Threaded Order Chronological Order
| "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 10:29 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Sounds of Silence | |
| Link | https://apnews.com/article/business-theater-scott-rudin-50906cef1770db71278220f8565e0a04 |
| reply to this message | |
| re For good or ill | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 01:57 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" - Billhaven 10:29 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| ... workplace bullying, unless it has racist overtones, is not illegal. Just bad behavior. If you're the boss, as Rudin is, no one is going to fire you. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: re For good or ill | |
| Posted by: manchurch03104 07:50 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re For good or ill - NewtonUK 01:57 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| the smashing of the computer on the assistant's hand could easily lead to a charge of aggravated assault. that's not just bullying. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: re For good or ill | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:02 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: re For good or ill - manchurch03104 07:50 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Definitely not just bullying but the charge is actually just simple assault (in the 3rd degree). The most severe degree requires serious bodily harm intentionally caused. "Aggravated" refers to assault on a police officer or child. There are a host of other possible charges here, including harassment, reckless endangerment, and others. The key point is that the facts are plentiful for criminal charges. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| ^ This Is 100% the Truth of Our Toxic Industry | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:42 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re For good or ill - NewtonUK 01:57 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| once again, we are given a glimpse into how the people who fund and run the theater industry actually regard all of the workers they employ. For those who have been following this months-long conversation, there's a straight line from (and I am paraphrasing) "Actors don't need two days off a week, they should be happy to work", to "Workers should accept permanent pay cuts even while the executive class takes home millions", to "You can drop a computer on your employee as long as you don't drop the N word while you're doing it, that's not assault, just bad behavior". And sadly, NewtonUK is right. No one is going to fire Scott Rudin, and audiences won't let this stop them from seeing Hugh Jackman in "The Music Man" because arts industry workers are disposable, but by God, if you take away their water bottles they're going to rant and rave about what a monster you are. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Percentages | |
| Posted by: reed23 04:54 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: ^ This Is 100% the Truth of Our Toxic Industry - Singapore/Fling 02:42 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| "...a glimpse into how the people who fund and run the theater industry actually regard all of the workers they employ." That's a bit of a generalization, extrapolating and applying Rudin's case to everyone who funds and runs "the theatre industry." Maybe I was some lucky exception, but none of the producers on or off Broadway with and for whom I worked over the many years remotely fit your description. I did bump into the occasional habitually unpleasant person – but they weren't producers. I certainly remember being treated poorly, unfairly, and/or insensitively by some people along the way – but they were fellow Equity members, frequently those with some extra power over the casts (stage managers and dance captains, for instance.) But investors and producers? Never. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Percentages | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:36 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Percentages - reed23 04:54 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Fair, and the comment you quoted was in reference to previous posts from the person I was responding to, not Rudin. Unfortunately, the people who are loud and cruel do seem to suck up a lot of the air and command a lot of space in our industry, so it can be easy to lose track of the folks who are decent. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 03:28 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:27 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: ^ This Is 100% the Truth of Our Toxic Industry - Singapore/Fling 02:42 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| It wasn’t dismissing rudin. But what behavior would lead to people not buying tickets—because that is the bottom line. Would protests out front work—I doubt it. It didn’t close west side story for dancer behaving badly. Investors will still invest in rudin projects as long as they make money—so it won’t stop there. I doubt several court cases (civil at least) would stop him. Criminal case—probably wouldn’t get a conviction on his behavior so far—maybe assault and battery which wouldn’t get jail time. There will always be a steady stream of hungry assistants putting up with it looking for next break to move on. To be honest, I wouldn’t stop buying tickets for his shows based on the reports. I didn’t buy music man because i don’t need to see another revival at outrageous prices for a bad seat—not because of rudin. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago | |
| Posted by: StageLover 08:50 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago - dramedy 03:27 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I'm curious, Dramedy. How low does Rudin have to publicly go before you're put off? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 06:45 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:35 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago - dramedy 03:27 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I wasn't calling you out for the water bottle post, but more the people who responded only to that part and not to the rest. And yeah, I think you're telling the truth in this post. In the last few years, I've learned about the truly terrible and dehumanizing practices of one of my favorite Broadway directors, someone I have admired for nearly 30 years, and I'm finding it very hard to reconcile that information with how much I still love his shows. It's tough, and there aren't necessarily easy answers, but a lot of folks don't even want to entertain the conversation, because they just want to enjoy show and not think about it. (In the same way that I want to enjoy Drag Race and not think about the heinous contract everyone signs to be on the show.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Posted by: Amiens 07:53 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Wasn't calling you out :-) - Singapore/Fling 06:35 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Singapore/Fling, I admire your passion on this topic and agree with your points. But I note that you and no one else here (except for Billhaven's mention of Gregory Boyd) is naming any of the long-time and apparently well-known current offenders other than Rudin. You alluded to an abusive director above, guilty of "truly terrible and dehumanizing practices" but do you or others here think that actually naming current offenders is inappropriate on an anonymous chat board? The caution in naming names, shows what a complicated situation this is and how difficult it is to progress. Please know, I do understand if posters don't want to be more forthcoming. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 10:18 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:12 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Wasn't calling you out :-) - Amiens 07:53 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| A few days ago, someone else posted that question of who would name names in the current culture, and I almost dropped a name then, but I didn't. And I didn't for the simple reason that the New York theater world is small. I'm fairly anonymous on this site, and I think anything I've posted that would identify me is no longer archived (and would taker a lot of reading to parse a few tidbits here and there); and I doubt that anyone here would readily know who I am, because I've worked in smaller institutions in behind the scenes roles; and I'm not even sure that I want to go back to working in theater once Quarantine lifts... but still, l don't want to take the risk, because what if? It's not so much for fear of the person I'd be naming as it is caring for my relationships to the people who told me these stories, because they might hire me for jobs in the future, or recommend me to someone who might hire me, and I'm not going to risk that, especially when the response to Rudin is a collective shrug. It's frustrating, and I feel powerless and am aware that I'm participating in a system that disgusts me, but there are good parts of it, too, and I like being employed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 11:16 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Wasn't calling you out :-) - Singapore/Fling 10:12 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Years ago (probably around 1998 through 2010 for sure) whenever I was in a rush line for a Broadway show, there would always be at least one or two people in line with me who were posters on ATC. Sometimes just to make the hours pass, we would try to guess each other's screen name just by talking about theatre. You would be surprised how often total strangers would be able to guess correctly. Once (probably Mar., 2015) I was seated in the St. James theater for an early preview of Something Rotten!. It was during that period when they were offering tickets for around $14. Anyway I began to chat with the young lady sitting next to me -- she was probably in her 20's. Eventually she told me she was an avid ATC lurker and an occasional poster. After about 10 minutes or so of mutual conversation, she correctly told me my screen name -- she said I spoke just the way I posted. It didn't alarm me because it was all in fun. However, when I tried to guess her screen name, she would not confirm or deny my guesses -- she had a real poker face. Of course, that incident was over 6 years ago. In recent years when I have been in various Broadway rush lines, people I chat with usually know little or nothing about this message board, let alone are active posters. Just saying. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Wasn't calling you out :-) - BroadwayTonyJ 11:16 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Almost certainly you're correct that it's zero risk, but an abundance of caution when it comes to the internet has rarely steered people wrong. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:46 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Wasn't calling you out :-) - Singapore/Fling 06:35 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The same thing goes for James Levine. CAN we enjoy listening to his art without judging him personally? Some people can, some can't. And/or you might be able to do that with some people but not others. What I don't like is when people decide to start judging US outright for the way we decide to handle this on our own. I've seen a lot of shaming posts on opera sites for people who would rather talk about the strength of Levine's career and not deal with the subject of the abusive behaviors. I don't think one person gets to decide for all of us. We all have to come to our own reasoning about things like this. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:14 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Wasn't calling you out :-) - Chromolume 07:46 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I have a hard time watching Levine conduct the overtures on the Met Live videos, especially when he makes that face (you know the face). I'm not going to discount the whole opera over him, but I really would love to see the Met re-edit some of those videos so I don't have to look at him. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:21 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Wasn't calling you out :-) - Singapore/Fling 10:14 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Well, when I'm watching TV but don't like the image on the screen, I just look away. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Wasn't calling you out :-) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:51 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Wasn't calling you out :-) - Chromolume 11:21 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| And I do, or I fast forward to the curtain rising, which solves the problem but deprives me of the overture. But... it'd be nice not to be in the position where someone we now know as a perpetrator in credible allegations of sexual harassment and abuse wasn't just popping up on my TV screen without at least fair warning. I'm curious to see what will happen with films featuring Kevin Spacey. There are some performances of his that I think are iconic and I'll still watch the film ("Usual Suspects", "L.A. Confidential"), but "Baby Driver" was hard to watch even before the allegations came out (though I'd already heard rumors and one first-hand account of Spacey's behavior). I think some good movies are going to fade into oblivion because people just don't want to watch him. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:16 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago - dramedy 03:27 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| But see, as i also said in the other thread, the water bottle "joke" isn't funny anymore, not after the new Georgia voting laws. Something that seemed like an inconvenience (and a nod to a form of 'audience behavior" courtesy) has now become something much stupider and more pernicious. It may seem like a silly thing to be denied bottled water at a show, but would you rather not have it while waiting on a very long line in the heat? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Really | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 04:27 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 04:26 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago - Chromolume 04:16 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Equating water bottles in theater to voting lines? That’s just unbelievable. You must have little humor in your life and not all jokes please everyone. But to censor on that bases is going too far in my opinion. What is criminal is having to wait in line for hours to vote not the restriction on water distribution by political parties and candidates. I wouldn’t vote if it took over 30 minutes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Posted by: StageLover 09:04 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: Really - dramedy 04:26 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| "I wouldn’t vote if it took over 30 minutes." Jesus... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:08 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Really - StageLover 09:04 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yup. As I said, that's exactly why the republicans are trying to pass laws like this - to make it as inconvenient to vote as possible, so people will give up and not vote. Particularly in districts that are heavily democratic and/or racially diverse. The R's are counting on more folks like Dramedy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:24 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Really - dramedy 04:26 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| What is criminal is having to wait in line for hours to vote not the restriction on water distribution by political parties and candidates. Well, it's insult added to injury. To have to stand in the long lines and ALSO be told you can't have water or food during the long wait. I wouldn’t vote if it took over 30 minutes. That's the point. That's EXACTLY what they want you to say. The less people that vote, the more the R's feel they can win. You'd play right into their hands. Think about it. Equating water bottles in theater to voting lines? That’s just unbelievable. You must have little humor in your life. Come on. You've known me for years out here. I really resent that. You can disagree with me, but the attack is totally unwarranted. I stand by my point. If a state can "outlaw" water in that way, having a theatre producer do something similar is perhaps not something so much to joke at any more. But I'm SO glad you can laugh at it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 09:10 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Really - Chromolume 07:24 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Last week the Georgia governor was interviewed on either CNN or MSNBC. He stated that the law is designed to prevent large political groups or organizations from setting up tents near the voting lines and then harassing the opposition (which most likely is made up of white supremacists and far right bigots). He further stated that if an individual in line needed water or food, the law would not prevent a friend or family member from bringing it to him. I don't believe there was any discussion afterward suggesting that the governor was not telling the truth. Of course, there is a lot more to the law than just the part about food and water. There is no doubt that the Georgia legislature and governor want to make it harder for minorities to vote. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:17 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Really - BroadwayTonyJ 09:10 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Legal experts who have been studying the law believe that the Governor is mistaken (or is being misleading), and that the law, at best, would allow for an umanned table to be set up with freely available water. This is one of the problems with these laws being written so quickly, often from language created by special interest groups who have an interest in maximizing their political gain. (Not sure if that was the case here, but it's a common practice.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:43 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Really - Singapore/Fling 10:17 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think it's obvious that the law was designed to thwart groups like BLM, which I imagine is legal. If the law actually goes into effect, CNN and MSNBC will have reporters and cameras on the scene to either prevent or record any individual with food and water being stopped. I'm sure the law will be appealed to a higher court. The governor's statement is on the record. I would assume that lawyers for the appeal would quote his exact words in a courtroom. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:58 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Really - BroadwayTonyJ 10:43 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| What matters in the courts is how the law is written and legally interpreted, not what the Governor is saying in the face of serious opposition from major corporations. His statements might be used to alter legislation going forward, but that does not change what the law says or influence how it is interpreted. CNN and MSNBC might take their cameras down there, but they have no legal power and they will not change the way the law is enforced. And the highest court that the case can go to is politically aligned with the people who wrote this legislation in the first place, and I see no reason to expect that a court will strike this law down. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Posted by: larry13 09:32 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Really - BroadwayTonyJ 09:10 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| "He stated that if an individual in line needed water or food, the law would not prevent a friend or family member from bringing it to him." Maybe the individual in line doesn't have a friend or family member to bring him the water or food, whether because these others are also in line or for whatever reason, including that there may not be any friends or family members. And how would it be policed to make sure that the person bringing the sustenance is a friend or family member? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Really | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 10:33 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:30 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Really - larry13 09:32 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The governor just said that individuals (but not groups) who bring people in line food or water would not be stopped. The way he explained it is that the law is designed to prevent groups from interacting with people in line to vote. I'm not defending the governor, and I don't like the law. However, I think it's important that we don't post misinformation about it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The Governor's statement is misinformation | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 12:08 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:07 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Really - BroadwayTonyJ 10:30 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The Governor is wrong about the law. It expressly forbids individuals from bringing food or water. It only allows for election officials to set up tables, which presumably could have water on them. This is the relevant section of the law, emphasis mine: "(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Governor's statement is misinformation | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 05:25 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: The Governor's statement is misinformation - Singapore/Fling 12:07 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| You're right. What he said in the interview now sounds like a lame excuse to me. He should have vetoed the bill and told the legislature to rewrite the food and drink clause so that it states what he is telling journalists on TV. The clause seems to be defining food and drink as some sort of bribe. Voters who wait in line simply want to have a drink of water or a snack because they're thirsty or hungry after waiting for hours. I think what the governor was saying in the interview was that this law does not apply to a friend or family member giving someone a bottle of water. However, he did specifically mention BLM. The law's reference to food and drink is ridiculous. The simple way to avoid all this nonsense and ridiculous laws is to have enough polling places to avoid long lines and to have a national standard on mail-in voting, which has been done for years in states like Colorado without any problems with fraud. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Governor's statement is misinformation | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 05:55 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The Governor's statement is misinformation - BroadwayTonyJ 05:25 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Well, that would be the way to do if they actually *wanted* everybody to be able to vote... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Governor's statement is misinformation | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:30 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: The Governor's statement is misinformation - Singapore/Fling 05:55 pm EDT 04/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Plus, we all know the "fraud" thing is in fact, in itself, fraud. And I think they know that too, but they won't let go of the excuse. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:01 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I started the water bottle as a joke a few days ago - dramedy 03:27 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| see what I wrote below. Please stop justifying the behavior based on what people will and won't do in spite of it. Rudin would definitely sit up and listen if confronted with sanctions under the beefed up workplace laws. Punitive damages serve a purpose as do other sanctions. So does the end of confidentiality and attorneys fees. And there is zero doubt that had there been a complaint he would have been convicted of assault (no such thing as battery in NY) and harassment. Would he go to the pokey? Most likely not, unless he was subsequently held in contempt of court, but a conviction is a conviction and (as I think I said elsewhere) investors may not care about conduct but they abhor controversy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Along with "Cancel," "Toxic" should be dropped from our current vocabulary | |
| Posted by: Jax 03:15 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: ^ This Is 100% the Truth of Our Toxic Industry - Singapore/Fling 02:42 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| It's become a cliche from bleeding hearts who want to throw a blanket condemnation on everything. So the theatre is "toxic?" Compared to what? Coal mining? Policing? Janitorial work? There are tons of people who would kill to be in the theatre, have glamour jobs, expense accounts, the like. Which is part of why there is so much competition to get into the theatre and get those jobs. Which is why petty tyrants like Scott Rudin can flourish....they're holding the bag of candy. The way to bring about better behavior by bosses in entertainment -- a HUGE project, sort of like asking the King to curtsy to his subjects -- is not by branding the whole culture "toxic." It's just more empty talk, pure cant |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Let's also drop excusing toxicity in one workplace because another workplace has it worse - they're all examples of the same problem | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:41 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Along with "Cancel," "Toxic" should be dropped from our current vocabulary - Jax 03:15 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| And that problem is late stage Capitalism. I think you put it perfectly when you compare entertainment bosses to kings and the employees of those bosses to the king's subjects.You make it even more perfect when you say that to be treated with respect by your boss would be as equally difficult as a King (or Queen) to genuflect to the common people who they regard as below them. And that situation, which is rampant across global capitalism, is, I'll use the word again, Toxic. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Along with "Cancel," "Toxic" should be dropped from our current vocabulary | |
| Posted by: ryhog 03:50 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Along with "Cancel," "Toxic" should be dropped from our current vocabulary - Jax 03:15 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| When I read your subject line, I thought maybe you had a point, and then I opened your post and discovered that you undercut that by spewing your own brand of toxicity. Toxicity - or whatever you want to call it - is not something justifiable by comparison. Is it ok that we have asbestos in office walls because it does not cause as much pain and suffering as what miners breathe in coal mines? Wanna know what's toxic? Excusing Rudin's behavior because people want to "be in the theatre." That's what let's Rudin's behavior flourish. Now to your point, yes all of this labeling and all of these petitions etc etc etc are not going to bring about change. But they do highlight the behavior and from that we get new and better laws to combat the evils of workplace bullying and worse. We now have stronger laws, that provide both added encouragement to complain and compensation for doing so (which also serve as an added deterrent to ogres) and mechanisms to prevent the chilling and silencing of complaints. (The voiding of confidentiality agreements in relation to purposeful communication is a big deal.) So yes let's rise above the labels, but let's stop with the fucking apologies. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That's dead wrong. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 02:22 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re For good or ill - NewtonUK 01:57 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| As I have explained in numerous posts. If you employ people in New York it behooves you to get trained on this subject. And/or you can circumnavigate the problem by just not bullying anyone. Which I recommend. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I have three words “let it go” | |
| Posted by: dramedy 02:36 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: That's dead wrong. - ryhog 02:22 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I’m surprised anyone would defend rudin’s behavior as not legally actionable. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Uh | |
| Last Edit: NoPeopleLike 02:04 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: NoPeopleLike 02:00 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re For good or ill - NewtonUK 01:57 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| That's simply not true. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:47 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" - Billhaven 10:29 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I have no connection to Mr. Rudin other than being acquainted with some people who have been in his shows so I have no personal insight into his behaviour. From what I've heard the accusations amount to him being an a**hole who yells at people- his employees and others- and is an emotional bully and general no-goodnik in human terms. I can well understand that there are a lot of people who would choose not to work for Mr. Rudin- myself included- if abuse and belittlement came with the gig. But the same held true for David Merrick, Jerome Robbins, Arthur Laurents, Jed Harris and countless other producer/director/creators. And the American Theater would be wildly poorer if they had not been a part of it. Just like the current Broadway culture would be poorer without Rudin's contributions, power and money. I have no problem with people calling him out on it and talking about it in the press and if he chooses to pursue libel claims against them, then that is his business. But until there are serious and credible reports of physical or sexual assault, then I don't know why it's a thing. Otherwise we are well on our way to a world where if a director says to an intern assistant "That's a bad idea", they will be publicly flogged for emotional battery and silencing their voice. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Last Edit: mikem 01:33 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: mikem 01:32 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Maybe deservedly so? - portenopete 11:47 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The Hollywood Reporter article opens with a report of an assistant's hand injured by being smashed by a computer monitor because of Rudin. The article implies that it was a deliberate act, but no witnesses are interviewed, so we don't actually know. Even the horrified co-workers feel that the physical assault was unexpected and somewhat out of character, although they give plenty of examples of him throwing things around and smashing objects while having a temper tantrum. That's the only physical assault I noticed in the article. My personal guess is that the physical assault was unintentional, that he was throwing things around and didn't intend to hit the assistant, although that doesn't negate the fact that he did hit him. Many years ago, I had to interact at work with a mini-version of Rudin for a couple of weeks. Like with Rudin, everyone knew what he was like but no one would do anything about it because he was a top earner. One day, he was throwing things around the room in a temper tantrum, and one of them hit me. It had a sharp edge and drew blood, although it was a minor injury that just needed a bandaid. I am sure he did not intend to hit me, although he never apologized and actually tried to get me fired when I made a complaint about it. And his boss, after he received the complaint, called me into his office to threaten me, saying, "I very strongly advise you not to take this any further than you already have." I was about the age of the assistants in the article. I have a different kind of strength today than I did then. If it happened now, I might have filed a police report so that there was a public paper trail, but at the time I was young and easily intimidated. My time with the guy and his entire department was coincidentally coming to a close anyway, and I didn't pursue it any further. I never saw him or his boss again. Nothing happened to the guy, and I'm sure he continued to behave horribly. I have complicated feelings about Rudin. On one hand, IF we believe the physical assault was unintentional (reckless behavior rather than intentionally trying to hurt someone physically), he isn't breaking any major laws, and his assistants are adults who took the job with their eyes wide open. I'm sure they had other offers. I think that’s why there hasn’t been much response. He’s a jerk, he’s not a criminal. On the other hand, his behavior is really not okay, and I strongly disagree with the contention that, because he is producing something of value, it's okay that he treats people terribly. As someone earlier said, he's not throwing things at Hugh Jackman. He has the ability to control himself but chooses not to. And a Rudin (or Robbins or Merrick or...) with more self-control would still be able to contribute to the theater world in the same way, without being an asshole to powerless people around him. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 04:02 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - mikem 01:32 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I really appreciated your thoughtful, personal and nuanced account. I am so glad you contributed! I'm glad you emerged from your own Boss from Hell situation relatively unscathed and seemingly with your dignity and sense of self-worth intact. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: mikem 12:15 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - portenopete 04:02 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| portenopete, thank you for your kind words. I was really debating whether to post my experience, and I'm glad you found it was worth reading. I was lucky that my time interacting with the guy was short, so it did not have as deep an effect as it would have if it had been a prolonged experience. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 01:51 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - mikem 01:32 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| A complicated subject. People always reference Jerome Robbins but there was a seemingly long tradition of directors in the 50s and 60s who were known to be difficult. John Dexter and Alan Schneider to name two. They were mean. Cutting and sarcastic. I have worked for a few directors like that. They usually single out some young defenseless actor to heap withering scorn upon. Greg Boyd at the Alley Theatre in Houston was like that. They wouldn't dream of directing their contempt on their mature and confident stars. Only the ingenues or apprentices. Unfortunately, that behavior is not criminal. Just plain crummy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: scoot1er 10:00 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - Billhaven 01:51 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I worked with Greg Boyd many years ago, in 1987 actually, and I never witnessed any abusive behavior toward any of the actors in the show. Yes, it was a long time ago and perhaps he changed, but at that time he was always a gentleman and a terrific director, ready to listen to an actor’s ideas and willing to try them out. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 10:54 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - scoot1er 10:00 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The Houston Chronicle wrote about " the abrupt retirement of longtime Alley Theatre Artistic Director Gregory Boyd, the Houston Chronicle reported today that more than a dozen current and former Alley employees have said that under Boyd, the theater had a “toxic, bullying atmosphere.” https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Alley-theatre-houston-gregory-boyd-allegations-12492467.php |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 04:11 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - Billhaven 01:51 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, Dexter was certainly legendary. Other British expats as well. That class of directors who emerged- many from the public school system- in the mid-20th century were inculcated in that classist, rapacious mindset where boys were taught to, first, bury any dignity or strength in service of their "superiors" and then learn how to wield it, presumably in service of Queen & Country. This weekend we have been remembering The Duke of Edinburgh, for whom Gordounston was a revelatory experience; unfortunately for his son it was not so felicitous. I never worked with Dexter or Schneider but I did work with other Tony-nominated Brits who could do a good job in making an actor feel small and worthless. Fortunately I was never a whipping boy but I certainly spent the rehearsal period in fear. Perhaps it was this "training" that has corrupted me? But I still feel that I would do it all again if those guys were still alive and creating the productions I saw that were so brilliant and smart and meaningful. The part that troubles me is the way the pendulum has whipped so forcefully the other direction. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: larry13 04:23 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - portenopete 04:11 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Just a small clarification: don't know if you meant to say he too was a Brit, but, for what it's worth, Alan Schneider was NOT; he was American. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:45 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - mikem 01:32 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Intent is not required for assault in NY. Recklessness is sufficient. Also worth noting that there is a separate misdemeanor called harassment, which requires a course of conduct and a purpose (but nothing physical). In a case like this, it would likely be charged also. I am surprised anyone finds any of this excusable for any reason but so be it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: mikem 04:01 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - ryhog 01:45 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I would personally make a distinction between what is excusable and what is criminal. None of his behavior is excusable. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:03 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - mikem 04:01 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| More to the point, all of his behavior is illegal. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 01:22 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 01:20 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Maybe deservedly so? - portenopete 11:47 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| So it’s ok that Michael Jackson sexually and emotionally abused children because he’s talented and has brought so many good songs and performances to the world. Got it. And physical, verbal, and emotional abuse is just as bad as sexual abuse. Trauma is trauma. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:11 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Maybe deservedly so? - portenopete 11:47 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Until there are serious and credible reports of physical or sexual assault, then I don't know why it's a thing." Incredible. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 12:27 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - Michael_Portantiere 12:11 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Incredible" that I don't think that Scott Rudin should be banished from the theatre and put in jail because he is mean to underlings and yells at people and occasionally throws things? I'll own that opinion. Because what is "unacceptable" behaviour for a superior has become warped beyond recognition. Having said that, if there are charges against him, then ethically the Times should cover them and not protect him because he spends money for their ad space. And I would hope that the public coverage of Rudin's regrettable behaviour- whether or not it is deemed to be criminal- has some effect on him and makes him rethink his actions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:05 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Maybe deservedly so? - portenopete 11:47 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| "But until there are serious and credible reports of physical . . . assault" There are, which kinda takes the wind out of your sails. We don't let criminals do lots of things that would make the (theatre) world better. We didn't let Drabinsky (another producer who did some great things amidst his criminality) and we should not let Rudin. The difference is that there has not been a Mike Ovitz to face Rudin. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 12:13 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - ryhog 12:05 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| As I have read the accounts- not forensically, I admit- wasn't the "physical assault" the result of Rudin throwing something and it inadvertently breaking and hitting somebody? Not nothing and perfectly subject to whatever laws he broke. But not the same as him jumping on someone and beating them with a hammer. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:21 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - portenopete 12:13 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| ***As I have read the accounts- not forensically, I admit- wasn't the "physical assault" the result of Rudin throwing something and it inadvertently breaking and hitting somebody?**** According to the story in the Hollywood Reporter, that is totally incorrect in at least one very notable, alleged case. Perhaps you might want to re-read that article -- or read it for the first time, if you haven't -- before commenting further. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Hey! I just read the article in full! | |
| Posted by: portenopete 03:54 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - Michael_Portantiere 12:21 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| And I kinda feel the same way. Yelling at people, forcing them to work ungodly hours, humiliating them. It's awful behaviour that deserves to be known and- as the article points out repeatedly- HAS been known in the industry and beyond for years. Any 20something coming out of NYU or UCLA should be forewarned and forearmed if they accept a gig in his office. Just the way I imagine anyone was who went to work for David Merrick fifty years ago, or Jed Harris before that. Ultimately he is being judged by the court of public opinion for his work, both for its quality and for its profitability. He is almost inevitably associated with top-drawer art and has good taste in assembling creative teams. That should in no way stand in the way when he has broken a law and if charges are laid and stick and he goes to trial, I'd shed no tears for him (although I'd mourn the quality projects he ushered to the stage and screen). I felt the same way about Garth Drabinsky twenty-five years ago. In my opinion, the assistant who was fired was not fired "because of her diabetes" and her assertion that she could have "100 percent sued him" sounds like a child and that kind of overly-dramatic claim only lessens her position of strength. But to me this article reeks of a trade publication angling for national prominence in the Ronan Farrow/Kantor & Twohey vein, hoping to vault Ms Siegel into that class of ubiquitous cultural commentators who are perennial pundits on CNN and MSNBC or the subjects of vilification on Fox. But the good that can come out of it is to reinforce for all but the hardiest souls that perhaps Mr. Rudin is not the wisest person to hang your hat on career-wise and to scale back your desire to be at the pinnacle of power. Because anyone who wants to work for him that much must have a real taste for it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hey! I just read the article in full! | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:08 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Hey! I just read the article in full! - portenopete 03:54 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I would say that the good that can come out of this is a set of laws (the most recent amendments being a good start) that don't make someone choose between their aspirations and conduct like that described here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hey! I just read the article in full! | |
| Posted by: portenopete 04:26 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hey! I just read the article in full! - ryhog 04:08 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I totally agree with you but I still have a nagging worry that the decline and disappearance of those awful, hurtful people is not making the theatre a better place for the audiences. I have LOVED the work of- for instance- Rachel Chavkin and Tommy Kail and understand them to be nothing but upstanding people in life as well as superior artists. I just prefer a theatre community where there is a variety of types running things and I can make my own choices about whom to work with and whether or not to wear protective gear when I come to work. And if the work of the monstres sacrés finally has no audience it will bite the dust and it will be an inevitable bit of evolution. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hey! I just read the article in full! | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:44 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hey! I just read the article in full! - portenopete 04:26 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think we can facilitate that evolution just as we have passed laws against various forms of discrimination, for instance. One thing I am pretty sure I know about Rudin: if the choice were between producing theatre (or movies) that bring him accolades and awards and perpetuating his pathological misconduct, I think he will find a way to chart the former course, even if it costs him tons in therapy fees. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hey! I just read the article in full! | |
| Posted by: larry13 04:31 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hey! I just read the article in full! - portenopete 04:26 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Who's talking about whether "the decline and disappearance of those awful, hurtful people is" or is "not making the theatre a better place for the audiences?" You or anyone else in the AUDIENCE? It's the people who are working with these ogres who deserve decent working conditions. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 12:28 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - Michael_Portantiere 12:21 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I will. Thanks! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Maybe deservedly so? | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:11 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - ryhog 12:05 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Being sent to the hospital is enough proof for physical abuse. And consistently yelling at employees is actionable abuse. The example of dismissing a suggestion does not rise to actionable abuse. What rudin is accused of doing is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Except... | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 12:10 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Maybe deservedly so? - ryhog 12:05 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| ... it seems like those assaulted have been happy to take the cash rather than filing charges. According to the HR story: "The wounded assistant headed to the emergency room, and Rudin called his lawyer..." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That's not an "except." It's what I said. nm | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:55 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Except... - MockingbirdGirl 12:10 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The voices in your head don't count (nm) | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 01:12 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: That's not an "except." It's what I said. nm - ryhog 12:55 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| And what point are you making? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:46 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: The voices in your head don't count (nm) - MockingbirdGirl 01:12 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| It's okay to assault your assistant as long as they get a good pay out? Not really following your line of argument, and also surprised that you didn't call straw man, since this actually IS a straw man argument. smh |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And what point are you making? | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 03:30 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 03:29 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: And what point are you making? - Singapore/Fling 02:46 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The point I'm making is that while there are indeed "serious and credible" accounts of assault, someone has to actually be willing to press charges against him instead of being buyed off. Not sure why you believe that's a 'straw man' argument in the slightest. It seems to be exactly what's been happening. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And what point are you making? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:10 am EDT 04/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: And what point are you making? - MockingbirdGirl 03:29 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Ok, cool, that got lost in translation. And the OP of this thread was the straw man argument, and even continued insisting no abuse had happened *after reading about the computer smashing*. Just surprised you didn't call that out. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That isn’t any different than sexual abuse | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:13 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Except... - MockingbirdGirl 12:10 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Pay off the victim to not cooperate with the investigation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 11:23 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" - Billhaven 10:29 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Variety and The Atlantic noted the story, and Playbill finally turned up (surprisingly). For there to be any effect, people/companies who are hooked on his money are going to have to give it up. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 11:31 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" - sirpupnyc 11:23 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| It will be interesting to see how the NY Times handles it. They receive millions of dollars through the 2,3,4 full page ads for Rudin shows. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:43 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" - Billhaven 11:31 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I will leave for someone else to speak to the editorial vs business issue and to say where their breaking point is, but a couple of thoughts on the ad revenue. First, they've gotten used to not having it for over a year, and as they transition away from the print edition, their will be less and less splashing. Rudin's silly ads are a part of his nostalgia for an industry that has changed dramatically. And ironically (or not so ironic) his conduct we are talking about now is also a throwback to the bygone era in which he came up the hard way. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| "Silly" ads? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:49 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" - ryhog 11:43 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| What are Scott Rudin's "silly ads"? Please elaborate lest I begin speculating. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Silly" ads? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:07 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: "Silly" ads? - portenopete 11:49 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The full page/multipage ads in the Times. They are grotesquely ineffective cost wise and are, as I mentioned, a part of his nostalgia for bygone days. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Silly" ads? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 12:21 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "Silly" ads? - ryhog 12:07 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Who cares if he has nostalgia for an older theatre culture? So do a lot of people- the majority, I'd think- who buy tickets to his productions. He's selling nostalgia as part of his brand. As far as I can tell his productions have done as well as any in the last decade in terms of bums in seats and excitement generated. I don't give a crap what his profit margins are and whether he'd make more doing viral alerts on Twitter than a two-page spread in The Times. There's a hell of a lot of theatre today that I could easily dismiss as "silly" and I think that by not giving it the benefit of my doubt, it's ultimately me who is the poorer for it. I don't know what age you are but I am making an assumption that you're young and I wonder whether you equate any person or play over 40 with "embarrassing" and "out-of-date"? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Silly" ads? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:25 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "Silly" ads? - portenopete 12:21 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Ads are business expenses, not ways of satiating nostalgic urges. So I call spending millions without any conceivable return (and that is easily documented) silly. I understand that you may like seeing them but it's not about you. Regarding age, first you guessed wrong. I am painfully close to Rudin in age, but your reverse ageism shtick falls flat regardless. There are producers (painfully) older than Rudin who would tell you he's nuts to spend the money on big splashy ads. Of course, he also screws ad agencies by not paying for those ads, but that's another matter. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I will try harder not to make this about me, ryhog. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 04:20 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "Silly" ads? - ryhog 01:25 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for clarifying your age. Hope you're okay with it: you used "painfully" twice! You wrote: "Ads are business expenses, not ways of satiating nostalgic urges." Really? I thought Mad Men made a pretty good case for the depth and variety of advertising (mostly for ill, I admit). Nostalgia is one of the most powerful forces at work on people or how else would we have been saddled with 45? All I can say is seeing those two-page spreads in the NYT gives me great pleasure and joy and I am glad he's happy to waste his money on them. He is obviously trying to conjure a vanishing world of theatre and I appreciate that impulse. If you, in all your superannuated wisdom, think it's bullshit, then so be it. Now nonpayment of the ad agencies I won't try and defend. That's just rude. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I will try harder not to make this about me, ryhog. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:26 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I will try harder not to make this about me, ryhog. - portenopete 04:20 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think we generally understand what the other is saying, whether we agree or not. A few quick responses. "painful" was a joke except it is no joke for the few minutes it takes me to get out of bed and into a hot shower. re nostalgia, yes it can and famously has worked but in advertising the proof is in the bottom line and those ads are a net loss. I am referring btw to Rudin's nostalgia for the way things were (something that extends to how he envisions his "toxic" impresario self) when big ad splashes were de rigueur, not to the look/feel of the artwork. Oh and re "waste his money," never fear, it ain't his. lol I have nothing against your enjoyment of the ads. As I tried to convey, I was commenting exclusively on the bang for the buck, which is a joke. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I will try harder not to make this about me, ryhog. | |
| Posted by: larry13 04:26 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I will try harder not to make this about me, ryhog. - portenopete 04:20 pm EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Is 'rude" really the best you can come up with for people who don't pay their bills? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" | |
| Posted by: claploudly 10:50 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" - Billhaven 10:29 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| What does "there are mostly crickets" mean please? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" | |
| Posted by: richmurphy 11:01 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "After Scott Rudin expose there are mostly crickets" - claploudly 10:50 am EDT 04/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| A synonym for "silence", especially as a non-response to something deserving a response. See Daffy Duck below. | |
| Link | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDS3B65W6wA |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
Time to render: 0.285636 seconds.