It is unfortunate that he now faces, in Turley’s estimation, likely blacklisting in the industry as he seeks new roles and productions, but it is entirely his own fault. Surely he noticed how “Snow White” star Rachel Zegler’s controversial comments helped cost Disney mega-millions at the box office. Sometimes the nature of one’s job makes keeping controversial opinions to yourself, or at least off of Twitter/”X” and Facebook. Read the room. Know your audience.
Or, if you are determined to take an unpopular stand, show some integrity and guts. Geno quickly groveled an apology to try to save his job and career. You know, like Galileo.
“I wish to extend my most sincere apologies to everyone impacted by my words. While I never intended to inflict harm, I recognize that the impact of my statements is what matters most. I am fully committed to listening, educating myself, and elevating my standards. I will work tirelessly to earn the opportunity to make things right.”
If a PR consultant wrote that bilge, he or she should be sued for malpractice. It is a Level 7 Apology on the EA Apology Scale at best: “A forced or compelled [apology] in which the individual (or organization) apologizing may not sincerely believe that an apology is appropriate, but chooses to show the victim or victims of the act inspiring it that the individual responsible is humbling himself and being forced to admit wrongdoing by the society, the culture, legal authority, or an organization or group that the individual’s actions reflect upon or represent.” The last part of his grovel is particularly nauseating: “Just tell me what you want me to think, and I promise I’ll think that way!”
Personally, no job and no amount of money is so important that I would subjugate myself to the opinions of others like that.
Ethics Alarms 
What came first:
1) musical theater’s loss of appeal to the mainstream public
2) musical theater’s embrace of largely gay/transgressive-coded storylines or storylines subtly pushing sexual-deviance
That’s the correct order.
Ethically, the concern is when a “firing principle” is applied selectively to one viewpoint but not another. Someone want to speak to that? Regarding Michael West’s point, as usual, you’re safe to completely ignore it. Musical theater (Broadway, London’t West End) is financially booming, often selling out and breaking box office records. A still-growing multi-billion-dollar industry despite rising costs. Smaller theaters, however, are not doing as well.
Only a midwit would have read my question as “making a point”.
And here we are.
Quick google search results (links omitted):
Broadway theater is generating record revenue but remains financially fragile for most productions.
Overall industry performance
Broadway’s 2024–25 season grossed $1.893 billion from 14.66 million attendees, the highest in history, with audiences filling 91.2% of seats. The 2025–26 season-to-date gross is $1.588 billion, up from $1.486 billion a year earlier, showing continued strong attendance and revenue growth. This rebound follows a steep drop after the 2020–21 pandemic shutdown, when grosses fell over $1 billion and many shows failed to recoup costs.
Profitability challenges
Despite these highs, only about 10% of new musicals since the pandemic have been profitable, far below the historical average. Since the pandemic, 46 new musicals have opened at a combined production cost of roughly $800 million, but only three have recouped their investments. Weekly operating costs for many shows now exceed $800,000, covering salaries, marketing, theater rental, and maintenance. Rising production budgets — with the average up $1 million in recent years — and high talent fees continue to strain returns.
Industry outlook
While Broadway’s box office and attendance are at record levels, the financial model is unsustainable without structural changes. Industry leaders warn that without reforms to theater owner deals, shorter “open run” models, and more realistic budgets, the sector risks another downturn. Streaming and other revenue streams are not enough to offset the high costs of live theater.
Bottom line
Broadway is profitable on a macro level — the industry is making record money — but most individual productions are not. The sector is recovering attendance and revenue, but the underlying economics remain precarious, and profitability for new shows is still a major challenge.
Thanks…I revised the post to be more consistent with this. I am still trying to get my head around how most productions lose money but the industry is making record money. I assume this just reflects charging record amounts for tickets.
It means a few blockbusters are carrying the industry in spite of the mediocre productions being overall losses.
10 productions losing $1 each are offset by 1 production making $20 by itself.
Well, that can’t be called “the industry” booming! If one automaker is thriving and the rest are going under, that’s a sick industry no matter how successful the one is.
I’m not the one calling the industry booming.
Another solution for an industry posting record profits and sales while the numbers don’t make sense, is that it’s all a giant money laundering scheme.
I’m not sure the exact business organizations behind Broadway but it might not be “one automaker is thriving and the rest are going under” as much as it is “each automaker has a gangbuster product along with several floundering ones”.
I’d assume in the musical theater industry, the gangbusters become long running shows while the flops get their initial contract run time done and are shuffled under the rug for the next try.
It’d be interesting to see the ratio of thriving new shows to flops in 2026, and the ratio in 2005 and the ratio in 1985, etc. I’d wager quality was generally more consistent (and consistently more successful) back in the day, even if the the biggest winners didn’t win as much as the biggest winners today despite overall quality being much lower.
(I think this dynamic is present in Hollywood also). Whether or not this is viewing through rose color the halcyon days of my younger years when I went to movies much more frequently, we can recall single years in the 1990s when the top 10 movies even the top 20 movies would be on anyone’s “watch again and again” list.
Nowadays it seems like a handful of movies are worthy with the rest mostly one and done “check your brain at the door” schlock leaving you wishing your sock drawer had been given more attention instead.
Since the pandemic, 46 new musicals have opened … but only three have recouped their investments.
“Only three have recouped their investments.” Amazing.
And of those three, how many yielded any kind of return on that investment? Return of principal is not what investors are looking for. The entire industry must be a vanity project funded by foundations and so forth. Or else it’s a scam on investors, “The Producers” come to life. Given the rise of the DSA, maybe it’s time to revive “Springtime in Hitler for Germany.” It might be a hit in the current zeitgeist. Isn’t Mel Brooks still alive?
I can be convinced that the financials posted above account for what happened transactionally between consumers and producers and that the numbers miss two key sources of income:
1) Private Donors wanting to keep the artform afloat
2) Public monies via grants, and other forms of government assistance
Both of which I should have mentioned when I discussed “giant money laundering schemes”
I’ll speak to it: in cases like this, it’s irrelevant. If most of the audience will be triggered by one viewpoint, and the objective is to maximize audience, only a moron would treat public statements from both ends of the spectrum equally. Similarly, at least 70% of the men in most casts are gay. Chemistry in a production matters. So what are regarded as insufficiently LGTBQ+ supportive opinions on social media pose problems that anti-white, anti-cis, anti-Trump outbursts don’t.
Pretty simple, really, if you know the community. (And I do.)
Ethics aren’t entirely linked with profit, though, right? Speaking of which, people are spending more money on theater than ever. But less on local productions. But, yes, indeed it’s a making a point functionally to assert without any support a causal link between musical theater’s loss of appeal to the mainstream public and musical theater’s embrace of largely gay… blah blah blah, framed as a question. The fact that the presupposition was wrong notwithstanding. Now, for those of you out WEST in Rio Linda, California…
Sure...what???? The capture of musical theater by Gay World has been well recognized in and out of the theater community for decades. You do know that I’m a professional stage director and ran a professional regional theater for 20 years, right? Have you ever listened to the Broadway channel on Sirius? Seen any college or community theater shows lately? Watch the Tonys, do you? How about regional theater boards? Young straight males have substantially fled the field. Live theater itself is declining for many reasons, but the affluent gay community is a primary income source. The other big group is seniors, if they’re rich enough. And I have the records to prove it.
“People” are going to live events generally less and less every year. Live theater is heading the way of opera and ballet: elitist, privileged, luxury entertainment with diminishing cultural relevance. QuicK: what was the last hit song to come from a Broadway musical? Annual live theater attendance—that means at least one show– is around 12% to 15% of the adult population, and falling every year. About 30% use psychic and fortune tellers that frequently.
I’m sure EA columnist and theater pro Curmie has valuable perspect…Oh. Right. He’s MIA because of Trump. Too bad.
Yes, I do know that you’re a director and have knowledge about plays that I don’t have. I am strictly audience. But I must have failed to communicate properly. The presuppositions are 1) the public is no longer attracted to musical theater (wrong), and 2) that that is because of gay infiltration (for lack of a better phrase at this hour). #2 has to be wrong because #1 is wrong. And even if #1 were proven correct (people did abandon the theater as a whole, or musical theater in particular), that still doesn’t justify the link being uncritically asserted #2. By his framing, Michael forces readers to debate the order of events rather than debating whether his premises are even true in the first place. Michael’s true intent is to make an assertion. For some strange reason, he just doesn’t know it. Putting an unsupported causal hypothesis into the form of a question doesn’t make it less of an assertion. The classic example: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” But back to your point, I always thought theater attracted more gay people than high-tension power line work. Other than that, I haven’t followed the trends.
Read the post again, and then try again. “2) that that is because of gay infiltration.” I never wrote that or thought that. I wrote that the core audience for stage musicals is gay, which is true, and has been true for a very long time. The typical American, even now, is not cognizant of what performers are gay, and don’t care, as long as the show is good. Nor did I call it gay infiltration, which is false. There have always been disproportionate numbers of gays in show business of all kinds, and performing of all kinds. They have gained power and control over time, but not by infiltration: as I said in the earlier comment, the non-gays have gradually abandoned the field. It’s tough being a minority, but that’s not the new majority’s fault.
I did not mention my long experience in professional theater because it means I have “knowledge” about plays. I mentioned it because I have been involved in a major professional theater center, hiring, casting and auditioning and I know how it works, the sexual and workplace dynamics, and audience demographics.
I was not referring directly to your post. And yes, I assumed your knowledge about “plays” was wide enough to include audience demographics and anything else. Only this: the implied link between the change is audience demographics as it relates to sexual identity and an audience withdrawal from the theater is based on a false premise about audience participation. A question was framed within faulty assumptions in order to make point about those assumptions. That was someone else, not you. In your post, from what I can recall (I’m on my way to work), you pointed out that producers have rights to terminate actors based on financial considerations. That’s a fact; they’re businesses. But Turley seemed to suggest that only firing a person for a post representing one side of an issue had ethical and societal implications. That’s where most of my interest in your post and viewpoint resides. Fairness? Viewpoint diversity? Trust in institutions? Societal polarization? Beyond that, I don’t have any personal interest or stake in theater or actors other than a general respect for them. (Hi ho, hi ho!…)
Thanks, I understand. (Why WordPress keeps spamming your comments is a mystery.) Turley fights to be a free speech absolutist, but he’s out of his depth. A major player in an ensemble cast needlessly touched on a third rail for much of the show’s cast and, let’s say,a significant portion of the show’s potential audience. A comment supporting trans athletes would not have the same effects, or carry the same risks. It’s not hypocrisy.
That may be true within a particular social environment. If most of the cast, crew, and audience support one position, then a countervailing statement may create more backlash than the other. But that doesn’t by itself mean that the asymmetrical treatment is ethically sound. For the ethicist: In 1955, supporting racial integration might have caused far more disruption than opposing it. The fact that one opinion creates more disruption does not tell us whether differential punishment is fair.
PS: This system ignores my chosen username and gives me its own name (Kawaii…) which may explain the glitches with my posts. Sorry for the trouble.
1. In a sane world and culture, you would be right. But Hollywood is Exhibit A on how the entertainment industries assume that the majority audience is not going to be tolerant of gay performers…still. There is no reason to believe that the mix in Lala Land is different from the mix in the farm system, which means more than 50% of our favorite actors are gay and keeping quiet about it (I don’t care what they are, if they can perform.) The actor who plays Jack Reacher on the terrific streaming series just came out as gay. So what: he’s fantastic in the role. But a friend of mine confessed, “I have to admit, knowing that makes me less excited about seeing the next season.”
2. No trouble. Part of my job dities.
I think Kawaii was referring mostly to MW’s assertions that (1) the public in general has lost interest in theater because (2) of the gay infiltration. Kawaii takes issue with the cause and effect, based on the numbers and economics of the industry.
Speaking . . . erm . . . writing . . . more broadly about the entertainment industry, though, I think the ticket buying public is getting tired of Alphabet Soup being served with every meal. Televisiion shows worldwide have to have Alphabet Soup characters or storylines, even if that character or storyline adds nothing to show, the plot, or anything related to the show. For example, music awards show must have performers answer questions about the impact their music or styles has on Alphabet Soup – the MTV Awards last year had a host ask The Warning about the Alphabet Soup community. The band said, “Uh . . . if you like our music, fine; if not, well, that’s fine, too.” After a while, you simply get bored and look for something else to do, like work on your model train layout or scratch The Pooch on the belly.
jvb
I didn’t assert such a thing. I asked a question.
Let me know when you start charging rent and I’ll try to move out.
It took me acting in one college play directed by a visiting New York City director to figure out the theater wasn’t for me.
“Personally, no job and no amount of money is so important that I would subjugate myself to the opinions of others like that.” Jack Marshall
Yay! If more folks in an array of venues had that perspective, maybe the constant crap in political tampering would diminish.
We have always loved musical theater built on quality acting and voices – but not on the latest trend of tweaking scripts toward one particular political tune. One of the saddest has been the Disneyfying of the outdoor stage production of The Lost Colony on Roanoke Island, NC, (where Andy Griffith got his start in the late 1940s – playing Sir Walter Raleigh in 1952/53)
I grew up during that era, knowing all the words to the songs and key speeches. Now, in the past few years, Paul Green’s original powerful script focused on pandering to current political virtue-signaling, 3D projection, and oversized puppets – losing much of its majesty and wonder. At least they reinstalled the strong character of Old Tom whose transformation of humorous drunk to a wise individual made an indelible impression on all ages. “Roanoke, O’ Roanoke, Thou hast made a man of me!”
Saw this play for the first time last summer. No idea what any of its previous iterations were like. It was pretty enjoyable as we saw it. It did rely on the “black queen of England” shtick that was more annoying because it was done as shtick – the actress was good enough.
Musical theater has long been associated with gay men, way back into the twentieth century. Except for Jack’s experience noted above, I could find no data showing that gay people are more prevalent in musical theater now than then. Of course, there were more kept secrets and open secrets back then. Broadway and musical theater now include more LGBTQ+ stories and characters, consistent with a more open and accepting environment. LGBTQ+ themes probably drive some people away from those productions while attracting others to them. COVID influenced how people work and go to theater. Working at home, for example, discourages after-work theater patronage. The rise of Netflix and other home entertainment options also altered theater attendance patterns. In comparison to these forces, LGBTQ+ themes and theater demographics has had little effect. But people still want theater, so they’re shelling out big bucks. LGBTQ+ themed blockbusters include & Juliet; Cats: The Jellicle Ball; Oh, Mary!; The Rocky Horror Show.
As this thread winds down into obscurity, I raise a glass to the blog host, to the theater, to Jonathan Turley, to tolerance of others, and to Michael West, who earned his participation badge regardless.
How big are the windmills in your head that you’ve imagined are giants to joust?
If it wasn’t for the fact this blog requires reading and typing I’d be near convinced you were illiterate. Which may be no fault of your own. Maybe you use a text to speech software.