the varied explanations as to why this area was so troubled. Although there was little agreement on the root, journalist Milton Bracker writes: “It is frequently asserted that the block is the ‘worst’ in town, that it has been so for many years and that if it is not getting worse it is certainly not getting better” (Bracker 1960: 1). In its subject matter and pointed language, the piece points to an existing collective recognition of the area’s desperate need for attention. He even concluded that, after three decades of deterioration, there seems to be no one who knew how to reverse it.

However, following this article’s publication, a conscious effort advanced to change this decline by gentrifying the area and then creating an accessible experience. Gentrification meant overhaul and revitalization; it meant cleaning up Broadway’s deteriorated Times Square neighborhood and financing structural renovations so as to significantly increase its value. Live theatre had existed in this area for decades and sacrifices had been made by patrons and performers alike to exist in this space. But now, producers and financers, more than any other party, saw this district’s potential as a welcoming hub and put forth serious efforts to make it such. This gentrifying can be found in two major feats: the revitalization of Times Square and the continual renovation of playhouses. Each venture found footing during the Golden Age, but intensified throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

18 A NEW TIMES SQUARE

Although Bracker’s article suggested defeat, the League of New York Theatres and Producers reinstilled hope. Established in 1930, this professional trade association sought to address issues affecting Broadway theatre. They represented theatre owners and producers in negotiations with actors and unions so as to increase public awareness of and involvement in the theatre. The course of this mission shifted as their investment in rejuvenating the Theatre District intensified.

For example, on September 21, 1971, they initiated a program to provide regular taxi service in the area. On August 25, 1972, they came together to accumulate a list of “nuisances occurring in the vicinity of legitimate theatres” with plans to appeal to city officials and authorities about proper law enforcement (League of New York Theatres and Producers records 1959-1983). As made explicit in their records, the League corresponded with taxicab companies, advertising firms, press associations, and politicians, amongst other related agencies, to tidy up their district.

They began explicitly showing that their investment in Broadway extended beyond the relationships between the artists and financers. And so, uncovering Broadway’s financial potential stemmed in making its location a presentable and safe home for theatre to thrive in.

Although real redevelopment efforts began in the 1970s and 1980s, many of these plans had trouble finding initial support. For example, in 1976, an advertising executive named

Frederic S. Papert proposed his “Cityscape” plan, a theme park that included rides, exhibitions, aerial walkways, a monorail, the world’s largest IMAX theater, and an iconic giant Ferris wheel.

However, it was left unapproved by Mayor Edward I. Koch because it did not “fit the city’s bubbly ethic ambiance” (Feuer 2015). A decade later, Mayor Koch chose the Philip Johnson plan, which involved building four huge office towers, a 550-room luxury hotel, a 2.4-million-

19 square-foot merchandise market as well as renovating the historic Broadway theatres. But, the early 1990s real-estate market crash led to the project’s untimely death (Ibid.).

It was not until the early 1990s that today’s Times Square began to rise from the ashes.

Architect Robert A. M. Stern and designer Tibor Kalman looked back to the style of the past to create an illustrious center of engrossing yet controlled chaos. Disney signed a long-term lease at the New Amsterdam Theater and, shortly after, Madame Tussauds wax museum and the AMC multiplex move theater found their respective homes (Feuer 2015). The project was initiated under Mayor David N. Dinkins and finalized by his successor, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Heavy construction thrived throughout the 1990s and a transformation beyond Bracker’s loftiest expectations emerged in order to gentrify today’s Times Square, the crossroads of the world.

HOME RENOVATION

Mayor John Lindsay was a major catalyst for these construction efforts during his eight-year reign and beyond. An involved political figure intent on establishing his artistic legacy, he used his tenure from 1966 to 1973 to develop the theatre district. His most prominent and complicated action was tax abatement: a financial incentive program that encouraged investment and development in Times Square. These abatements allowed developers to build new office buildings in exchange for tax breaks. One provision even forced a developer to build a theatre in the building as part of the deal (Maslon 2004). New theatres were built as well, like the Minskoff and Gershwin, while others underwent renovation, like the Circle in the Square. Further, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Lindsay found ways to influence legal and illegal development, fueling gentrification in unprecedented ways.

20 Theatre renovation and commercialization were not part of the original revitalization plans, but they quickly became a central force as the theatre district sought to be a clean, tourist- friendly entertainment destination. These revised plans relied on a crucial connection between entertainment and commodity that linked “the theatrical resonance of Times Square to its value as a venue for retail and advertising” (Wollman 2002: 447). The New Amsterdam Theater’s renovation most explicitly reflects this connection. In 1994, Disney CEO Michael Eisner agreed to spend $6 million to renovate the 95-year-old theatre on 42nd street, once home to the famous

Ziegfeld Follies. As part of the agreement, Disney obtained exclusive use of the theatre under a

49-year lease and, in exchange for $28 million in low-interest loans, returned two percent of all ticket receipts back to the city and state.

The first musical to open was The Lion King on April 2, 1997, which has since moved to the Minskoff Theatre and continues to play as one of Broadway’s most successful stage productions. Mary Poppins enjoyed an almost seven-year run from November 16, 2006 to March

3, 2013 (Gans 2006). Since March 20, 2014, Aladdin has occupied the again-renovated space and broken the house record for a week by grossing $1,602,785 (Cox 2014). This move by the Walt

Disney Company not only changed its image as a moneymaking corporation into a supporter of the performing arts, but also led to great prosperity throughout the district as development of other sponsored properties ensued, like the 20,000 square foot Disney Store dazzling bright in the heart of Times Square.

From a financial perspective, corporations were the most suitable to thrive in this upcoming theatre district, especially as real estate in New York City skyrocketed and theatre maintenance and production became more expensive and risky. Entertainment groups that followed Disney into theatrical production not only developed their own properties, but also

21 advertised and marketed them nationally with relative ease as “most own[ed] film production studios from which to borrow material, recording studios in which to record original cast albums that [could] be heavily hyped, and a variety of national periodicals, television studios, and radio stations from which to advertise their products” (Wollman 2002: 449). Gentrification allowed for corporations to gain a physical grasp on Times Square and pursue this space as an artistic venture and a capital gain. Within this mindset, too, financers looked beyond a show’s content to formulate what else could be included with it. In considering how far Broadway could reach and who could be reached in the process, massification efforts grew.

22 ACT II: MASSIFICATION - “APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE!”

In the 1970 Tony Award-winning musical Applause, minor character and self-proclaimed

Broadway gypsy Bonnie asks her fellow aspiring actors: “What is it that we’re living for?” And quickly answers her own question in song: “Applause, Applause! Nothing I know brings on the glow like sweet applause.” In her Broadway debut, actress Bonnie Franklin brought down the house with “spirited vitality to the song-and-dance title number and [was] rightly rewarded with a storm of applause” (Time 1970: 97). This title song was one of the most successful numbers of any Broadway show among that year’s season of 14 new musicals. It was also one of the first numbers to celebrate the reciprocal relationship a production had with its audience and confront just how much the producer and the consumer needed on one another.

To sustain this dependency, producers first turned to merchandising. Although it seems given now, it was not always possible to bring home a piece of Broadway after a performance’s final number. With technological innovation beginning in the 1940s, products such as cast albums, songbooks, t-shirts, magnets, programs, coffee mugs, and more were created so that audience members could commemorate and spread their experience after its end. They then turned to other media forms, like television and film, in order to further extend their reach: live television specials, film adaptations, and the national telecast of the 21st Annual Tony Awards were among such cinematic efforts.

Throughout its existence, Broadway mass marketing efforts have tended to focus on transporting the stage to an audience beyond the stadium seats. And, because the make-up of the

Broadway audience has always been in flux, the extent of these efforts has constantly evolved.

Before the Golden Age, theatre was viewed as an elite and socially driven event, indicative of status reaffirmation. Over time, however, there was a push to create something that agreed with

23 the growing middle-class American and to convert the luxury of theatre into a tangible product of the people.

CAST ALBUMS AND NATIONAL EXPOSURE

In 1943, Decca Records produced the first original Broadway cast recording of Oklahoma!. The production of this record not only offered a milestone in the development of the musical itself, but it was also a major landmark in recording history (Reddick 2011: 182). Although a lot of recordings of Broadway material had appeared beforehand, largely consisting of songs recorded by studio singers and usually with different arrangements and different orchestras, this recording solidified the cast album as a Broadway musical staple. The album, then, was also major because it was the first to feature cast, chorus, and orchestra as heard in the theatre, preserving one of the biggest hit musicals in history.

In 1948, the introduction of the 33-1/3 rpm LP (long playing) record mobilized

Broadway’s merchandising potential. The scores of musicals could be recorded with the almost complete original Broadway cast and orchestra on a single, affordable disc. These cast albums, alongside publication of show scripts and piano-vocal music books, provided those absent from the audience with a taste of what was happening in New York. In the process, many musicals

“maintained their profiles primarily as musico-dramatic entities, ‘works’ deserving of preservation and continued revival” (Kowalke 2013: 7) and show music asserted itself as a genre to be reckoned with. Because of the success of these discs, record companies were quick to sign on as investors for theatrical productions as they recognized the potential that extending such accessibility could have.

24 The introduction of the LP record was a technological innovation that took away the weighty cast albums and offered the entirety of a show on one durable vinyl. Cast recordings were ideal for the LP: the 45-minute playing time, separated like acts onto two sides, reflected the average amount of music in a two-act show. The 1949 recording of South Pacific by

Columbia Records was one of the earliest and most successful LPs of any kind. By the time this show and Oklahoma! were adapted for film, they were already well known through their original cast recordings (Reddick 2011: 184). During production, each album required some adjustment to make it work for the home listener. Recordings were not recreated in the exact image of their stage performance, however the wider public’s consumption did not depend on such exact replication. The LP was perfect for the suburban lifestyle, growing in popularity, as non-city dwellers savored the “sophisticated cultural products that were not easily available” (Ibid. 186); it allowed those who might never see a show the opportunity to experience it miles away.

The cast album also enticed its listeners into seeing national touring productions. The touring medium came into play with the emergence of “national companies” that brought hit musicals to the road and all around the country (Kowalke 2013: 140). Through its development in the 1950s and 1960s, travelling to New York became an unnecessary step in experiencing the thrill of the live stage, which was beneficial to the producer as accompanying merchandise became available all across the United States. Broadway shows permeated into the American morale via these productions, and they also found audiences through show adaptations at colleges, community theatres, and high schools across the nation. And still, their significance manifests today. By 2014, touring shows of varying sizes were presented in about 200 cities across the country, grossed $932 million, attracted 13.8 million attendees, and contributed a

25 cumulative $3.2 billion to the metropolitan areas that hosted the shows (The Broadway League

Research Department 2014).

MASS MEDIA AND HOLLYWOOD FOR BROADWAY

Exposure to the masses also came through adaptation and promotion via television and film.

Much of the Golden Age era was spent figuring out how to repurpose these visual mediums in order to bring theatre to life on the screen. By the time the Golden Age finished, investing time and money into this feat proved to be worth it as extension of accessibility facilitated two simultaneous actions: it enticed non-New Yorkers into the city while also allowing them to enjoy the wonders of the stage comfortably in their homes. This relationship changed the make up of

Broadway’s audience, expanding its demographic steadily and quickly through mass media.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, television explored its functionality as a relatively new platform by mimicking and adjusting live theatre for the screen. In 1957, CBS broadcasted

Cinderella as a major live event starring up-and-coming star Julie Andrews. It was performed in a complex soundstage set with actors primarily from Broadway and it was preserved on a kinescope film (although it was widely unavailable until the early 2000s). As a live broadcast, it had many of the same constraints as a live performance: quick changes, entrances and exits that have to be blocked and timed, and a limited space set (Stillwell 2011: 153). The event was considered “prestigious” (Ibid.) not only because of the extremely technical feats it arranged and executed, but also because it brought a distant art form to a convenient, easily-viewable screen at home while maintaining authenticity. More recently, the genre of live production filming has resurged as big cable networks compete to produce the next big reiteration. Over the past three years, NBC has produced three on-set musicals with big names starring in the title role (i.e.

26 Carrie Underwood starring as Maria in The Sound of Music). Fox recently just produced its first,

Grease!, and incorporated actors from the original screen production in cameo roles.

Films, too, uncovered theatrical adaptation as a new subtype of visual production. West

Side Story, a now cherished part of the Broadway repertoire, had only moderate success on the stage (Kowalke 2013: 139). However, its screen adaptation showed producers that profit was to be made by extending this artform to movie audiences. Adaptations came to life by maintaining a somewhat direct relationship with the show they represented while also making adjustments like song substitutions and scene omissions. Hollywood was always eager to emphasize difference, especially cinematically as they utilized naturalistic settings, added songs as well as larger-scale dance numbers, incorporated more fluid scene and act structures, and established film stars in leading roles to “provide ‘more’ than the stage version could and to compensate for the absent vitality of live performance” (Knapp and Morris 2011: 141).

In addition to adaptations, filming versions of theatrically staged productions became a surrogate for the live production. Producing this type of theatrical event was not a simple process, creators looked carefully to the placement of shots, cuts, and other technical devices in order to frame the work in a viable way for the screen (Ibid. 142). For example, on March 7,

1955, NBC produced Peter Pan on their “Producers’ Showcase” anthology series as the first full-length Broadway production on color television, attracting an audience of 65 million. Five years later, Peter Pan was restaged in a 100-minute version of the show and taped in color at

NBC’s Brooklyn studio (Radio Corporation of America 1955). Mary Martin reclaimed the title role, which she had won a Tony for in 1954, and soared above audiences in this stand alone special that was rebroadcast several times over the following years and eventually released to

VHS home video in 1998 and DVD in 1999 (International Movie Database n.d.).

27 For all of these forms, it was crucial to find a blend of cinematic realism and technique. If the home audience liked what they saw, they were more inclined to purchase a cast album or recording of the theatrical event. Thus, a new market emerged surrounding these home theatergoers.

ST THE 21 ANNUAL TONY AWARDS

One of the most significant displays of massification occurred on March 26, 1967, when the

Tony Awards were aired for the first time on national network television. The ceremony, recognizing excellence in live theatre, had been held for the first time 20 years earlier but only to a small audience of invited guests at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City. In partnering with the American Theatre Wing, the League of New York Theatres and Producers helped to produce an event that allowed people at home to not only view the awards ceremony but to engage with the present theatre available to them via live performances, video clips, and information about nominated productions. This broadcast lasted just over an hour and was hosted by Broadway big names Mary Martin and Robert Preston (American Theatre Wing 1967). The four nominated musicals performed and the opening scene for the entire production was a performance of “Willkommen” from Cabaret, perhaps a foreshadowing of the “welcoming” transformation to take place in the coming years.

This examination unpacks four separate newspaper articles, each published by the New

York Times, that showcase the Tony Awards’ development. In tandem, these written pieces serve as important artifacts that evidence progression of the Broadway stage’s intentions to exist as a national symbol of arts and culture. One way of achieving this goal was through the press, by making their efforts public through media coverage. The idea of a televised awards show,

28 similar to that of the well-known Oscars and Emmys, heightened theatre’s accessibility to millions of Americans, aided in turning masses of people into theatergoers, and helped to foster in a new audience for Broadway. This national event was a turning point that took formalization from the Golden Age and utilized it to transform Broadway into a product. How did this product lend itself to its audience and, reciprocally, how did the audience lend itself to change what would and could be produced?

The first article, “20 Stage Notables Get Perry Awards,” was published on April 7, 1947 with a sub-headline indicating the initiation of an “annual event” (New York Times 1947). Hosted at the Waldorf-Astoria for 1200 guests, the American Theatre Wing’s midnight ceremony celebrated and awarded 20 different men and women of the industry. Unlike the Motion Picture

Academy’s awards, the Perry Awards refrained from designating their recipients as “best” or

“first” and instead planned to be elastic in their award classifications each year. As prizes, the women received an initialed sterling silver compact case while the men received engraved gold bill clips. Awards went out to famous film and theatrical names alike, Ingrid Bergman and

Frederic March for example. Miscellaneous awards were also distributed: a retired shoe manufacturer and his wife were honored for having attended theatre opening nights for three decades. This Tony’s ceremony also awarded production and producing staff, like costume designer Lucinda Ballard, Martin Beck Theatre treasurer Dora Chamberlain, choreographer

Agnes de Mille, set designer David Folkes, score writer Kurt Weill, and Jules J. Leventhal, referred to as “the season’s most prolific backer and producer” (Ibid.). The Waldorf’s ballroom, according to the article, would be host to a similar party every upcoming Easter Sunday evening.

The ceremony lacked in the particular sensation that would later accompany the dynamic event. In the cut-and-dry reporting, this piece mirrors the initial purpose of the Tony Awards in

29 its efficiency and succinctness. The Tony’s continued to be carried out in such a fashion as to honor the legacy of actress and first chairman of the Wing’s board Antoinette Perry, as explained in the second article “Popularizing The ‘Tony’ Awards.” By the time this 10th ceremony aired, no physical award was given so as to honor recipients with a “spiritual memorial,” described as

“more inspirational than something inanimate” (Gelb 1956: 1). Further, Perry’s distaste for pretention contributed to the simplicity of the event and served as the primary reason why speeches were not given. Helen Hayes, now known as the “First Lady of American Theatre” who received two Tony Awards during her career, is quoted in the article: “[Perry] was a joyous person who hated pomposity. Accordingly, the evening should be one of gaiety” (Ibid. 3).

Still, the article, published on April 1, 1956 and written by Arthur Gelb, hints at the plans of the American Theatre Wing to “create wider public interest in Broadway’s most important award-giving ceremony” (Gelb 1956: 1). It also delineates the intent of the producers to create an ambience similar to that of the Oscars and announces their plans to locally broadcast this ceremony on New York’s channel five. Other deliberate techniques to reach a wider range of theatergoers included announcing the list of nominees ahead of time, finding a larger building to accommodate a well-over 500-person audience, cutting the price of dinner, and selling tickets at a minimal admission fee to other members of the public. The article itself served as the primary vehicle for publicizing the nominations and predictions of the Awards ceremony to a wide range of people. Announcing the Tony’s first local televised broadcast and plans for the ceremony to

“have a greater impact on theatregoers because…it’s their theatre” (Ibid. 1) indicates an important shift into this era of accessibility that continued to grow. Despite its efforts to preserve

Perry’s feelings toward camp, the ceremony’s direction would find momentum in its shift toward attracting attention and popularity.

30 By the national telecast on March 27, 1967, the awards show was an “auspicious occasion” that would force the television and movie industries to “revise their award ceremonies” so as to keep up with this caliber of entertainment (Gould 1967: 67). There existed a

“distinctive creativity,” chief television reporter and critic Jack Gould notes. Further, a “sense of being in the audience was genuinely felt at home” and there existed certain naturalness in color that often lacked in many TV shows and films of the time. This analysis of the stage’s place on television highlighted the potential for this art form to exist in a new medium. The connecting article “‘Cabaret’ and ‘Homecoming’ Win Top Tonys,” written by Dan Sullivan, recaps the award winners and reports that the ceremony was nationally televised for the first time since its

1947 establishment. The article fleshes the events of the broadcast by highlighting attendants, facts about the shows nominated, and speech excerpts. It also cites that an estimated 40-million home audience plus over 1,000 people in the physical audience viewed the ceremony (Sullivan

1967). Alexander Cohen, who produced the show for around $500,000, claimed that his direction glamorized the Tony’s in a similar fashion to Hollywood’s Oscars, Television’s Emmys and the

Music’s Grammys.

Evident in the progression of time and the content reported on for these four articles, there exists an increase in the level of glitz and a stark decrease in conservatism. The first article describes the awards with the prudent spirit of Antoinette Perry. The second follows suit with only slight indications of a greater spectacle to come. And the third and fourth ones give way to the ceremony’s potential and its future, overflowing with tangible glamour and prestige. This first inaugural broadcast exemplifies a broader moment of transition for Broadway. Similar rejuvenation efforts accumulated until this 25-year period ended, ceasing with the ultimate medium of accessibility: national television. The alignment of the Tony Awards first national

31 telecast and the Golden Age’s end may be simple coincidence, but it is also a highly symbolic moment of change for what Broadway and theatrical culture would become; it signified historical growth in size, prestige, and significance in the nation. And so, this event does not just signify the Golden Age’s end, but also the beginning of a grander commoditized product and thus a new audience for Broadway theatre. Room had more officially and publicly been made to

“willkommen” (or welcome) the national audience to enjoy these productions, an experience that had been and would continue infiltrating their cultural palette in prodigious ways.

32 ACT III: POPULARIZATION – TASTE AND THE THEATRICAL MASS

From the collaboration of these two processes came forth a popularized Broadway. When one popularizes something, they are seeking the approval and affection of a specified group. By taking the revitalization of gentrification and accessibility of massification, the live stage made itself appealing to a new and specific audience, transformed by the efforts of producers, financers, and politicians. This section discusses this theatrical audience through a theoretical lens. First, there was a clear shift in taste occurring throughout the Golden Age to present day. In line with Pierre Bourdieu’s theories on distinction, this shift suggests that what the popularized audience wanted to consume changed in coordination with what was being put in front of them; the relationship between the two was mutually interested. Second, there was also a mass theatrical public being formed and advanced at the hands of Broadway’s financers. Aligned with

Michael Warner’s definition of “the public” and Christopher Balme’s examination of the changing theatre-audience relationship, the social, economic, and artistic conditions fueling this public’s emergence allowed for popular culture to be consumed at home and at the theatre.

Popularization mobilized an inversion integral to the development of American Musical

Theatre. Theatre, a once autonomous medium of the arts, was now a site of innovation that sought to seamlessly integrate popular culture onto the stage. Popularized Broadway became part of a cross-media dialogue that convoluted exactly what type of show could and should be produced for the stage. The following explicates the two aforementioned smaller, subsequent transformations that prompted this inversion: a change of taste and a formation of a mass theatrical public.

33 SHIFT IN TASTE: BOURDIEU

Within an evolving popularized Broadway, it became more visible that live theatre production considered artistry and investment to be two inseparable entities. This form of Broadway meant one stripped of its cultural capital and, by engaging a broader audience, the stage’s artistic value diminished. Cultural capital, in Pierre Bourdieu’s theorization, refers to a social relation within a system of exchange and extends “to all the goods material and symbolic, without distinction, that present themselves as rare and worthy of being sought after in a particular social formation”

(Bourdieu 1977: 178). Simply put, the more non-universal a product or good is, the more exclusivity and cultural capital it can acquire. Intellectuals and artists find themselves divided on this concept: their interest in widening their market, or popularizing themselves, is at odds with their concern for cultural distinction, as indicated by rarity.

Such generates the “dual discourse on the relations between the institutions of cultural diffusion and the public” (Bourdieu 1984: 229); distinction declines as the number of people able to appropriate a product grows. Further, as a product enters the zone of “popular taste,” social standing ceases to directly inform who can consume said product (Ibid. 16). There exists intrinsic interplay between fields of production and fields of consumption: competitively developed products seek to meet the demands shaped by different class relations over material and cultural goods. Taste is realized in the field of production by offering it a “universe of cultural goods as a system of stylistic possibilities from which it can select the system of stylistic features constituting a life-style” (Ibid. 230). Here, Broadway theatre is the institution, or system, that encompasses potential to reflect its consumers’ preferences. Over time, especially post-Golden

Age, these preferences aligned with the “life-style” of popular culture.

34 Distinction, then, takes form based on how it is recognized through taste and the class system. Bourdieu writes:

Thus, the tastes actually realized depend on the state of the system of goods offered; every change in the system of goods induces a change in tastes. But conversely, every change in tastes resulting from a transformation of the conditions of existence and of the corresponding dispositions will tend to induce, directly or indirectly, a transformation of the field of production, by favoring the success, within the struggle constituting the field, of the producers best able to produce the needs corresponding to the new dispositions. [1984: 231]

As a classification system, taste is constituted by a determinate condition situated within a structure of difference; a specific taste is realized by its relationship with some objectified and ranked capital. This defining occurs through a converse exchange between production and consumption: what is produced is determined by consumption habits while consumption is determined by accessibility of a product. Therefore, because there does not exist a sovereign taste, producers are led by competition as well as specific relevant interests so that they can produce with their target consumer’s interests in mind. In such a system, things produced for consumers and things consumed from producers both exist as a result of what taste deems to be successful.

Specialized fields tend to be governed by the same logic. Choosing in line with one’s tastes is “a matter of identifying goods that are objectively attuned to one’s position and which

‘go together’ because they are situated in roughly equivalent positions in their respective spaces”

(Bourdieu 1984: 232). While this choice results from institutions, such as critics, theatres, and newspapers, strategies of distinction help to determine which cultural goods are produced at what time and for what audience. Here, “popular taste” intertwines with Broadway theatre’s popularization: in constructing its rejuvenated district and increasing its accessibility, Broadway entered the “popular taste” zone and developed its product accordingly. What is adapted for the

35 stage, then, results from a consumer market that demands productions of popular culture and, at the same time, this consumer demand stems from the commercial product being placed in front of them.

This transition into the field of popular taste remade and inverted what the Broadway stage displayed. Now what is present is a dialogue between mass media forms, a cross-platform display of popular culture. For example, Spider-Man first appeared in print in 1962 during the

Silver Age of Comic Books. This period of commercial success for mainstream American comics, especially those of the superhero genre, highlighted the success of a media form that valued straightforward dialogue and vibrant colors. The unification of this comic with television starting in 1967, movies starting in 2002, and then Broadway in 2011, illustrates an explicit transposition of an art form into many media outlets so that massive consumption can ensue.

Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark’s expensive (the most in history, estimated at $70 million) and mildly successful run on Broadway exemplifies the extreme to which such inversion can occur and how commonplace this cross-platform relationship has become. In this vein, today’s

Broadway easily trades its Golden Age displays of social commentary for what its audience can easily recognize: Oklahoma!’s brand new state for Spiderman’s fictitious New York.

A MASS THEATRICAL PUBLIC AND INSTITUTION: WARNER AND BALME

Related to shifts in taste is the emergence of a new, specific consuming audience. In light of gentrification and massification efforts, popularized Broadway generated a mass that held similar ideas on what they wanted to see on stage. This public, Michael Warner writes in Publics and

Counterpublics, has a sense of totality “bounded by the event or by the shared physical space …

A performer onstage knows where her public is, how big it is, where its boundaries are, and what

36 the time of its common existence is” (2005: 66). Common visibility and common action not only unite, but also create this concrete audience where the crowd witnesses itself within a shared physical space.

This idea of theatre, in its original form, emerged during the late-nineteenth century when theatre began to privatize, as ordered and influenced by artistic principle. An intimate relationship between those watching and those performing developed as modernists required small dark spaces for their work to be enacted. Once the doors closed and the lights went down, according to Christopher Balme, “theatre [became] an intimate private space where collective response [was] certainly felt and registered but [was] subsumed to the dominance of artistic production onstage” (2014: 27). This practice, rooted in aestheticism, made the action of consuming theatre a non-social experience. In response to this intimacy, a different public began forming and thriving outside the theare’s confined walls. Questions of economic and social standing, then, posed two interconnected developments: a gradual shift to public support of theatre and a loss of private character. And, because of that, the theatrical public sphere

“calibrated less in terms of concrete spaces than through changing sets of discursive, social and institutional factors” (Balme 2014: 22-23). These factors, especially institutionalization, have helped to transition Broadway theatre into its popularized form.

Transforming from a small, privatized artistic venture into a large, established institution allowed for theatre to sustain a public sphere. There are three main features critical to all institutions: duration (existence over time, both literally and figuratively), legality (juridical framework within which operations can occur), and supra-individual functionality (functionality that is independent of the owner) (Balme 2014: 42-43). The popularized Broadway stage operates at the cross-section of these features. The New Amsterdam Theater, as an example, is in

37 a 20-plus year renovated existence, by contract, in the hands, but not necessarily the total creative mercy, of its parent company, Disney. Further, these features are at the cross-section of politics, economics, and aesthetics. As an institution, Broadway sustains a public sphere that goes beyond the particular productions and performances it provides. Questions of governance, funding, and artistic direction come from those who may not actually go to the theatre but who participate in the various forums available. And so, as Broadway in its popular form became part of the “cultural body politic of a community” (Ibid. 45), the mass theatrical public emerged.

As previously deduced, this community existed beyond the theatre’s doors as gentrification and massification efforts allowed for Broadway to communicate with their public not just during a show, but both before and after. They inform and entice their public with

“informational as well as aesthetic stimuli with the ultimate aim of attracting individual spectators who will form a collective audience” (Balme 2014: 47). Massification provides the most explicit evidence of this action via mass media tactics: for example, the blogs and

Broadway-themed websites used for circulation of reviews, digital playbills, and show listings amongst consumers. The mass theatrical public engages as a realm of interaction beyond the physical performance and, simultaneously, as a confined energy source for the success of what is put on stage. Today’s mass theatrical public is different from the original theatergoer: they consume and demand the inverted, cross-platform theatre being placed before them. Popular

Broadway is more than the sum of performances; it consists of complex institutional and artistic practices that allow for its own public to form. Without this public, theatre as it is today could not sustain.

38 FINALE: TODAY’S THEATRE

When the American Musical Theatre genre began forming in the early 1940s, no one could have predicted the type of institution it would develop into. Throughout the Golden Age, style and convention were established alongside the maturation of content, allowing for important social commentary to be made. But, as this thesis has shown, it is equally critical to examine the transformative processes, in both the social and urban environment, that have shaped what we think of as Broadway today. Efforts of gentrification and massification worked slowly during the before period of the Golden Age (1943 – 1968) and livened during the after period (1970s, 1980s, and 1990s) to thoroughly create a thriving, commercialized industry.

Gentrification efforts occurred mostly in revitalizing the Times Square district and renovating the theatre where performances lived. Conscious efforts made by producers and financers sought to make the area beautiful and accessible through initiatives that brought stores, restaurants, and attractions into the area as well as the means to travel throughout the district quickly and safely. This revitalization lead to a highly successful make-over for Broadway’s home, as theatre performed and revenue accumulated. As important, massification created ways for the stage to be consumed both in the theatre and at home. Gradual commoditizing efforts throughout the Golden Age, ushered in by mass media and merchandising, led to the 1967 national telecast of the Tony’s, a transition point for accessibility.

The resulting popularization generated a shift in taste that adapted popular culture to the stage. In their demands and their production, consumers and producers worked together to redefine what type of theatre would be put on stage. A push for a more popularized, financially stable theatre took away from the artistic value once intrinsic to a live production. In conjunction with this change, a mass theatrical public formed. This specific audience demanded and

39 consumed the popular Broadway being put in front of them, and did so by not only existing in the theatre’s stadium seating, but also by finding ways to connect with Broadway at home. These simultaneous sub-transformations helped to redefine the popular stage.

After utilizing the captious information that the 1977 Impact of the Broadway Theatre on the Economy of New York City report collected, The Broadway League (then known as the

League of New York Theatres and Producers) began collecting data on the theatre’s status each year beginning with the 1984-85 season. Statistics for the most recent 2014-15 season show total attendance to be over 13 million, with 10.5 million attending musicals, and gross amount for musicals to be $1.1 billion of the total annual $1.4 billion (The Broadway League Research

Department 2015). This total annual gross is almost 2500 percent more than the 1977 number pulled from the 1974-75 season, which averaged $57 million annually. Although we must acknowledge that price inflation and traffic contributed tremendously to the difference, the significance of this increase is still undeniable. Broadway’s growth as an art form cannot be separated from its economic impact, and this commercial relationship was fostered through the structural transformations that built Broadway.

By the time the 70th Annual Tony Awards ceremony airs on June 12, celebrating the

2015-16 season, 39 shows of varying style will have opened on the Broadway stage. Of the 17 musicals, only six are originals: seven are revivals and four are adapted from the silver screen.

These productions will sit among the incumbent blockbusters (Jersey Boys, The Phantom of the

Opera), already existing revivals (Chicago, The King And I), and Disney smash hits (Aladdin,

The Lion King). Housed in the District’s 40 operating theatres, located between West 40th and

53rd Streets and Sixth and Eighth Avenues, these shows will contribute to the enduring legacy of gentrified Times Square, its massified productions, and their resulting popularized Broadway.

40 BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Theatre Wing with the League of New York Theatres and Producers 1967 21st Annual Tony Awards. ABC Television Network, March 26.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bracker, Milton 1960 Life on W. 42nd St. A Study in Decay. New York Times, March 14: 1, 26.

The Broadway League Research Department 2014 Touring Broadway Facts. Report. New York: The Broadway League.

The Broadway League Research Department 2015 Broadway Season Statistics at a Glance. Report. New York: The Broadway League.

Chandler, D., and Rod Munday. 2011 A Dictionary of Media and Communication. Oxford University Press.

Chandler, D., and Rod Munday. 2014 Broadway Box Office: ‘Aladdin’ Makes Magic for Disney. Variety, August 11. http://variety.com/2014/legit/news/broadway-box-office-aladdin-makes-magic-for-disney- 1201280254/

Feuer, Alan 2015 100 Years of Cleaning Up Times Square. New York Times, October 16. http://nyti.ms/1QEqiAG

Gans, Andrew 2006 “Circle of Life”: Lion King Reopens at the Minskoff Theatre June 13. Playbill, June 13. http://www.playbill.com/article/circle-of-life-lion-king-reopens-at-the-minskoff-theatre-june- 13-com-133141

Gelb, Arthur 1956 Popularizing The ‘Tony’ Awards. New York Times, April 1: 1, 3.

Gould, Jack 1967 TV: The Tony Awards. New York Times, March 27: 67.

41 International Movie Database N.d. Peter Pan (1960). International Movie Database. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054176/ accessed April 22, 2016.

Kowalke, Kim H. 2013 Theorizing the Golden Age Musical: Genre, Structure, Syntax. Special, “A Music-Theoretical Matrix: Essays in Honor of Allen Forte (Part V),” Gamut 6(2): 133-84.

Knapp, Raymond and Mitchell Morris 2011 The Filmed Musical. In The Oxford Handbook of The American Musical. Raymond Knapp, Mitchell Morris, Stacy Wolf, eds. Pp. 136 – 151. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lees, Loretta 2015 Gentrification, In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. James D. Wright, ed. 2: 46-52.

Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin K. Wyly 2008 Gentrification. New York: Routledge/Taylor.

Mathtech, Inc. 1977 The Impact of the Broadway Theatre on the Economy of New York City, 1975. Report, 49. New York City.

New York Times 1947 20 Stage Notables Get Perry Awards. April 7: 40.

New York Theatres and Producers records 1959 - 1983 Billy Rose Theatre Division, Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, New York.

Maslon, Laurence 2004 Resurrection of 42nd Street. PBS.

McMillin, Scott 2006 The Musical as Drama. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Reddick, George 2011 The Evolution of the Original Cast Album. In The Oxford Handbook of The American Musical. Raymond Knapp, Mitchell Morris, Stacy Wolf, eds. Pp. 179 – 193. New York: Oxford University Press.

Radio Corporation of America 1955 “RCA-NBC Firsts in Color Television, a Chronological List of Significant Firsts by the Radio Corporation of America and the National Broadcasting Company in Color Television.” Press Release, March 27.

42

Riddle, Peter 2003 The American Musical: History & Development. Ontario: Mosaic Press.

Riedel, Michael 2015 Razzle Dazzle: The Battle for Broadway. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Smith, Neil and Peter Williams 1986 Gentrification of the City. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Stillwell, Robynn J. 2011 The Television Musical. In The Oxford Handbook of The American Musical. Raymond Knapp, Mitchell Morris, Stacy Wolf, eds. Pp. 152 – 166. New York: Oxford University Press.

Storey, John 2008 Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction. London: Pearson.

Sullivan, Dan 1967 ‘Cabaret’ and ‘Homecoming’ Win Top Tonys. New York Times, March 27: 37.

Time Magazine, Inc. 1970 Time Magazine 95: 97

Webster, James G. and Patricia F. Phalen 1997 The Mass Audience: Rediscovering the Dominant Model. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Wollman, Elizabeth L. 2002 The Economic Development of the “New” Times Square and its Impact on the Broadway Musical. American Music 20(4): 445-65.

43