THEATER / JAN HERMAN : Backstage Money Matters : Cheap Production Unfair to ‘Lady’; Another Plan to Revive GroveShakespeare

Second thoughts on first nights . . .

It was hard to tell who was worse off, those who remembered the original production of “My Fair Lady” and wanted to rekindle their love affair with the show, or those who never saw it on stage before, except perhaps in an amateur or bus-and-truck-stop revival.

In either case they couldn’t help getting a distorted impression of one of Broadway’s greatest musicals from last week’s national touring version at the Orange County Performing Arts Center in Costa Mesa.

When Eliza sang “I Could Have Danced All Night,” for example, she did not do it as it should have been done, in Henry Higgins’ library, but in front of a closed curtain--”in one,” as they say--to cover a change of scenery (what little there was).

Thus, like much else in this purposely stripped-down production, the classic show’s most memorable song was turned into a mere throwaway.

Even so, thousands of theatergoers eagerly plunked down more than $1 million to see “My Fair Lady” at the center, a one-week box-office record that testifies to the remarkable strength of the local theater market (despite a tight economy) and to the marquee value of star performer Richard Chamberlain.

To be precise, the center grossed $1,025,644--all in single-ticket sales--breaking the record for eight non-subscribed performances of a Broadway musical set two years ago by “Les Miserables” ($922,571). The record for eight subscribed performances was set last May by a Liza Minelli revue ($1,067,227).

To this theatergoer, however, last week’s “My Fair Lady” was worth about two cents.

From the moment the orchestra struck up what should have been a glorious overture, the famous music sounded pale. That was unfortunate but at least unintentional. The orchestra--more like a tin-eared pit band--just didn’t have it. Much worse was the effort to “freshen” the show by going against the grain--playing up the comedy and the lesser tunes, playing down the time-honored hits and, except for the scene at the races, virtually dispensing with the old-fashioned grandeur that the original “My Fair Lady” prized.

Drenched in the Edwardian glow of pre-World War I London, the original production had a sumptuous scenic design on two revolving turntables. The fabled ballroom scene for Eliza’s debut in society epitomized romantic glamour. The ballroom itself had two dozen chandeliers, the most used on a Broadway stage since “The Great Waltz,” a ‘30s spectacle about the Strauss family.

And what of this production?

Eliza descended a curving white staircase into a ballroom that resembled nothing so much as an underground disco done up ‘70s-style with mirrored walls and black flooring. The design was so ungainly and perverse that the company of dancers--representing the cream of the diplomatic corps and their respectable fashion plates--seems to be waltzing beneath a basement stairwell.

Let’s not even get into the individual performances, except to say they were all professional though not particularly memorable.

In the meantime, there is no arguing with success.

“Obviously, it was a popular show,” a center spokesman said earlier this week. “The 97% paid attendance tells you that.”

He added, however, that it would be wrong to suggest that playgoers are unfazed by the tight economy.

“The buying pattern for single-ticket patrons has changed,” he noted. “This was a late buy. The bulk of the ticket sales came in the last two weeks before the opening.”

*

TA-DAH: The continuing saga of GroveShakespeare reached a new plateau earlier this week in Garden Grove when city officials heard the latest plan to resuscitate the moribund theater company, which manages the city-owned Gem Theatre and Festival Amphitheatre.

The plan, boiled down to its essence, is that the Grove hopes to mount a bare-bones season in 1994 on a drastically cut budget. It also hopes to pay off creditors over the next five years at 20% on the dollar in an out-of-court settlement to be worked out with the help of a pro bono “attorney specializing in solvency.”

The key word here is “hopes,” given the plan’s projected fund-raising goal of $65,000 between now and mid-November. The last time Grove officials tried to raise a similar sum of money to mount “King Lear,” they failed and had to cancel the 1993 season. That was in June.

Kevin Cochran, who will become the Grove’s interim producing director on Monday, presented the plan to the Joint Economic Development Committee (made up of the Garden Grove City Council and other officials).

He said the Grove wants to stage a 1994 season of five plays running three weeks each. About 1,400 season ticket holders are still owed five plays on their 1993 subscriptions.

Cochran has been working as an unpaid consultant to the Grove for a few weeks. The salary for his new full-time job was not disclosed. Cochran is an associate of the Grove’s former general manager, Charles Johanson, who resigned in October and is now executive director of the Los Angeles Gay Men’s Chorus.

The 1994 seasonal budget projection, which Cochran estimated at roughly $472,000, would be met as follows: $85,000 in subscriptions (1992 subscription income came to $149,841); $200,000 in single-ticket sales; $37,000 in miscellaneous revenue, and a total of $150,000 in charitable contributions.

Cochran’s presentation Tuesday went over well with friendly City Council members. They turned back an effort to have the Grove’s management contract of the two city-owned theaters rescinded.

But it was clear from the proceedings that nobody in the meeting--neither Cochran nor city officials--had an accurate knowledge of significant financial details that led to the Grove’s failure.

For example, when Councilman Bruce A. Broadwater asked what had happened to a $250,000 cash grant awarded to the Grove by the Leo Freedman Foundation in mid-December, 1991--implying that the theater management spent itself into oblivion in 1992--Cochran explained that the entire grant had been used to pay debts piled up from previous years.

Anyone who cares to look at the Grove’s annual report for the year ending Dec. 31, 1991--the most recent on file with the attorney general of California--can see that Cochran’s claim is incorrect.

According to the report, signed by the Grove’s former managing director, Barbara G. Hammerman, the troupe had total liabilities of only $55,831 at that time. It also had “current unrestricted funds” of $182,545 and additional “restricted funds” of $11,036.

Thus, the Grove was in a better cash position as a result of the grant than it ever had been. By June 1993, however, Grove management not only had gone through that money in little more than one season but it also had built up new liabilities of at least $259,000.