Theater Gossip #418- The "350 ain't several and it sure isn't pretty" edition

MSNBC has not covered the Broadway march at all. Have any of the other major networks covered it?

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.

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.)

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.

BAJOUR!

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.

Did anyone else notice that the last thread didn't get paywalled until around 585 replies? It usually starts much earlier.

It was so boring, no one cared. And Muriel knew no one would pay for that situation.

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.

[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.

Was anyone who had actually appeared on Broadway in that march?

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.

And what did you bring to it to make it less boring, r8?

All the good stuff was mine r13

So, nothing r14?

Why are there two different threads?

r12=Lavarious Slaughter

"25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee" movie coming from Disney.

[quote]it sure isn't pretty

Like a Miss Atlantic City?

The first trailer for WSS will be shown during the Oscars. Should be interesting to see how they handle Ansel.

Rubber gloves would be advisable r20.

THIS THREAD IS NOT THE OFFICIAL ONE. DON'T POST HERE.

If there's another thread. can someone please link it?

R23

Mrs. Strakosh is a cock sucker (and so are most women).

As well as all posters to these threads r25.

Al!

Pinter - The Tea Party.

And just how dumbed down is a Disney Spelling Bee going to be?

[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.

[quote]It was so boring, no one cared. And Muriel knew no one would pay for that situation.

LOL, true.

Will they do [italic]Spelling Bee[/italic] with real children? adults as children (please, lord, no!)? animation creations?

Did women give blow jobs before the 60s?

I mean of course a few did but maybe most of them found it too kinky and dirty.

And you know that how?

I like Spelling Bee but it's NOT a movie.

Just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t be done

I didn't say it couldn't be done.

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.

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.

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.

*shubert

[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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Adam Rapp commented! Look at how much pressure that created in the community to make Rudin accountable!

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

Fuck you, R49.

You're charming r50. what, as they say, the fuck is your issue?

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.

I understand r52. Oh, and sorry about your micropenis.

How nice. I blocked that asshole and all the boring, unfunny posts disappeared.

[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.

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.

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.

^^^^Like you say, most people will just consider this "doing business."

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.

And nothing happened to Ruhl by deciding to stay with her agent. So there was no harm.

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.

which play was it?

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.”

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.

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.

to control an artist's personal business choices. One's agent is not a production element.

[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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

People can easily check my post history to see you're full of shit, just more lame attempts to keep this thread alive

Glenn Close joke

Jacques d'Amboise has died at 86.

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.”

I guess Russ is the last of the brothers.

The other thread is full PLEASE don't start a new one yet

R80, do you want to help? Then don't help.

Why be that way? Sorry you’re so unhappy. Have a great day.

Bajour

Sleepy Man

Just wow

"Where Is the Tribe from Me?" --

Tribe FOR Me

r84 were those really worth posting on two different theatre threads? WE SEE YOU

What is this duelling threads about?

I asked that early r89 and I got soundly smacked about the face and neck.

If she gets to be on two threads then GOD DAMMIT so do I!

Was "Goldilocks" the same code as "Rosebud" in "Citizen Kane", Elaine?

Elaine owes her brief leading ladydom to Dolores Gray, who pulled out of "Goldilocks."

Elaine also had "Sail Away" written for her and championed by Noel Coward, but that flopped, too.

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.

*contracted

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.

Were Elaine and Liz Smith a thing back in the day?

The problem with the Stritch Flower Drum Song was her complete lack of chemistry with Jack Gilford's Wang Ta

She should have kept the lyric changes for her cabaret act ("I Enjoy Being a Drunk" etc.).

[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.

[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).

Some would say she was un-flower like, r97.

I'm sure they were just chums, r98.

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.

Thanks, r101. Stritch had first billing according to the link.

This painting was pretty unabashedly gay.

This painting was pretty unabashedly gay.

Three theater threads. There's simply not enough time in a day.

[quote]Elaine owes her brief leading ladydom to Dolores Gray, who pulled out of "Goldilocks."

Was Dolly wearing a strap-on?

THREAD CLOSED.

THREAD STILL CLOSED.

GO HERE