Jaime Cepera and Eden Espinosa will be taking your questions in the ladies room of the Starbucks on 23rd street for the next seven minutes.
Theater Gossip #418- The "350 ain't several and it sure isn't pretty" edition
|by Anonymous||reply 110||Last Tuesday at 11:47 AM|
MSNBC has not covered the Broadway march at all. Have any of the other major networks covered it?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||04/23/2021|
Yeah I've been hearing some radio coverage this morning. They're mentioned requests for more openness for diversity and then stuff about Rudin. It sounds as unfocused as it was, or maybe I'm looking for that.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||04/23/2021|
Any word on other shows that may not be coming back? (Also hoping we can keep this a Rudin-free zone. Don't need his fat ass polluting two threads and the other one is still going.)
|by Anonymous||reply 3||04/23/2021|
Diversity in terms of more gays and jews and tourists? They're the only people who go to the theater. They need to see themselves represented on stage much more.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||04/23/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 5||04/23/2021|
Unless a play is entirely made of POC like a black Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with a star or In the Heights POC are not going to the theater. No interest. So may be there simply need to be more shows catering to that specific audience so POC need to encourage more POC producers who can get the backing for those shows otherwise their demands are bogus. Joseph Papp did more than anyone to be inclusive in his productions and bring theater to the boroughs but in terms of his productions being at the Public or on Broadway his audiences were resolutely white. There is simply no interest in theater in the POC community. Maybe these people should address that.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||04/23/2021|
Did anyone else notice that the last thread didn't get paywalled until around 585 replies? It usually starts much earlier.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||04/23/2021|
It was so boring, no one cared. And Muriel knew no one would pay for that situation.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||04/23/2021|
R6, any producers can tell you that audiences like to see people like themselves. If you want to build a younger audience? Produce plays that include younger characters. Do you want a Latino audience? Produce plays that include Latino characters.
I heard one LORT theater AD praised for drawing a younger audience. She said it was easy. They just made sure that every play they presented had at least one character under the age of 26.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||04/23/2021|
[quote] There is simply no interest in theater in the POC community.
Even while doing diverse shows, the theater has been really bad at communicating to the POC community. No one spends money on it because it's, for now, less likely to yield results. It would be good in the long-term but it's a tough inefficient expense for each show to bear.
Your [italic]Cat on a Hot Tin Roof[/italic] example isn't a good one because it was simply a white play cast with minorities. The POC community wants to see stories [italic]about[/italic] them, and theater has long been telling them that it's simply not a place for that. So they've looked elsewhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||04/23/2021|
Was anyone who had actually appeared on Broadway in that march?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||04/23/2021|
The idea that POC have no interest in theater is ridiculous. Tyler Perry, Mama I Want to Sing, and any number of more recent shows, proves there is a black audience.
No one says "white people have no interest in theater" when they see the sea of black faces at a urban theater circuit production.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||04/23/2021|
And what did you bring to it to make it less boring, r8?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||04/23/2021|
All the good stuff was mine r13
|by Anonymous||reply 14||04/23/2021|
So, nothing r14?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||04/23/2021|
Why are there two different threads?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||04/23/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 17||04/23/2021|
"25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee" movie coming from Disney.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||04/23/2021|
[quote]it sure isn't pretty
Like a Miss Atlantic City?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||04/23/2021|
The first trailer for WSS will be shown during the Oscars. Should be interesting to see how they handle Ansel.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||04/23/2021|
Rubber gloves would be advisable r20.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||04/23/2021|
THIS THREAD IS NOT THE OFFICIAL ONE. DON'T POST HERE.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||04/23/2021|
If there's another thread. can someone please link it?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||04/23/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 24||04/23/2021|
Mrs. Strakosh is a cock sucker (and so are most women).
|by Anonymous||reply 25||04/23/2021|
As well as all posters to these threads r25.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||04/23/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 27||04/23/2021|
Pinter - The Tea Party.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||04/23/2021|
And just how dumbed down is a Disney Spelling Bee going to be?
|by Anonymous||reply 29||04/23/2021|
[quote]And just how dumbed down is a Disney Spelling Bee going to be?
Weird question. SPELLING BEE is a fun show, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as designed only for the intelligentsia.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||04/23/2021|
[quote]It was so boring, no one cared. And Muriel knew no one would pay for that situation.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||04/23/2021|
Will they do [italic]Spelling Bee[/italic] with real children? adults as children (please, lord, no!)? animation creations?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||04/24/2021|
Did women give blow jobs before the 60s?
|by Anonymous||reply 33||04/24/2021|
I mean of course a few did but maybe most of them found it too kinky and dirty.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||04/24/2021|
And you know that how?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||04/24/2021|
I like Spelling Bee but it's NOT a movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||04/24/2021|
Just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t be done
|by Anonymous||reply 37||04/24/2021|
I didn't say it couldn't be done.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||04/24/2021|
I'm shocked that powerful agent Mark Subias and powerful playwright Sarah Ruhl declined to comment on Scott Rudin's horrendous treatment of them in the NY Times' latest article. And they're both sympathetically portrayed as Rudin's victims.
If people like that won't speak up against Rudin, they'll just be a very short "stepping back" period for Rudin.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||04/24/2021|
Good. Broadway needs Rudin a hell of a lot more than Rudin needs Broadway. And a hell of a lot more than it needs Karen Olivo, Eden Espinosa and all the other frequently unemployable morons who marched for nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||04/24/2021|
I don't know R40, If Rudin is really gone I'm wondering if we'll find out that he's been blocking other potentially better work from finding a Broadway theater by virtue of monopolizing the Schubert houses with his productions. Maybe there really is better original work out there that will have a chance now. On your second point, I agree- Broadway does not need Olivo or Espinosa and the like. I think it's a great opportunity to take a chance on new unknown talent.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||04/24/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 42||04/24/2021|
[quote] On your second point, I agree- Broadway does not need Olivo or Espinosa and the like.
But then who will we cast in the revival of BKLYN?
|by Anonymous||reply 43||04/24/2021|
R39, "powerful playwright?" Okay, I will buy that.
I suspect that Ruhl said nothing because almost anything she says about the aborted Broadway production will make the people working on the upcoming off-Broadway production sound line second choices. She is not about to dis the people who are working on her show. (And that would be bad business.)
And what would she have to add to the story in the Times?
|by Anonymous||reply 44||04/25/2021|
r44, Ruhl is "powerful" in that she's currently the most produced female playwright in NY. And the Rudin story needs well-known and important names, not just bruised former interns, to tell their stories and get the attention of the media and powerful people working on Broadway.
And she's articulate enough to make a statement about Rudin without insulting any other producers. And Mark Subias needs to put his mouth out there where all his muscles are.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||04/25/2021|
R45, I think you are naive if you think that Sarah Ruhl's testimonial is going to get more media coverage than a New York Times story. She is not a name known outside of theater so the Times is about the biggest media her story is going to get.
Also, for Subias, the Times is about as wide a coverage as he would get. Also, it would be foolish for an agent to publicize that he lost opportunities for clients--however unfair that was.
The story has already gotten attention from "the media and powerful people working on Broadway." Do you really think being mean to Sarah Ruhl is going to up the outrage and turn opinion against Rudin?
Everyone already knew about his treatment of her and agents (if not Subias specifically). Now the general public does too. The hook of the story is mistreating the powerless. Mistreating a "powerful playwright" and a successful agent does not carry the same emotional charge.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||04/25/2021|
I disagree, r46. I think if Ruhl and Subias had spoken out in that Times article (or elsewhere) to confirm and verify the unethical treatment they experienced with Rudin it would encourage other "names" to speak out. I could be wrong, of course. But it's the domino effect, more high profile names testifying are important.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||04/25/2021|
Adam Rapp commented! Look at how much pressure that created in the community to make Rudin accountable!
|by Anonymous||reply 48||04/25/2021|
I hate that Rudin has taken over multiple threads. At least the other 418 isn't Rudinville. But best to keep his fat ass here
|by Anonymous||reply 49||04/25/2021|
Fuck you, R49.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||04/25/2021|
You're charming r50. what, as they say, the fuck is your issue?
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/25/2021|
My issue, you asshole, is I don't care for people telling me where to post something like they own the fucking board. Go start your own DL if you need to be the Queen.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||04/25/2021|
I understand r52. Oh, and sorry about your micropenis.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||04/25/2021|
How nice. I blocked that asshole and all the boring, unfunny posts disappeared.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||04/25/2021|
[quote] Everyone already knew about his treatment of her and agents (if not Subias specifically). Now the general public does too. The hook of the story is mistreating the powerless. Mistreating a "powerful playwright" and a successful agent does not carry the same emotional charge.
How is this a mistreatment of the powerless? Rudin said- I don't like your agent, I don't want to work with him. If you don't switch agents, I won't produce your play. A childish move, but he has earned the right to not have to work with anyone he doesn't want (though he hasn't earned the right to expect people to bend to his every whim). Ruhl said no thank you and that was that. He didn't ban her play from never being produced and she was free to look elsewhere. That's called doing business.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||04/25/2021|
For everything else that's awful, I agree with r55 that this doesn't seem wrong. Subias is an arrogant pain in the ass (a/k/a an agent) and if they had a history of not getting along, he's allowed not to work with him. Agencies force packaged projects on produces all the time; it's fair (if petty) play for it to cut both ways.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||04/26/2021|
R55, mistreatment of the powerless is how Rudin treated his assistants. People can get emotional over that.
His treatment of agents and "powerful playwrights" is not going to elicit the same strong emotional response.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||04/26/2021|
^^^^Like you say, most people will just consider this "doing business."
|by Anonymous||reply 58||04/26/2021|
There's a difference between not wanting to work with an agent vs. trying to get that agent's clients to leave him/her for spite.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||04/26/2021|
And nothing happened to Ruhl by deciding to stay with her agent. So there was no harm.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||04/26/2021|
Other than losing the Broadway production with its royalties and the royalties from subsequent productions that might not happen without a Broadway run---yes, other than that nothing happened. Just a loss of income.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||04/26/2021|
which play was it?
|by Anonymous||reply 62||04/26/2021|
From the Times:
Among those affected, according to several people familiar with the incident: the playwright Sarah Ruhl. Mr. Rudin had planned to bring her next play, “Becky Nurse of Salem,” to Broadway, with Sam Gold as the director and Kathy Bates as the star. Mr. Rudin reportedly told Ms. Ruhl to drop her agent; when she refused, he dropped her play.
Ms. Bates and Mr. Gold both left the project, and instead of going to Broadway the play wound up at Berkeley Repertory Theater in California; its next stop is supposed to be at one of Lincoln Center Theater’s Off Broadway venues in 2022. Both theaters are prestigious, but they are less visible and pay less well than Broadway. (Ms. Ruhl declined to comment.)
“It was so sad that Sarah Ruhl became the victim of this battle,” said Susie Medak, the managing director of Berkeley Rep, who confirmed the change to the show’s team. “There are so few women presented on Broadway, and here was an opportunity to have a Broadway show that was so lovely, and had such a starring role for this actress, and to have that fall apart over this totally unnecessary battle between these two guys was a truly unfortunate episode. She just got whipsawed, and it was wrong.”
|by Anonymous||reply 63||04/26/2021|
Yeah, like Becky Nurse of Salem would have done any business on Broadway. If it was so surefire, then someone else would have snatched it up. Again, Rudin didn't stop Ruhl's play from going on without him. He was simply the only Broadway producer willing to do it, and as such, he gets the right to at least ask for what he wants. Ruhl is free to say yes or no, but no one can then point the finger at Rudin if the play doesn't get produced. AND it's getting produced and brought to NYC next year. Cry me a fucking river.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||04/26/2021|
R64, you are throwing everything in the pot, but not all is relevant. Whether the show would have run or not is irrelevant. A short Broadway run has financial benefits that an off-Broadway does not.
And you can indeed point a finger when the play does not get produced. It is indeed unreasonable when a producer makes it a condition that a writer to end an existing business relationship. What would be next? Rudin deciding on what accountants you have to use? What building your have to live in? What bank you use?
No one has that right.
And as you point out, no other producer wanted the show, so it clearly was Rudin who tanked it -- for no reason other than a desire to control.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||04/26/2021|
to control an artist's personal business choices. One's agent is not a production element.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||04/26/2021|
[quote] No one has that right.
I never said he did. In fact in an earlier post I said just the opposite. HOWEVER, he can ASK for whatever he wants. It doesn't mean he's gonna get it. That's between him and Ruhl. She chose to stick with the agent (which I think most playwrights would. I know I would and I'm not a playwright).
[quote] And as you point out, no other producer wanted the show, so it clearly was Rudin who tanked it -- for no reason other than a desire to control.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rudin didn't tank it. He chose not to produce it under the terms that he demanded, which was as much his right to do as it was Ruhl's to say no thank you and go elsewhere. Rudin did NOT ban Ruhl from having another producer take it to Broadway. She was free to go anywhere she wanted. So Rudin didn't tank it; he was the only one willing to produce it on Broadway. I'm not saying that means she should have gone crawling back to him and agree to his terms. But you can't blame Rudin for the rest of Broadway not having the same vision.
You're spinning a very different story to win your argument that just isn't accurate.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||04/26/2021|
If I am the only person who wants to buy a Volkwagen and I say I will buy your car if you change mechanics, I can claim that I am not stopping you from selling the car elsewhere.
But if no one else wants it and I am the only buyer, then I have stopped the sale. (Welcome to the real world. )
And yes, it is unethical to demand that you change agents as a condition. How can anyone claim otherwise?
|by Anonymous||reply 68||04/26/2021|
HE DID NOT STOP THE PLAY FROM BEING PRODUCED. HE DECLINED TO PRODUCE IT. JESUS CHRIST. How fucking stupid are you?
Scott Rudin is not the only Broadway producer in the world. There may be more layers of thickness in your skull than there are Broadway producers, but that still leaves plenty.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||04/26/2021|
Yes, you can argue a point that no one made, R69 if it makes you feel good.
All that was said was that the Sam Gold/Kathy Bates production was tanked. And there was no chance that it would go to Broadway because no other Broadway producer interested in the play. Everyone involved knew that.
If you read the article, you can see that the play will be produced at Berkley Rep and Lincoln Center off Broadway. But if you want to keep railing that there are people claiming he forbade the show to be produced, go ahead.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||04/26/2021|
I can't tell, R70- Are you a troll or just really that stupid? YOU are the only one inferring that the show was not allowed to be produced. Look, if you don't know how to argue your side, just shut the fuck up and let the adults talk. You have nothing worthwhile to say.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||04/26/2021|
R71 is the OP of this failed thread, so is likely just trolling in an attempt to get the post count up/trick people into posting here. Better off ignoring him and posting in the proper thread
|by Anonymous||reply 72||04/26/2021|
R72, thank you. I was thinking reading comprehension issues, but you explanation makes sense..
So I guess this is the Avignon of Theatre Gossip threads, and I am going to kiss the ring in Rome.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||04/27/2021|
I'm actually posting in both of the threads, because I'm having conversations in both. But R72 lost his argument and is now trying to deflect.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||04/27/2021|
People can easily check my post history to see you're full of shit, just more lame attempts to keep this thread alive
|by Anonymous||reply 75||04/27/2021|
Glenn Close joke
|by Anonymous||reply 76||05/03/2021|
Jacques d'Amboise has died at 86.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||05/03/2021|
From the obit at R77:
[quote]He continued to think of himself as a dancer all his life, but he was also a fervent New Yorker. Asked in a 2018 article in The Times where he would like his ashes scattered, he responded, “Spread me in Times Square or the Belasco Theater.”
|by Anonymous||reply 78||05/03/2021|
I guess Russ is the last of the brothers.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||05/03/2021|
The other thread is full PLEASE don't start a new one yet
|by Anonymous||reply 80||05/04/2021|
R80, do you want to help? Then don't help.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||05/04/2021|
Why be that way? Sorry you’re so unhappy. Have a great day.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||05/04/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 83||05/04/2021|
|by Anonymous||reply 84||Last Saturday at 10:58 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 85||Last Saturday at 11:02 AM|
"Where Is the Tribe from Me?" --
|by Anonymous||reply 86||Last Saturday at 12:25 PM|
Tribe FOR Me
|by Anonymous||reply 87||Last Saturday at 12:26 PM|
r84 were those really worth posting on two different theatre threads? WE SEE YOU
|by Anonymous||reply 88||Last Sunday at 3:46 AM|
What is this duelling threads about?
|by Anonymous||reply 89||Last Sunday at 4:28 AM|
I asked that early r89 and I got soundly smacked about the face and neck.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||Last Sunday at 4:38 AM|
If she gets to be on two threads then GOD DAMMIT so do I!
|by Anonymous||reply 91||Last Sunday at 6:05 AM|
Was "Goldilocks" the same code as "Rosebud" in "Citizen Kane", Elaine?
|by Anonymous||reply 92||Last Sunday at 8:45 AM|
Elaine owes her brief leading ladydom to Dolores Gray, who pulled out of "Goldilocks."
|by Anonymous||reply 93||Last Sunday at 8:49 AM|
Elaine also had "Sail Away" written for her and championed by Noel Coward, but that flopped, too.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||Last Sunday at 9:02 AM|
Though Elaine wasn't even contract as lead. The lead was Jean Fenn but I guess she failed to deliver.
Fenn appears at about 2:25 below.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||Last Sunday at 9:08 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 96||Last Sunday at 9:08 AM|
Elaine was terrible when she replaced Miyoshi Umeki in Flower Drum Song. Nothing you could quite put your finger on but there was something just "off" about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||Last Sunday at 9:09 AM|
Were Elaine and Liz Smith a thing back in the day?
|by Anonymous||reply 98||Last Sunday at 9:23 AM|
The problem with the Stritch Flower Drum Song was her complete lack of chemistry with Jack Gilford's Wang Ta
|by Anonymous||reply 99||Last Sunday at 9:36 AM|
She should have kept the lyric changes for her cabaret act ("I Enjoy Being a Drunk" etc.).
|by Anonymous||reply 100||Last Sunday at 9:38 AM|
[quote]Though Elaine wasn't even contract as lead. The lead was Jean Fenn but I guess she failed to deliver.
I don't think that's quite correct. Elaine was always a lead, sort of a character lead, and Jean Fenn was to be more the ingenue involved in the romantic plot, but then Fenn was let go and the roles were more or less combined for Stritchie.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||Last Sunday at 9:58 AM|
[Quote] Did anyone else notice that the last thread didn't get paywalled until around 585 replies? It usually starts much earlier.
That's because the ratio of comments to commenters didn't trip the paywall switch (i.e. there were more than just a few posters producing a large volume of posts).
|by Anonymous||reply 102||Last Sunday at 10:06 AM|
Some would say she was un-flower like, r97.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||Last Sunday at 10:13 AM|
I'm sure they were just chums, r98.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||Last Sunday at 10:16 AM|
Elaine was the first Alice in the Honeymooners. Or was it the first Trixie? Anyway she lasted I think one episode. She didn't mention this in At Liberty from what I remember. Pert Kelton lasted a while as Alice and would have continued had her husband not been accused of being a communist(he paid for an ad once in Red Channels) and therefore she was too. She fortunately got her role in Music Man and I guess because the red scare was over by then was able to repeat it in the film. If the film had been made a couple of years earlier she might have been out of luck. Stanley Prager was accused of being a communist and therefore was not allowed to play the role he created on stage when Pajama Game was made into a film. Jack Straw got the role which he had played on the road and I have to admit he's wonderful.
Joyce Randolph is still alive and looks great which I find astonishing.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||Last Sunday at 10:23 AM|
Thanks, r101. Stritch had first billing according to the link.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||Last Sunday at 10:34 AM|
This painting was pretty unabashedly gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||Last Sunday at 10:43 AM|
This painting was pretty unabashedly gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||Last Sunday at 10:43 AM|
Three theater threads. There's simply not enough time in a day.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||Last Tuesday at 3:25 AM|
[quote]Elaine owes her brief leading ladydom to Dolores Gray, who pulled out of "Goldilocks."
Was Dolly wearing a strap-on?
|by Anonymous||reply 110||Last Tuesday at 11:47 AM|