“Beauty and the Beast” opens at the Palace Theatre this week, and not since Disney built a theme park outside Paris and insisted that French people smile for a living have so many people been so skeptical about one of the company’s new ventures. At $11.9 million, “Beauty” is the most expensive show in Broadway history (“Miss Saigon” cost $10.9 million). In Hollywood, that wouldn’t cover Schwarzenegger’s special effects, but in the permanent floating crap game of Broadway, “Beauty” is a big risk.
And the musical isn’t the company’s only Broadway proposition. In February, Disney signed a $29 million deal to lease and renovate the abandoned New Amsterdam Theatre, with plans to produce a constant flood of shows there. With its own theater, its Hollywood bankroll and a notoriously bare-knuckles business style, Disney could transform Broadway from a Mickey Mouse industry into a Magic Kingdom. Or. the whole thing could flop. “It’s frightening. For a corporation that is extraordinarily image-conscious, this tiny business can hurt you badly,” said Jim Freydberg, who coproduced “Largely New York” in 1989, with Disney as an investor. “Disney has never rolled the dice like this.”
But if the show itself is any indication, Disney could rule New York longer than Mario Cuomo. The trick was how to transfer the animated film of “Beauty and the Beast,” which has grossed $345 million worldwide, to live theater. In the story, a prince, cast under a spell, is turned into a beast, and his castle’s servants into household objects. How could the cartoon kitchen-cabinet chorus-anthropomorphized teapots, candlesticks, clocks-come alive onstage? Well, somehow it works. The costumes are dazzling and witty, from the real flames in Lumiere’s hands to Chip, the cup-and-saucer boy who is literally reduced to a talking head. The show-stopping “Be Our Guest” number-a fantasia of spinning salt-and-pepper shakers, twirling flatware and dancing crockery-is pure Busby Berkeley Along with eight new Menken songs-one with lyrics by the late Howard Ashman and the rest by Tim Rice-“Beauty” occasionally achieves what “The Red Shoes” and “The Goodbye Girl” could not: it steps out of the shadow of the wonderful film that inspired it.
The question is whether this G-rated extravaganza will recoup its hefty investment, even with about $6 million in advance ticket sales. Disney says it will take about a year to earn back its $11.9 million. But they’re already talking about road shows to Europe, Asia and South America. “They are sitting in the war room with a very big map and seeing ‘Beauty and the Beast’ all over the world,” says Margo Lion, an independent producer. “Broadway is just the window display.”
And as anyone who’s plunked down $24 for a magic talking “Beauty” mirror knows, Disney offsets a project’s cost with spinoff merchandise. The Palace lobby looks like Macy’s-enough “Beauty” mugs, hats and T shirts for every third grader in America. “Did you see the Mall of America? After it opens it’s going to get worse,” said producer Hal Luftig. “But there’s a buzz about the show.” Outside of the odd “Cats” sweat shirt, Broadway producers have never known how to market shows. Many take months to release a cast album; Disney sold its $20 “Beauty” CD at the first preview.
Still, what if the critics cream “Beauty”? “I would be devastatedly surprised, but it would only increase my resolve. We’re steamrolling ahead,” said Disney chairman Michael Eisner. Though a native New Yorker who grew up on “Oklahoma!” and “Kiss Me, Kate,” he avoided the theater as business. “My sense was that Broadway was risky and stifling.” But in 1991, when the movie “Beauty and the Beast” opened, Frank Rich of The New York Times proclaimed it the best musical score of the year-onstage or off. Eisner, who believes that Disney’s future lies in nonmovie entertainment like the Mighty Ducks hockey team, changed his tune. “I finally think it’s good business,” he says.
The lavish production has stoked rumors that the real cost of “Beauty” is closer to $20 million, though Disney vehemently denies it. (Yet two months ago Disney Studios chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg was claiming the musical was “not remotely close to being one of the most expensive shows in history,” which the company now concedes.) While some producers fear that “Beauty” will drive up costs, others welcome Disney “We’re very close to a death knell.” says producer Manny Azenberg. “The cost of a show, ticket prices, unions-if we want to exist, we have to their muscle, Disney can do that.” Union contracts requiring “minimum” numbers of workers have strangled the theater industry. Though Disney failed to sidestep those contracts with “Beauty,” the New Amsterdam Theatre is open for negotiation. If Disney wins concessions, other theater owners may try to renegotiate their deals.
And if “Beauty” is a smash, other studios are likely to follow. Paramount has already invested in the $12 million Broadway-bound “Sunset Boulevard.” Steven Spielberg is putting about $100,000 a year into the off-Broadway theater Playwrights Horizons, to commission plays and secure first-read rights. Though producer Scott Rudin (“Sister Act”) lost an estimated $1.2 million on the flop “Face Value,” he’s now plunged almost $1 million into the new Stephen Sondheim musical “Passion.”
But with all the Hollywood money around, no one is asking the most important question-what’s art got to do with it? “Beauty” may introduce a new generation to the theater, but at heart it’s simply a movie on a stage. If kids grow up thinking theater is just live special effects, does that really help the future of Broadway? Though Disney is rumored to be planning more theatrical spinoffs (one may be “Mary Poppins”), Eisner insists they’ll ultimately stage original productions. But until then, the Disney Broadway kingdom will be something less than magic.
