| Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm | |
| Posted by: | Official_Press_Release 01:28 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Joan Rivers loved Broadway and we loved her. Due to the outpouring of love and respect for Joan Rivers from our community and from her friends and fans worldwide, the marquees of Broadway theatres in New York will be dimmed in her memory tonight, at exactly 6:45pm for one minute. Charlotte St. Martin Executive Director The Broadway League | |
| reply to this message | | |
| Michael Riedel: “There are enough dim lights on Broadway and they’re all at the League,” says producer. | |
| Posted by: | jesse21 07:41 am EDT 09/10/14 |
| In reply to: | Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm - Official_Press_Release 01:28 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| - In today’s New York Post, Michael Riedel writes about the Broadway League’s initial decision (and then reversal) on dimming the lights for Joan Rivers. Click here to read Michael Riedel’s “Broadway Matinee” column. - | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm | |
| Posted by: | showusyourtalent 12:02 am EDT 09/10/14 |
| In reply to: | Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm - Official_Press_Release 01:28 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Halleloo. Ms. Martin, thank you so much! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| GREAT Decision! (but they still look ridiculous). nm | |
| Posted by: | MichaelAS 05:06 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm - Official_Press_Release 01:28 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| nnmm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Why do they look "ridiculous"? | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 05:46 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | GREAT Decision! (but they still look ridiculous). nm - MichaelAS 05:06 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Because they changed their minds? Or because they didn't do it in the first place? I liked Joan Rivers a lot. She was one of the great comediennes of her age and she will go down in history as an influential and respected performer. I think it wouldn't have been out of place to consider her for a Kennedy Center Honor or the Mark Twain prize (I had never considered that comedians have been largely ignored by the Kennedy Center unless they had a corresponding film career or, in the case of Carson and Letterman, an eponymous show). But none of that has any bearing on whether Broadway theatres should dim their lights for her. They shouldn't. She appeared in the original casts of two Broadway shows that ran for a collective seven weeks total, plus taking over as the third Kate Jerome in BROADWAY BOUND (the length of her run I am unsure of). This is not a celebrated Broadway career. This is casual, drop-in, drive-by theatre participation. While I know she is on record for having considered herself a serious actress and stated in the 2012 documentary that that's the standard by which she measured herself, the fact of the matter is that she devoted an infinitesimal fraction of her career to the legitimate stage. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Primarily I think the honour should be reserved for people who devoted their lives to the Broadway theatre. People like the Lunts, Helen Hayes, Katherine Cornell and their successors. And equally, people who weren't necessarily great stars or leading players but who gave consistently wonderful performances year in, year out: actors like Tom Aldredge, Barnard Hughes, Rosemary Murphy and Anne Pitoniak. I'd even be okay with film stars who made a significant contribution to Broadway with legendary performances like Katherine Hepburn or Jack Lemmon. But to say that she should be honoured because she was a "friend to Broadway" seems weak. Yes, she went to a lot of theatre and when she discussed it in public, she displayed a surprisingly trenchant and nuanced taste (which really shouldn't have been surprising given her degree in English literature). But she was hardly an advocate the way Rosie O'Donnell and Neil Patrick Harris have been in recent years. I wish she had done more stage work. I heard only great things about her as Kate Jerome and it would have been cool to see her stretch herself in a variety of roles. But she didn't go down that path. From the vantage point of a fan and nothing more, it looked to me like she liked a certain lifestyle of opulence and glamour and it was unlikely the theatre would support that kind of life. Clearly QVC and E! and the myriad projects she worked on did pay very well and I'm glad and amazed that she was able to stay so productive and so energetic until the night before she died! She was amazing. But to suggest that she contributed anything to the theatre is ridiculous. And just because a bunch of online wankers get themselves into a knot over it doesn't seem justification for The League to reverse their decision. Will Mark Sanchez get the dimmed lights because he presented a Tony? Or Bret Michaels? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Hey! What's it like to be a human pretzel? | |
| Posted by: | sandcastle 06:05 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Why do they look "ridiculous"? - portenopete 05:46 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Just asking. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Hey! What's it like to be a human pretzel? | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 08:38 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Hey! What's it like to be a human pretzel? - sandcastle 06:05 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| I'm not embarrassed about articulating a point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Why do they look "ridiculous"? | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Why do they look "ridiculous"? - portenopete 05:46 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Your categorization of everyone from Audra McDonald, Harvey Fierstein, Laura Benanti, et. al. down to thousands of unknown fans as "online wankers" is bizarre, distasteful, and unnecessary. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Why do they look "ridiculous"? | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 07:06 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Why do they look "ridiculous"? - MikeR 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Those people you name were her friends: of course they are going to suggest she be honoured. As to internet mobs: I don't think it's bizarre or distasteful to call them "wankers". It's apt. Perhaps not necessary, I'll give you that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Why do they look "ridiculous"? | |
| Posted by: | MikeR 07:16 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Why do they look "ridiculous"? - portenopete 07:06 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| You say it like there's something wrong with internet wanking. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Why do they look "ridiculous"? | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 08:34 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Why do they look "ridiculous"? - MikeR 07:16 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Well played, sir! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| VINDICATION! | |
| Posted by: | bwaynut 03:50 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm - Official_Press_Release 01:28 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| So very glad the Broadway League heard the outcry of so many theater performers, fans, aficionados, supporters, and others within the business! I'm sure Joan will be beaming from her perch in the hereafter! We miss her and thank her! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Not the lead on the Today show news | |
| Posted by: | Ann 08:21 am EDT 09/10/14 |
| In reply to: | VINDICATION! - bwaynut 03:50 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| They said the League initially didn't think Rivers met the criteria, but changed their mind (I guess they have a single one) after a few theaters decided to dim their lights. No word of an outcry. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Not the lead on the Today show news | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayTonyJ 08:27 pm EDT 09/10/14 |
| In reply to: | Not the lead on the Today show news - Ann 08:21 am EDT 09/10/14 |
|
| |
| Broadway Names with Julie James on Sirius discussed the whole thing pretty well today on Sirius, crediting the reaction from the Broadway community with getting the League to change its decision. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Not the lead on the Today show news | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayTonyJ 08:34 pm EDT 09/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Not the lead on the Today show news - BroadwayTonyJ 08:27 pm EDT 09/10/14 |
|
| |
| Also Entertainment Weekly and NBC4 New York on their websites reported that the outpouring of criticism (citing various Broadway celebrities) convinced the league to reverse its decision. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| You are absolutely right. | |
| Posted by: | UWS_JIM 05:06 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | VINDICATION! - bwaynut 03:50 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Like nearly everyone here I couldn't agree more. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| No | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 04:46 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | VINDICATION! - bwaynut 03:50 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| There was no mea culpa. All the horde did was prove that when you interfere with business as usual, the problem is resolved by the course of least resistance. Nothing vindicated, nothing gained. Only, as I said elsewhere, a dilution of the meaning of a gesture that once had significance. Sad. Pathetic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| You've made your point. | |
| Posted by: | bwaynut 12:07 am EDT 09/10/14 |
| In reply to: | No - ryhog 04:46 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| While we respect your opposing viewpoint, please allow those of us who are celebrating this victory for Joan our time to honor a deserving talent....and a consummate, generous, gracious human being !!! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | garyd 05:19 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | No - ryhog 04:46 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| You also said this: 'Hell, if I controlled the switch, I'd dim the lights.' So you are okay with diminution and dilution as long as you are the one doing the diminuting and the diluting? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 05:23 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - garyd 05:19 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| No. If I controlled the switch, and decided to dim, there would be no diminution or dilution. I know you are not as dim as you are pretending to be. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | garyd 05:35 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - ryhog 05:23 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Not as dim, but dim nonetheless. LOL, whatever. Between this and Johhny and his pronouns, it is obvious the new season needs to begin quickly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 06:01 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - garyd 05:35 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| did I miss Johnny and his pronouns? Is it like Amahl and His Night Visitors? And yes, new season underway pronto por favor. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | Zelgo 05:10 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | No - ryhog 04:46 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Dilution of the meaning? What meaning did it have? The person is dead; he/she certainly doesn't care about the honor. Fans do. We're alive. If someone has worked in or promoted the theatre in a strong way, they should be so honored. If these happen frequently, it just shows how many great celebrities have been part of the NY theatre scene. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 05:50 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - Zelgo 05:10 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| If the lights were dimmed for everyone who has "worked in or promoted the theatre", the Theatre District would be in perpetual darkness. Every day people die who gave their careers to the Broadway stage: actors, actresses, directors, writers, designers, publicists, theatre owners, ushers. The honour should be reserved for people who made a significant contribution, regardless of whether they have a multitude of braying fans. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | BruceinIthaca 12:29 am EDT 09/10/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - portenopete 05:50 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| We do not BRAY! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 06:00 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - portenopete 05:50 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| ...regardless of whether they have a multitude of braying fans. Ain't you a peach. Stay classy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 05:21 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - Zelgo 05:10 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| I am about done with repeating myself here but the meaninglessness is that the dimming was not a plebescite, it was a gesture by the League toward individuals they deemed worthy. The League reached a decision, and reversed it only to shut the mob up. What possible meaning could the gesture have in that context? If the fans (and that includes me) care about honoring Joan,then they should honor Joan instead of forcing someone else to honor her even when they clearly concluded it was not warranted. And that's all I have to say on the subject. I think. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | portenopete 05:51 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - ryhog 05:21 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Exactly.... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | tandelor 05:27 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - ryhog 05:21 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| So your logic is it was their decision to make and because it is theirs and theirs alone there was no incorrect decision to made? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - tandelor 05:27 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| no-they could and likely have made multiple incorrect decisions. My logic is simply that it is their gesture, and while we can criticize it to our heart's content, we need to be wary of decisions that are reversed because of internet mobs. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | Thom915 (Thom915@aol.com) 08:40 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - ryhog 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| On the contrary ryhog, you are showing yourself to be a very poor loser indeed. You refer to an internet mob and while I do not feel slighted to be included as such, do you feel that Audra McDonald, Donna Murphy, Steve Kazee, Harvey Fierstein, William Ivey Long, Daryl Roth, and Jordan Roth deserve to be mentioned as such. I would not be surprised that many other theater luminaries also made their views known to members of the League. These are people who make and create the very theater the Producers depend upon, the very people who likely will be honored with memorials of their own some day in the (hopefully) distant future. Yes the theater owners do have the right to do what they wish with their property but the public if they wish have the right to make their views known . You speak of hijacking someone's gesture. How was such a gesture hijacked? The "mob" did not storm the Shubert and Nederlanders properties and pull the light switches. Hell I don't even know of any threats to do so or to take any other action which might "force" someone to change their mind. It seems to me that the original decision was just rethought. Do we know who made the original decision? Is it not possible they were overridden by someone higher up in their organization and more attuned to what would best further the interests of the League? Is it not possible that producers were unaware that the original decision might make their stars and casts very unhappy? Is it not possible that with all the evidence presented to them perhaps Ms Rivers was indeed deserving of the gesture? Did they consult with you on every aspect of their process? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 06:19 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - ryhog 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| how do you know it was" internet mobs" and not folks like william ivey long and others with real influence with the league that caused the reversal? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| "My logic is simply that it is their gesture, and while we can criticize it to our heart's content, we need to be wary of decisions that are reversed because of internet mobs." | |
| Posted by: | sandcastle 06:09 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - ryhog 06:04 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Well, I guess you'd better get over your logic. It is 2014, like it or not. You're the one who lives on this chat board. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No | |
| Posted by: | tandelor 05:30 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No - tandelor 05:27 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| to make? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm | |
| Posted by: | Cainebj 03:36 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm - Official_Press_Release 01:28 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Thank you. That's the right thing to do. I am delighted. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm | |
| Posted by: | Ncassidine 03:08 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm - Official_Press_Release 01:28 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Hooray. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm | |
| Posted by: | mamaleh 02:34 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm - Official_Press_Release 01:28 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| Glad to hear it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 02:59 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Broadway to dim lights in honor of Joan Rivers tonight at 6:45pm - mamaleh 02:34 pm EDT 09/09/14 |
|
| |
| So am I. And, as someone suggested yesterday, Joan would have delighted in the media "controversy." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.365317 seconds.