The Sunday Giveaway: Two tickets to the Pulitzer Prize winning Disgraced on Broadway!

If it wasn’t for the production of Disgraced that is in previews at the Lyceum Theatre right now, the last three Pulitzer Prize winners for Drama would have only had Off Broadway productions in New York.  Whereas 9 of the previous 10 winners had Broadway productions (sounds like another infographic coming, doesn’t it?).

Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Off Broadway, but it seems crazy to think that the winners of the most important prize for American plays don’t always get Broadway productions, doesn’t it?  If that doesn’t tell you about the changing Broadway audience and the challenges of producing new plays on Broadway, I don’t know what does.

Thankfully, Lincoln Center and their courageous commercial producing partners have made sure that the 2013 winner, Disgraced, which tackles the tough subject of Islamophobia, got on the boards this year, after receiving rave reviews from the 2012 LCT3 production.

So in case you missed it (and most people did, since LCT3 doesn’t seat that many folks), this is your chance.

And THIS is your chance to see it for free!

I’m giving away two tickets to this Broadway Pulitzer Prize winning drama starring Josh Radnor and Gretchen Mol to one lucky reader.

And here’s how you win:

Do you think that Pulitzer Prize plays should get guaranteed Broadway productions?  Is it important that they are seen on the theater’s biggest stage so that they are done in more places around the world?  Or does it matter?  Should Broadway be the commercial place it is, and not have an obligation to be a “national theater,” if you will?

Give me your op-ed in the comments below and one of you will win two tickets to see Disgraced!

 

(Got a comment? I love ‘em, so comment below! Email Subscribers, click here then scroll down to say what’s on your mind!)

– – – – –

FUN STUFF:

– Only 3 days until the Breaking Down a Broadway Budget webinar.  Click here to register.

– Like the blog?  Like me on Facebook.

Tags:
Comments
  • Allison says:

    I think that if a play is good enough to win a Pulitzer Prize, it’s good enough to be on Broadway. However, it shouldn’t be on Broadway simply “because it won a Pulitzer Prize”; it should be on Broadway because it’s a good play that deserves to be seen.

  • Monica C says:

    I don’t think Pulitzer prize winning plays should have guaranteed Broadway productions. They should be strongly considered for productions. However, many other factors are important. For example, a masterfully written play does not always translate well or easily to the stage. If the winning play is to be made into a production, it is essential that the production does the work justice and that it captures the brilliance of the work.

  • Ken, you mention that perhaps Broadway has an obligation to be a “national theater” but the issue here is also that the United States, unlike nearly every other industrialized nation on the planet, simply does not have a national theater. The rest of the world recognizes that national governments have an obligation to support the arts through a national theater company that is subsidized by taxpayers. Our taxpayers subsidize sports teams, the airline industry, a huge military-industrial complex, and periodically bail out financial services companies, but they don’t subsidize a national theater company. Commercial producers have an obligation to make money for their investors, not to produce worthy plays. It’s great when producers can do both, make money and put on compelling dramas, but sometimes that’s just not possible. That’s why we need a national theater company that can produce important new plays even when they might not be economically profitable to produce. In other countries, these national theaters also end up making the commercial theater world stronger, because they provide a pipeline of new talent, helping everyone in the long run.

  • Emily V says:

    I worry that if Pultizer Prize plays were guaranteed productions, that would put a strange pressure on the committee that chooses from the future producers, and that pressure could eventually affect the outcome.
    Broadway is also the not the best venue for every piece, some productions would shrivel in such a large house.
    I do believe it would be a noble pursuit for a theatre outside of New York to vow to produce the winners each year, and probably would be more financially viable with a subscriber base.

  • Lauri L says:

    I had never thought of giving the Pulitzer winners an automatic Broadway run, but it’s a fantastic way to bring the exposure that the play deserves. A few questions would have to be answered. Which production company would automatically produce the play? Maybe a consortium of producers would join forces for this? Also, what if the show has already had a broadway run? Would it get another one now that it has won? And what about the case of musicals that win? That seems like a bigger deal to re-stage than a play.
    If the winner of So You Think You Can Dance can get an automatic ticket to Broadway, a Pulitzer Prize winner should too!

  • Francesca says:

    I don’t think Pulitzer winners should be guaranteed Broadway productions. In se cases, a smaller, more intimate house will fit the themes, moods, setting, etc. of the show better than a larger house. If a show is also kept at a smaller house, this might increase ticket demands differently and possibly elongate the run in that sense because a smaller house means less tickets.

    Broadway shows are very commercialized but that doesn’t mean that thought provoking, challenging, and rich theater won’t be done on the stages. Sometimes it takes a star vehicle to get seats in the theater, but producers should believe in the shows that may be harder to sell but artistically incredible.

  • Lydia says:

    Pulitzer Prize shows are certainly brilliant enough to be on Broadway, but since Broadway is commercialized and gets a lot of its revenue from tourism, the shows might not do well. Perhaps Broadway can hold a special event for these shows so they can get recognized.

  • Sarah P. says:

    I don’t think I’m totally comfortable with it being a guaranteed thing every time, but they should definitely be given some kind of production, if not Broadway (someone else brought up an excellent point that some plays really are more suited to small houses, like off-Bway)…and I would hope people would make an extra effort to put them on simply because they have demonstrated a certain level of qualified excellence as plays, although obviously creative teams and casting can make a huge difference, for good or ill.

  • Zach says:

    I don’t think anything can be a guaranteed production when it comes down to financial means and varied interests. A stamp of approval such as a Pulitzer is only a stamp, not a green light for production and guaranteed success.

  • Morgan M says:

    Not all off-Broadway plays can carry a Broadway production. Sometimes a big house ruins a show. So now, not all Pulitzer winners should have Broadway productions. But way more new plays should be produced on Broadway.

  • Aaron Deitsch says:

    I don’t think that Pulitzer winning plays should get automatic Broadway productions. While it is true that Broadway productions often lead to more national productions, there are so many other factors that go into the selection of the winning play that might not translate well on a larger stage. For example, this year’s winner was pretty much panned by critics and audiences alike, but the committee deemed it worthy anyway. Who should be forced to produce a Broadway production just because it wins a Pulitzer even if it has no chance at becoming a financial success?

  • Jared W says:

    In theory, yes. If a play is worthy of the American theatre’s highest honor, it deserves a Broadway production. Broadway theatres generally accommodate many more audience members per performance, and we should be doing everything possible to bring worthy new works to the largest audience possible. Furthermore, if Broadway wants to maintain its status as the top of the theatrical game, it needs to be producing challenging works along with the crowd pleasers.

    HOWEVER, in practice the problem of theatre availability makes that difficult. The last thing we want to do is put a Pulitzer Prize winning play in a house that is too big for it, and if a suitable sized house isn’t available I don’t think we should force a play into a venue that doesn’t show it off to its best effect.

  • Valerie D says:

    If that’s what gets plays to successfully play on Broadway, rather than just top-billing Hollywood stars – I am all about. The shows should be produced somewhere, but I don’t know that they need to be done on Broadway. I love the idea of starting a regional theatre that produces the last year’s Pulitzer prize winner every year…and may log that away for future use when I’m running my own company. However, I do feel that if investment criteria entered the picture, you might find some of the same things that affect Tony winners (that shows that have already closed by the time the Tony’s happen, those that aren’t deemed tour-able, etc. rarely win the big awards) might come into play for the Pulitzer. It is a wonderful award celebrating the written word, but it is the written word for performance – so ensuring that these plays are performed somewhere is essential, but maybe not that they play on Broadway.

  • Michael p says:

    There should be a theatre named Pulitzer that ONLY puts on Pulitzer Prize winning shows! I know I would be a subscriber!

  • Rick Shulman says:

    I don’t think a Pulitzer Prize should guarantee a Broadway production, but one would think that a play that wins the Pulitzer would get the kind of rave reviews that would promise a profitable Broadway run. Unfortunately, having worked on such a play and seeing it close at a loss, nothing is a sure thing on Broadway, not even a Pulitzer Prize winner.

  • Michael DiGaetano says:

    Nothing should have a guaranteed Broadway production, even shows I am writing! 🙂
    If the Pulitzer People want to find partners to fund it, sure… like Hallmark does for TV movies. But a great Off-Broadway production in a small theatre is as important as a show at the biggest Broadway house

  • Brian Weiner says:

    I think it’s actually more important to get a Pulitzer Prize play to the public, and often that method is through regional productions, tours, schools, and even filmed productions. While the big stage of Broadway is attractive and important, the exposure and messages of a Pulitzer resonate (or should resonate) much larger than a Broadway house.

  • Dana Vance says:

    It seems to me if the arts has any obligation at all, it would be to uplift and change the thought of our time and the times that follow. In that regard, we have an obligation to society to produce plays that change the way we think and live, for the better. So, yes, if a Pulitzer winning play will make us think, change or broaden our perceptions, then it is our duty to put it out there on the Broadway stage.

  • Yes, and it should be publicly funded Don’t get me wrong, I like to get me some Bard from time to time, but for public (i.e., Public) theater, Less Shakespeare, More Pulitzer

  • Claire says:

    I don’t think Pulitzer Prize winners should be guaranteed Broadway productions, for a lot of reasons. One big reason is that some plays are better suited for other venues (smaller, more intimate houses, for example).

  • In theory yes, just as all brilliant performances should win Tony awards and all talented actors should land Broadway jobs. Sadly that just isn’t the way the business works. Not all pulitzer prize winning plays are suitable for Broadway from a commercial perspective and unfortunately I don’t think Broadway is anything near a “national theatre” though I wish it was!

  • Brittany S says:

    I do not think that Pulitzer Prize-winning plays should be guaranteed Broadway productions. Like any contest or award, this honor is subjective, and will not guarantee positive public response or even interest. It seems to me that theatregoers who are interested in plays that win such awards will seek them out no matter the venue.

  • Already a WINNER!!! says:

    Do you think that Pulitzer Prize plays should get guaranteed Broadway productions? No. In fact, they would probably be better in more educational settings like Juilliard or maybe Yale?? At least they could find their target audiences and then critics/producers could decide if there was enough of a “product” to go forward to Broadway. Big-name actors could possibly be “invited” to the “student” productions to show interest in a future production (cue Social Media buzz).

    Is it important that they are seen on the theater’s biggest stage so that they are done in more places around the world? No. All that would show is that they have commercial prospects. Lincoln Center (or even City Center) could bring their large membership audiences to bear to generate international interest.

    Or does it matter? Intellectually-based theater doesn’t always do well on Broadway unless it has a name like Stoppard attached to it.

    Should Broadway be the commercial place it is, and not have an obligation to be a “national theater,” if you will?
    Absolutely correct, there is much too much money at stake to do experimental productions like The Public. The only reason I think DISGRACED got a straight shot is its resembance to successful 4-character comedies like GOD OF CARNAGE and last season’s THE REALISTIC JONESES.

    Leave Pulitzer’s progeny be Ken, he already had his Bdwy star turn in NEWSIES!! 😉

  • Ellen Orchid says:

    As long as Broadway is funded by individuals and group producers and not the government, I think those producers have the right to choose a play that appeals to their tastes and can make them some money. The Pulitzer prize-winning plays may be brilliant but not necessarily appeal to the masses or make money. I saw a Pulitzer-prize winning play a few years ago that personally didn’t float my boat. I was surprised. I do wish we had a national theater that could guarantee Pulitzer productions and take the pressure off private fund-raisers. That would be glorious. I hope one day we will have that. I envy England and its National Theater. But until then, the producers will choose what they want to finance.

  • Andy Monroe says:

    I don’t think Broadway should be the goal of every play. There are some plays that fit there and others that are better served by productions elsewhere. I think, as a community, we are too focused on Broadway being the “be all and end all” when there is often more exciting work being produced at other venues. As for there being some sort of “obligation” to present the Pulitzer-winning plays there, I think it brings up the question of WHO is going to produce? To my knowledge, Broadway producers are primarily commercial producers (and in fact, Broadway productions are commercial productions). Should commercial producers be obligated to produce something because it won an ARTISTIC award? It doesn’t seem right. If we had a National Theatre, perhaps, but since we don’t, I’m voting no.

  • Bryan Austermann says:

    While I think it would be wonderful if every Pulitzer Prize winner got to have a production on Broadway, I doubt it could be guaranteed. I just don’t know that every one would survive/thrive while on the Great White Way. Certain shows also aren’t built to be in a big house and wouldn’t work in a Broadway theater. For example, if Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812 had won the Pulitzer, it would be QUITE the undertaking to bring a show like that into a Broadway house. Given, that didn’t win the prize, but immersive theater such as that could find its way onto the Pulitzer list at any point.

  • Abe says:

    Pulitzer Prize winning plays should not be guaranteed Broadway productions any more than Tony winner plays should be guaranteed major feature film recordings or adaptations. As much as we’d hate to admit it, Broadway productions are first and foremost commercial ventures. Unless there is a nationally funded Broadway house, there is no way to compel a house a specific production, even if it is back/produced by national funding. The Beaumont (Lincoln Center) may be amenable to such an arrangement, but perhaps more suitable venues for such a “guarantee” program might be Ford’s Theatre or the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC.

  • Liz Wollman says:

    No, Pulitzer prize-winners should not be guaranteed Broadway productions, nor should Broadway be treated as the country’s “national” theater. Those who care to seek out Pulitzer winners will; those who don’t will not, whether the show makes it to Broadway or not.

  • Michael L. says:

    Yes, absolutely, if I’m the author!

    I’d love if we had a National Theatre (R.I.P. Tony Randall… and Harold Clurman), but as a staunch believer in economic freedom, “requiring” any producing agency to mount a play is both ethically wrong and financially foolhardy.

  • Rick Reynolds says:

    Should Pulitzer winners get a guaranteed Broadway run? No. There’s no guarantee that a Broadway production will be better presented than an off-Broadway one, and Broadway prices are getting so prohibitive that a good portion of the potential audience will never see it. Leave it to the producers (such as yourself) to choose the venue that is most viable for the piece.

  • J Maffei says:

    A play should be produced in a venue that suits it. Don’t legislate art. Let the work find it’s own footing.

  • David Rigano says:

    This makes me wonder, and forgive me if someone’s already brought it up; I didn’t see it in my quick perusal of the previous posts, but it makes me wonder if a play could obtain the Pulitzer from a production outside of New York. Does the committee look at plays only on or Off-Broadway?

    As far as an obligation to produce Pulitzer winners on Broadway, I don’t think so, though it’s a shame and a disgrace that we’re the only first world country without a National Theatre.

  • For me, the ideal purpose of theater is to express ideas, often uncomfortably, either the ideas or there expression. A given relative to expression of ideas is to land the message with the largest audience. It is lamentable that, for some, Broadway theater is less about expression of ideas, more about filthy lucre and (sometimes) crass commercialism. I suggest that a mandatory Broadway run for a Pulitzer Prize winner pays testament to the ideal of theater.

  • Beth D. says:

    No, I don’t think a Pulitzer Prize winner needs to get a guaranteed Broadway production. It would be nice if that was the way it worked, but I think the audience gets to dictate the demand. So, just because a work is a Pulitzer Prize winner doesn’t mean it will work well on Broadway.

  • LARRY ABRAMSKY says:

    NO.

  • Allison Martin says:

    I don’t think that Pulitzer prize winning plays should be guaranteed a Broadway run. Just because a play has a prestigious award doesn’t mean that it will be successful on Broadway. It shouldn’t be forced like that.

  • A good play is a good play is a good play…like a rose is a rose is a rose…

    Pulitzer or not a good play is a good play……..

  • Solange De Santis says:

    In practical terms, “guaranteeing” a production on Broadway doesn’t fly. Who would guarantee it when Broadway is made up of many producers with different interests? It’s called free enterprise. The Pulitzer committee isn’t in the business of contacting producers, even non-profits such as Lincoln Center Theater. If a producer announced such an initiative, it would be wholly voluntary. Maybe a philanthropic foundation could do such a thing, but they’re not usually in the business of staging plays. Yes, a national theater could pick up such an initiative but as many have noted, we don’t have one.

  • nancy says:

    The plays should be given a production if the show warrants a big house. A great play can run a long time at a smaller venue and build up an international reputation that way. But I do think we should have a national theater, where expression wouldn’t be limited to commercial potential only…and serious, innovative plays may also catch the eye of the tourist trade.

  • Melissa Bell says:

    Life has no guarantees so why should the Pulitzer? However, winning the Pulitzer should bring a lot of well-deserved attention to a play and I would think that people would be interested in seeing it. But I don’t think it needs to be “On Broadway” per se. I find Off Broadway theatres to be better venues for plays, as opposed to big musicals that play well on a larger stage and need a larger audience to pay the bills. Off Broadway theatres are intimate, often have better seats and are usually less expensive than a Broadway house. You feel more drawn into the action. When Tribes was playing at the Barrow Street Theatre, the first row was practically sitting in the dining room of the set. It was utterly entrancing!

  • Alyssa M says:

    If a play is good enough to be in Broadway then it should be, winning the Pulitzer is not a guarentee that it should be on Broadway

  • Jeryl M. says:

    If a play is a good enough to win a pulitzer, it should be good enough to find a home on Broadway.

  • Sam Gonzalez says:

    Ken, you know better than anyone that Broadway is now more about the business of producing a hit than the business of producing art. A Pulitzer is recognition for excellence in the field. Let’s face it, there are plenty of successful shows that are far from art and far too many unsuccessful shows that warrant longer runs. To guarantee a Broadway (therefore commercial) run for all Pulitzer Prize-winning shows would not only be potentially setting the show up for failure (not all winners are commercial crowd-pleasers) but may also influence the Pulitzer committee in their selection, rather than judging the piece strcitly on its merit.

    I think the better question is why aren’t we doing more to support the off-Broadway scene which is clearly the primary incubator for American playwrights, composers and lyricists. Theaters like Playwrights Horizons, LCT, The Public, Second Stage and MTC are all non-profit houses and deserve the credit for bringing some of the most important works of our generation to the stage. Smart theater-goers should be worried less about what reality show celebrity is taking over the next role on Broadway and support the companies that are the life-blood of American theater. Rather than guaranteeing a commercial run, an award should be given to the theaters producing the winners and finalists so that they can continue to foster American works worthy of this honor.

  • Stephen says:

    I agree with many of the posts here – I don’t think a logical extension of the prize should be a definite Broadway production because sometimes it can hurt the play more than help it. For example, “Anna In The Tropics” is a fantastic play but there’s a perception attached to it now sadly that because it didn’t do well on Broadway that maybe it’s not as good and therefore not done very much. I don’t think “The Flick” would have worked as well on Broadway, and, because the PH production was not on the radar as much as a Broadway production would have been (audiences walking out aside), it has a better chance of having a longer life now which should be the endgame of any production – a longer life, not just a possible quick burst on Broadway.

  • R. Scott Williams says:

    You mean winning the Pulitzer Prize does not make a play famous enough? Only a Broadway production brings sufficient attention to a theatre piece? That premise is flawed. The longest running musical in American history, The Fantasticks, has never seen a Broadway production, and the longest running American play, Shear Madness, has never even seen a New York production. The belief that a Broadway production is the only way, or even the best way, to bring attention to a play is outdated. Granted, Pulitzer winners deserve to become widely known, but why stop at requiring a Broadway production? Why not immediately film the winner as a movie, and require that it be widely released, thus exposing it to millions more viewers than the mere thousands available to see it on Broadway? Take this a step further, and require the play be broadcast on television, insuring even more millions of viewers. No, an automatic Broadway production is not necessary.

  • I for one would like to see more thoughtful ,intelligent works on Broadway. The problem is to guarantee a return on investment, producers put names in their productions who are often cast for their name value rather than being right for the roles. For the first time in years we are having one of the best presentations of plays on the Great White Way, and I hope it is a sign of things to come .

  • David A. says:

    The Pulitzer prize is the Pulitzer prize. The Tony is the Tony, the Oscar is the Oscar and so on and so on.
    A few people, not an almighty heavenly being, decided the winner. A prize such as this prestigious one, is still a prize and not a knighthood, just a very lovely stamp of approval. Whether the Pulitzer prize winner plays off or on Broadway, people who want to see it will go to see it if they choose to. The Fantasticks has been playing Off Broadway for over five decades, has never won any major awards, never moved to the Helen Hayes theater, but has successfully been produced all around the world, in a dozen different languages. Apparently, people still are interested in attending. Wherever any award winning production plays, I’m certain its producer will rightfully take advantage of the win in block letters in all the advertising.
    Bingo!

  • Andrew Joy says:

    There is no reason to put a show in a venue for which it is not well suited. It would be bad producing practices to put on a show just because it has one thing going for it (whether that is a Prize, a star or an out of-town-review). If it has many things that make it a fit production for Broadway, then by all means lets get it there!

    Having said that, I think that it is important to continue to push Broadway to be a place to discover new and innovative theatre. Things that inspire people to think and act. I love the feel good shows that give us an escape from reality, I don’t want them to go anywhere. But let’s find a nice balance.

  • Keni Fine says:

    The comments are very thoughtful and present many pertinent considerations.

    How about a new contest: “So You Think You Can Write A Pulitzer Prize Winner!” Plays are written, judged by a Broadway-worthy panel, and the one deemed “Most Likely To Win A Pulitzer” is given a run for the money.
    Or, if it’s more like The Voice, a panel of producers can each pick their team or their one playwright, put on a production and see whose play does the best with the audience. Say, that’s kind of like… producing.

  • Matthew Turkle says:

    I believe Pulitzer winners should definitely be honored with a Broadway run (at least). A huge honor like this deserves amazing recognition and accessibility to the public. Perhaps an agreement of sorts should be drawn up for future winners outlining several options for the production to run (i.e. regionally, Kennedy Center, Broadway, Lincoln Center).

  • Kate says:

    I don’t know about a guaranteed Broadway production for Pulitzer winners, but I do think that, while Off-Broadway work is important, Broadway has an obligation to put on new plays of extraordinary caliber. Broadway is culture setting for the country and the world in a way that Off-Broadway just isn’t, and it’s often the only theatre that non-New Yorkers see. Broadway creates American cultural legacy, which gives it great responsibility! @kateophalen

  • Brian says:

    I don’t think they should be guaranteed a Broadway production. I think that it is important that these plays are seen, but I think that if Producers agree that the plays that win need to be seen, then they will put them on Broadway.

  • Natalia O. says:

    I wouldn’t say that Pulitzer Prize wining plays should be guarunteed a spot on Broadway, but I dont think they should be strongly considered. Broadway should be a melting pot with numerous options for various audiences. It is important that among the fun and flashy productions being produced, there are also shows with hard hitting topics that make the audience think beyond the walls of the theater.

  • Alexa B. says:

    Not all plays are meant for a Broadway stage! And not all Pulitzer prize winners are commercial enough to get people to come see it.

    Maybe there should be a specific off-Broadway house that always does the Pulitzer prize winners.

  • ECP says:

    No to a guaranteed Broadway mounting. Get over the Broadway-as-cultural-event-destination notion. (The Brits could probably devise a marketable approach, being national theater-supporters, and thinking-outside-the-proscenium in engaging audiences in cinemas with filmed stage plays.) Perhaps the Tony Awards should consider/present some type of recognition leading up to the Awards telecast, for example, a staged reading? Or even an excerpt performed on the telecast.

  • Brian S. says:

    I would have to say “yes.” To me if a Play is recognized at such a level it should be worth investing in and producing on Broadway. As a former student I remember reading a variety of plays that were “Pulitzer Prize” winning and some we had the opportunity to see as a class, but not many. Just think how many more tickets could be sold especially to “groups” as part of their course study. Add a talk back after the performance for the group and you’ve got yourself a HIT, even if it is only with students.

    I do think that Broadway still has to be a “commercial” place as it is in today world since the adapted “box office hits” with “stars” are the ones that I feel usually have great advanced ticket sales, such as It’s Only A Play (which was TERRIFIC by the way!)

  • Phillip L. says:

    1. TELEVISION
    I think Pulitzer Prize plays should be filmed and presented on television – such as the PBS series Theater Close-Up or Live From Lincoln Center. They are an important part of our cultural heritage and deserves to be seen by as many people as possible.

    2. NEA
    Also, I think it is also important they get proper Broadway productions as well. If no private producers are willing to produce them, then the National Endowment for the Arts maybe with help from private foundations should mount and tour them across the country.

  • Amy says:

    No. The Pulitizer Prize is an award for plays, not the production of a play. A play could read amazingly but a production could still fail. To get to broadway, the production must be as good as the play as written itself; that should be the deciding factor for the staging of any play on Broadway, not the awards the play has already won.

  • EllenFD says:

    Absent an actual “national theater” funded by the government and philanthropists, Broadway and other commercial producers are under no compunction to risk millions of dollars, no matter how important or artistically worthy the play is–or whether it won or was a finalist for the Pulitzer. What’s more, politics can be a factor in what play gets a Pulitzer, so judging what is the absolute best and worthy of being seen by the masses is quite a subjective enterprise.

  • Kyrsten Louchen says:

    Although I’d like to say that it shouldn’t matter where a play runs if it’s good than it will have the theatrical life it deserves, but sadly that isn’t true. Broadway is theater mecca and has the attention of theater fans all over the world. Having a play run on Broadway (especially modern Broadway in which ever plan has a movie star in as a lead) gives that play more press than any playwright could ever hope for and give that play a longer shelf life. I am very surprised that a producer wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to put a play with this much press attention on a stage in NYC. As someone involved in community theater (which is also a business trying to sell tickets) I know that their show selection is strictly shows that have been successful on Broadways, because those are names people recognize.
    I think Broadway does have obligation to a give any worthy play a run so it will live on in regional and community theaters.

  • Mary Ann says:

    I don’t think a play automatically deserves to be on Broadway because it won a Pulitzer, but in many cases it deserves to be. I think Ayad Akhtar is an amazing writer and Disgraced is definitely deserving of a theatrical production. I hope I get the opportunity to see it!

  • Noah Befeler says:

    The problem with that is, who gets to produce it? I’m sure after Disgraced won the Pulitzer, there were a lot of producers trying to get their hands on it. So, I don’t think it should be guaranteed, but highly considered.

  • Linda says:

    First of all, not all great plays get Pulitzers, and just because a play has a Pulitzer doesn’t mean it’s the best in a given year. I don’t necessarily thing a show should get a Broadway production just because it has a Pulitzer, but if someone is willing to produce it, why not? A Broadway production, like a Pulitzer, gives a play exposure, and even if it isn’t a hit, it will more than likely get a lot of play in regional theaters. With today’s announcement about Hand to God opening on Broadway, I’m curious if the types of plays produced on Broadway and what we think of as plays that should be on Broadway.

  • Nelson E. Montoya says:

    The Pulitzer Prize doesn’t always go to the most deserving theater piece for example, Harvey beating out The Glass Menagerie or in 2011 when Clybourne Park won. Winning The Pulitzer also doesn’t give a show more commercial appeal or a bump at the boxoffice like in the case of Next to Normal. I believe all brilliantly written plays should be seen on the stage, but a large part of of the equation is money. It is great that we have non-profits like MTC and The Public that nurture new playwrights. In the case of Disgraced I think the subject matter is something we should all be discussing and I am glad the producers were bold enough to bring it to Broadway.

  • It would be worth exploring the creation of a non-profit entity that would partner with commercial producers to help defray costs for a Pulitzer winner to get a better shot of being produced on Broadway, possibly in a limited run format that would also be tied to a regional production agreement and/or a broadcast. If Broadway is not feasible, then still a similar arrangement for broadcast.

  • Monica Raymond says:

    Broadway houses are good for certain kinds of shows–big shows with immense popular appeal.

    A Pulitzer prize winning script should be a great script, but it could be esoteric, controversial, intimate, require something site specific–it could be the best written script of the year without necessarily appealing to the huge tourist audiences at expensive ticket prices that the Broadway theater needs to sustain itself.

  • Paula says:

    Quality qualifies a play for Broadway.

  • Jared Goerke says:

    Do you think that Pulitzer Prize plays should get guaranteed Broadway productions?
    I do not. I think they should be highly considered for a broadway run and take it from there.

    Is it important that they are seen on the theater’s biggest stage so that they are done in more places around the world?

    Though I think its important for it to be on the stage I feel that a world wide audience would not appreciate the culture in a play of this sort (Being that the big money makers are just designed to make money not always a culture show)

    Or does it matter? Should Broadway be the commercial place it is, and not have an obligation to be a “national theater,” if you will?

    Broadway should not be a commercial place period. Once it stops being treated as such maybe we can get another golden age.

  • LARRY ABRAMSKY says:

    NO FREE PASS.

  • Joe G says:

    Before answering this, I would inquire about how works are selected for Pulitzer consideration in the first place… Perhaps this information would better inform this question.

    Even though I agree that there is something strange about Pulitzer winning works not always getting a Broadway platform, I ultimately don’t believe it should be entitled to a Broadway guarantee because it has received this award in the first place.

  • Christine Garfinkel says:

    Yes, I think they should. I think the two best examples of why are RENT and Next to Normal. Just imagine if these two spectacular musicals never made it to Broadway! So many people would have been deprived of the chance to see, enjoy and learn from these two spectacular shows!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

X