On and Off the Stage

By LAURIE WINER

Jan. 2, 1998 12 AM PT

TIMES THEATER CRITIC

Peter Schneider is sitting on top of the world. He heads one of Disney’s most profitable arms--the feature animation division. Since 1985, the movies produced under his watch have earned more than $2.5 billion at the box office, and that doesn’t include video sales. In 1995, Schneider, who started out working off-Broadway in the early 1970s, also took over Walt Disney Theatrical Productions. Disney’s entrance into theater is reshaping Broadway. In a reinvention of the old road system, Disney makes musicals from its animated films, using movie screens all over the world as a kind of massive, out-of-town tryout. The company made a financial, if not a critical, success out of its first stage show, “Beauty and the Beast,” in 1994. Then Disney became a Broadway theater owner. With the help of grants and loans from New York City, then in the midst of 42nd Street redevelopment, it restored a magnificent 1903 playhouse--the New Amsterdam. In November, “The Lion King” opened there, an astonishing visual feast from director Julie Taymor, which has given Disney a new luster, both artistically and financially. Its earnings should be massive: The reported opening-day take of $2.7 million shatters the $1.2-million record formerly held by--what else?--”Beauty and the Beast.” This conversation with the boyish, 47-year-old Schneider took place in Burbank, at the Disney animation building, the one wearing the sorcerer’s apprentice hat. As Schneider indicates, Disney is very serious about maintaining and accelerating a permanent presence on the international theatrical landscape via a home base on Broadway. At the same time, its theatrical interest in its hometown is lukewarm, at best.

Question: My first question is--why theater? Does it have anything to do with the fact that “Phantom of the Opera” earned $2.7 billion worldwide, more than any single movie? This can’t have gone unnoticed by corporations who are in the business of making entertainment.

Answer: Theater was a logical extension for us. The decision to refurbish a theater and do “The Lion King” came out of a confluence of the success of “Beauty and the Beast” and Michael’s [Eisner] fundamental desire to do architecture. Michael is a sort of a modern Medici, in my opinion. He’s built so many buildings, worked with so many great architects. When Bob Stern took him through the New Amsterdam and showed him what could be, we [decided we] wanted a space. And in theater you need to own your own theaters to control your own destiny.

Q: So now you’re in the “Monopoly” game?

A: Well, I don’t want to [comment], but, yes, we have Park Place and Boardwalk and I’d like North Carolina next. It is a real estate game, but it also has to be about creative content. When I inherited the theatrical division, I felt that we could really push the bounds of what theater is, in the same way we’ve pushed what animation is.

But we’re different from the big three [theater owners]--the Shuberts, the Nederlanders and the Jujamcyns. They [own a lot of theaters]--and they have to make sure that people are booking them. So theirs is a split mandate. My mandate is quite simple. Make great shows.

Q: The stature of Julie Taymor’s work in “The Lion King” seems to have wiped the slate clean for Disney’s reputation in theater. People are sniping less.

A: It’s true. I think there is a jealousy about shows that are critic-proof. There’s a feeling that if you have a machine that can market shows and make people want to come see them, that’s bad. And yet every producer wants to have shows that don’t depend on the opinions of four or five critics. And at the same time, there is no corporation. It happens to be me and Tom [Schumacher, executive vice president of both the animation and theatrical divisions] and Michael [Eisner, Disney CEO] and a few other people figuring it all out.

Q: You mean, psychologically there is no corporation--in your head?

A: Right. There is a big corporation, I guess. It does have radio stations and TV stations. And it does give you more opportunities to market shows. It doesn’t make the shows any better. It’s the people who do that. And, yes, Disney has a brand name. Disney means something. And as a producer of art or product, I must be true to and embrace what Disney stands for. I don’t ever fight what Disney is.

Q: I was surprised to come out of “The Lion King” and into the gift store. Since people love to mock the Disneyfication of 42nd Street, were there discussions about how this would be perceived?

A: Should we be selling merchandise at the theater? It’s done all the time. We just happen in my opinion to do it really well, and in a great space. Every museum in the world does it. What we’ve discovered with the animated movies is that when people have a great time, they want to take something home. It’s an important part of the emotional experience. People look at this as a negative--oh, how commercial Disney is, and, oh my God look at that merchandising. But that’s what’s so great about the corporate Disney--you push the economics, and you reinvest money back into the art. The economics make it easier for us to do our work.

Q: What about making theater in Los Angeles?

A: It’s a tough city. In New York, you have this huge theater system, off-off-Broadway, off-Broadway, but the whole business is driven by a desire to be on Broadway. It is an end result. In Chicago, the small off-Loop theaters are the end result. You don’t get paid a lot of money but it’s a great place to raise a family and do theater and be creatively satisfied. L.A. is completely different. The pinnacle of success here is being in a movie. Theater is always secondary. So therefore you have Gordon Davidson, who has been doing great work for over 30 years, always losing his best people to the movie business.

Q: Certainly there is a need to make theater and see theater even in Los Angeles. Garth Drabinsky brought “Ragtime” here before he opened it in New York. And the numbers have not been great, but they’ve not been bad.

A: They’ve been bad. Let’s be honest about it, shall we? He’s advertised, he’s spent money, the reviews couldn’t have been better. Now what can I learn from that? What went wrong? Go back and see what has had a successful long run in Los Angeles--”Phantom” and “A Chorus Line.” So it makes us very nervous about bringing “The Lion King” to Los Angeles for a long run. For a show of this size, you need a long run to make the economics make sense. Of course, we could bring it here as part of a tour.

“Ragtime” could be bringing in a million a week; it’s bringing in $500,000. It needed to go to New York first, then come to L.A. What does that say about us? That we can’t embrace something until after it comes from New York? Well, that is the truth, it defines who we are. This town will go see anything in movies. Because why? Because you’re looking for that next artist, that next director. You might find something interesting . . . for your next project. Which is why you go off-Broadway in New York. Because the next big thing might be there.

Q: You have in fact produced theater in Los Angeles, as an associate producer with the 1984 Olympic Arts Festival. And people came out for it.

A: Oh, they came out in droves. Because it was positioned as high end, big name, right? We had the Royal Shakespeare Company, the National Theatre of Great Britain, Ariane Mnouchkine, etc. In the space of nine weeks you had the best artists in the world coming to L.A. and doing their best work. It was breathtaking.

Q: But doesn’t that seem to indicate that L.A. could be transformed in some way?

A: I don’t think so. It’s not as much fun to go to the theater here. Going to Broadway is fun. Walking down Times Square . . . now . . . ooh, baby, it’s great. Have you been lately? It is great.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

CROSSROADS

The daily Calendar section is presenting a series of interviews, which began Monday, Dec. 29, and will conclude Thursday, Jan. 8, with arts and entertainment leaders. Here is the schedule:

Monday

Film: Harvey Weinstein

Tuesday

Architecture: Zaha Hadid

Wednesday

Television: Martha Williamson

Thursday

Restaurants: Nancy Silverton

Today

Theater: Peter Schneider

Saturday

Jazz: Bruce Lundvall