Re the New York Times article on why Leap of Faith failed. They have all sorts of wags saying all sorts of things giving all sorts of reasons, all of them based on this new "movie business" model of how to do Broadway - they didn't have a big enough box-office draw star (movie business model), the film brand it was based on wasn't current enough (movie business model) - all of it twaddle and ridiculous and while they are spouting this "knowledgeable" tripe they keep neglecting to mention one word - ONE word - and that word is: ONCE. Based on a movie few saw and know. No stars. Small. And: A hit.
Leap of Faith failed for one reason - it was not good. It wasn't good in LA thanks to a director who doesn't have a clew how to guide the team writing a new musical and whose ideas about this musical were pedestrian, and from what I've read and been told, it was worse in New York, thanks to a director imposing some weird concepts on the show. Yes, they did work on the show between LA and NY but they didn't do the right work, if there WAS right work with this particular show. And they would have known that if the work had actually been done during the LA run, which is where work SHOULD have been done. Little to no work was done. So, they do the work in a vacuum, and the composer tweets how marvelous it all is because he has lost all objectivity, and they invite all their pals to a workshop of the new version, just like they invited all their friends to the workshop of the OLD version, with the same result: Their friends clap them on the back, say GREAT show don't change a thing, and they all believe because they want to believe - especially apt with a show called Leap of Faith. And IF someone had some notes you can bet that the producers and/or writers didn't listen, thinking, "But everyone else loved it."
They found out differently in previews, but in previews it is too late to make sweeping changes, thanks to the other problem new shows now face - they are slaves to their technology. When Sugar was doing its out of town tryout, at some point Mr. Merrick had the sets thrown out and completely redesigned - WHILE THE SHOW WAS RUNNING in the few cities it was trying out in. You could do that then - you can't do it now. That's why the out of town tryout was so necessary and important - they could work on the fixing of the show in a tense, heated atmosphere where they HAD to do the work, HAD to put in massive changes, and could then see IMMEDIATELY what effect they were having on a REAL audience not filled with back-clapping cronies.
Leap of Faith never had a chance because in eight years of the development process, no one figure out how to tell the story well. It's really that simple. Would Hugh Jackman have helped the show limp along for a while - sure. Would a Joe Shmo in the lead have been fine if the show were brilliant and delivering - absolutely. In the end, one has to blame the creative team for not solving things, two directors (more actually) who kept taking them into wrong places, and, most importantly, an idea that was perhaps wrong-headed to begin with - turning a middling and not successful film into a big musical - the appeal was surely not a reason to do it - that appeal being, "Wow, we can have all this gospel music, that always brings people to their feet."
But it's easier to blame all the wrong things. The team responsible for Leap of Faith have talent. Its lead producers are like all of today's lead producers - and to be kind let's just say they are not David Merrick. They don't know how to talk to a creative team to get them to do what's necessary - you can't always be sweet about these things, even if the creative team is made up of successful people - in the end, all that matters is fixing your show.
