"Michael Riedel is not a critic, he's an idot." -- Boy George (on TABOO)

Well, he's right. And his being right has to do with more than Taboo. Riedel isn't a critic. He's a gossip columnist who wishes he was.

But to answer your question, Riedel basically put the Taboo cast and creatives in a fishbowl; because they didn't have an out-of-town tryout, their entire tweaking process happened in New York, and with insider info, he was able to find out what was going wrong and stuff. It was not much unlike what he's still doing, where he sort of picks a pet show and sets out to destroy it but the drama was elevated because there was such a major celebrity with such a major lawsuit involved.

---

And along with that was the Avenue Q controversy. Which I really wish had been addressed in the documentary.

---

I don't think Riedel wants to be a critic. For starters, he doesn't have the writing skills, but I do think he likes “stirring the pot” and making headlines where there really aren't any. I have long suspected that many of his “insider tips” are actually fed by press agents just hoping to get some mileage out of his mentions – good or bad.

He is opinionated, but he loves getting free tickets to shows, he loves the theatre - good theatre - and he loves stimulating discussion.

Years ago Walter Winchell did the same thing but since his passing there really hasn't been a Broadway gossip gatherer. Riedel, obviously, wants to have the power and intimidation that Winchell had in his day. What Riedel doesn’t have is Winchell’s extensive grasp of language and ability to twist words and coin unique phrases.

---

He sells papers. Love him or hate him, we all read him.

---

Michael Riedel isn't a critic, but he is a voting member for the Tonys. He's a gossip columnist. But, he loves the theatre, and his column does at least gets the theatre exposure. In real life he's actually a nice man, and loves to talk about the theatre.. the shows, and not about the people. His column is an act, and he likes to play the "bad boy".

As far as the Avenue Q controvesry.... It was up against Wicked, which was a big budget show by comparison. Typically, the Tony's go to shows with "road appeal". What the people from Avenue Q did was write a song that was sent to the Tony voters.. asking them to vote their hearts. Technically, campaigning for an award isn't within the Tony rules, and is frowned upon. What Avenue Q did was limited in scoope and not considered campaigning in the true from of the concept. It was just a song.

I saw both shows that year, and Wicked deserved the Tony nod, but not the win. The staging was/is more or less typical. The music has some memorible songs. But it was a standard big Broadway production. Avenune Q, was creative with the use of the puppets, fresh,new, and not a big budget production. The music was just as good if not better than Wicked, which is why it deserved the win over Wicked.

Taboo's biggest problem.. was Roise O'Donnell. She was a nightmare, and kept telling the creative team how to do the show.

She was very disruptive to the show, but supporive of the cast and concept. She simply didn't know enough about the business, and when to step back and follow the advice she was given.

I saw it about two weeks before it closed, and I don't think the Broadway version was "too British," or inaccessible to American audiences. All of the restructuring that was done turned what had been a solid story into a mess with loose ends that never got tied. That's what turned people off, I think. The story was difficult to follow. It's sad to think what might have been with that show.

---

Updated On: 4/26/08 at 02:47 PM

I don't read him, but he is an idiot.

If you don't read him then how do you know?

---

I love me some Riedel.

He may be a bitch but he's no idiot!

---

B3, the point I was making is that my family can trace its roots to before the American Revolution. Why do you say "...because no one else can say that."? They did keep records in pre-Revolutionary days and some of my ancestors were buried before 1776. I know because I've seen their grave sites. Explain, please.

---

Updated On: 4/26/08 at 05:09 PM

Orange Skittles, FYI:

Your statement that "most" Americans immigrated (BYW, the word is "emigrated") after the 18th Century is incorrect. Your claim about WASPs would certainly not be applicable to my past, whose families were farmers who would be considered lower middle class in today's jargon. The family settled in North Carolina somewhere in the latter part of the 17th Century. My only point in the whole comment was regarding the assumption that only a British person could appreciate the humor. Please mind your own business and speak not of what you don't know in the future.

---

Updated On: 4/26/08 at 05:38 PM