The Play’s The Thing winner to close West End run early:
On The Third Day - the winning play from Channel 4’s series The Play’s The Thing - will close after only seven weeks, having played to average houses of around 50% during its time at the New Ambassadors Theatre.
It now finishes its West End run on July 29, not September 2 as originally announced. The production, which received its world premiere on June 15, is produced by Sonia Friedman and written by first-time playwright Kate Betts.
The accompanying four-part series followed the search for a new, first-time, British playwright. Channel 4 received more than 2000 submissions from previously un-produced writers. The panel of judges - Friedman, literary agent Mel Kenyon and actor Neil Pearson - whittled down submissions to one winning play which was eventually produced at the New Ambassadors.
Friedman commented: “Producing a play by a first-time writer in the West End was always going to be a fascinating challenge, which is why I agreed to participate in the Channel 4 series The Play’s The Thing. Plays produced in smaller subsidised theatres which run for six weeks and are seen by smaller audiences than the ones enjoyed by On The Third Day are routinely seen as a success. That is why I believe that a seven-week run for a production of a new play by a first-timer writer in the West End playing to audiences of 51% should be seen as an achievement.
“I would also like to add that The Play’s The Thing has been a very useful exercise in stimulating a debate about new work by new writers in the West End. I am very grateful to Channel 4 for devoting so much of their mainstream schedule to a programme about theatre, the West End and new writing.”
Writer Betts added: “It was an honour to have my play chosen as the winning entry for The Play’s The Thing and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with Sonia Friedman, Steven Pimlott, Robert Delamere and with a cast and technical team that were so completely devoted to and enthusiastic about On The Third Day. I have learned a lot from these professionals and this valuable experience will not only help me with my future writing but will, I hope, encourage, inform and stimulate other new writers out there who are passionate about writing for the theatre.”
END QUOTE
Personally I think it did well to run for seven weeks. I wonder if those in charge will now reconsider, in hindsight, their choice of play?
Poor Betts... To have a 'close' so public at the start of your career.
I think you're right tonyuk, the choice of play must come into question. It may have been what SF wanted on a stage, but it appears that it wasn't what the paying public wanted.
It's not uncommon for a play to close earlier than expected and then go on and be revived to an even greater success later. It certainly happened to Beckett, Pinter, John Osborne and Tom Stoppard...this list could go on and on and on...
I am now determined than ever to go and see it.
I have no crystal ball, so of course I'm unable to predict what Kate Betts's future is likely to be or whether or not the earlier closure of her play is likely to influence literary competitions for generations to come.
I wish Kate good luck in the future. She has had her play put on in the West End and her name up in lights and nothin' and nobody can ever take that away from her!
I think it's a good idea to go and see it although I was glad that I got cheap tickets. If tickets are available for the Q&A session then that might be worthwhile, it would be interesting to speak to Sonia. I'm not sure if it's going to happen here but when I've gone to Q&A's before after a show the actors have also been there.
Given this latest news I'm sure the Q & A session will be very interesting!
I'm curious as to how this whole enterprise has been backed financially.
I know that private investors were involved, but given that the original idea came from Channel Four, do they recompense the investors so that they can at least break even?
It seems a bit unfair for the backers to make a loss, backing what was essentially part of a reality TV project.
I'm assuming that the play has not broken even, given that it only played to half-full houses and will end a month early.
This bit interested me - SF said it would be more difficult getting her usual backers interested in this project (not sure if that was in the prog or on one of her blogs) So i wondered if C4 was picking up the bill.
'All we see and seem is but a dream within a dream' Poe
I think if one invests in a play and it doesn't show a profit, then like any commercial enterprise, you've lost your money...it's a speculation like the lottery, not like buying a premium bond.
I seem to remember one- rather unconvincing- scene where Sonia talked to a potential investor- I would guess, that in reality, Sonia would have pushed the fact that the premiere of the play would be preceded by nearly four hours of promotional TV- how many plays get that?
It is possible that there is money from C4 going into this, and it's even possible that C4 may have underwritten the whole shebang.
It was stated in the programme that the backers were funding the production (not C4). It was also stated that if it didn't break even (which few plays do - even in the West End) that the backers would lose thier money.
C4 paid for the production of the programme and a few subsidies (Travel and Subsistance to enable filming).
In the guardian online today there is another article about this closing early and a bit saying that Channel 4 confirm that there are no plans for a second series, it's supposed to be a one off. I'll try for a link but not sure how to do that.
The interesting bit I noticed in that article earlier this morning was that they say 'half empty houses', as a negative. Now although that doesn't surprise me, for lots of reasons, in many theatres a half-house, on average, ain't a bad result - so surely they were half full? Sonia quotes 51% which is a nice touch!.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Kate Betts now everyone knows her name. I hope her future stuff is given a fair reception and judged on it's merits.
'All we see and seem is but a dream within a dream' Poe
I’ve been pointed in the direction of the Guardian regarding theatre on several occasions now. And I’m now finding it hard to recall anything that I have read there that is positive (but then again, the mind appears to prefer to linger on the negative rather than the positive).
I haven’t seen the show, but from the programme I knew that it wasn’t going to be a show that I would want to see. When the reviews came in, I felt assured that I had made the right decision.
But then I remembered my time as a journalist.
Spin.
If it bleeds it leads.
You’re only as good as your last article…
It’s in the interest of a journalist to make a story that has a minor negative appear to be a catastrophe. Why? Because you want people to read your by-line, know your name, so that you maintain employment. And who wants to read an article that say ‘play did not too bad’?
I hope for Kate’s sake that she has an agent (does anyone know if Mel picked her up?). Having a play pulled under such a spotlight requires a great deal of positive marketing for the playwright, plus being put in contact with the right people to ensure that a second production (in a smaller venue, one would hope) becomes feasible – rather than leave her like a contestant from Big Brother 3 and let her wither because she has no TV interest anymore.
Playfull has already asked the questions I should like to ask, but I shall add my sincere congratulations. It is clear from the TV programme that you worked very hard to achieve what you have.
I particularly enjoyed the moment when you stood in front of the theatre and looked up at your name: "I've never seen my name so huge"
Wonderful.
Sluggard that I am, I'm making plans to see your play before it closes.
Btw, I'm sure you are a generous person and able to forgive some of the nonsense written about the play both in the press and here on this forum.
Just thought I would join in with a few thoughts. Saw the play on Saturday and I thought it was outstanding. It was intellectual, witty, spellbinding and moving. The audience were captivated throughout. The play is NOT the issue! It was a masterpiece. The issue appears to be a slightly strange timetable (World Cup? Wimbledon? The hottest summer?)and the "musical only" nature of The West End, which was always going to ball and chain the play. My biggest frustration is with SF, however. I understand how difficult financing such a project must be, but Ms F declared that this was a CHALLENGE to The West End and I am sure she is not short of contacts. She wanted to dream the dream etc etc. Why then is she not fighting for this play to stay where it belongs? Business is business and all that, but I actually hoped that she was going to put on the gloves here and shout loudly about one hell of a fine play! She wanted to challenge The West End. Come on then Sonia! Challenge it!
I am here because I feel very strongly about this. I thought that Sonia may have just had a genuine belief about something and actually, as usual, money rules. Not a writer. Just an idealist!
