Michael Riedel on Why He Hates Spider-Man

[chanel]

Posted: 2/2/11 at 9:37am

A very funny interview that Taymor will not like.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-02-02/columns/spiderman-broadway-michael-riedel/

[rorschach37]

Posted: 2/2/11 at 3:47pm

Does he think that everyone but him is deaf/blind? Because we've all heard/read that he hates Spider-Man several times already.

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 2/2/11 at 4:03pm

Michael Riedel is simply nasty. I met him and called him on his negativity. I asked him why was he so mean-spirited? He told me that he believed there was a long history of theater commentary similar to his and that he was just doing his job. He also said that he was in therapy to deal with his issues/demons.

This conversations was a few years ago. I suggest he seek a new therapist, s/he hasn't been helping.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/2/11 at 7:30pm

He gets paid for his opinion. THAT'S his job. And here, he's pretty much right on the money.

Should he pretend that that its a great piece of theater?

I don't care who likes a show, but I would NEVER encourage someone to see a show that I've hated. Why would I? I'd feel incredibly guilty. I certainly tell folks if I THINK they will like it -- IF THEY ASK.

And perhaps his statement about therapy was SARCASM. I don't always agree with him, but I believe he has the right to say whatever he thinks.

Updated On: 2/2/11 at 07:30 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/2/11 at 7:37pm

The problem is he chooses things to hate and destroy before he has much more information than the title and creative team of a show. And many times he's been wrong and the shows have been good.

Remember, he was sure no audience would ever see a performance of Spider-Man. Or the HAIR revival.

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 2/2/11 at 7:47pm

I agree completely that he has the right to say what he thinks and feels, but I'm not totally with you on the recommendations. I don't write something off for others just because I haven't liked it. When people ask me if they should see a show, I could never presume to know what they will or will not like. Even they can't really know that until they see it. But what I can do is present information to them and tell them what I either liked or disliked about a show. Sometimes, the things I love about shows, others dislike, and the elements I don't care for are what really engage some. Where formal reviews are concerned, I typically align myself with certain critics (that's why there are many) who share a similar taste in art/theatre and who are more likely to steer me down the right path.

There's a difference between being a critic, presenting information and opinions about shows, and being a jaded, sarcastic old bag who thinks he or she is superior and entertaining. There's a way to say things that will be helpful and informative for people, and then there's a way to make yourself look like a real jerk. I don't ever get much from Riedel's "reviews" or commentaries or whatever he wants to call them, because I'm so stuck on how smug and self-satisfied his reviews sound. He just sounds like one of those people who is so proud that he's gotten to a place in life where he can hate everything so well. Doesn't do much in the way of help or inform me.

But to each his own, no?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/2/11 at 8:17pm

When I spoke of giving an opinion to others whether I THOUGHT they might like or dislike a show is only for people that I know. Of course, I couldn't presume to know that of someone here, for example.

As far as him being 'wrong' about shows that were good, isnt' that still an opinion? Just because you liked something he didn't, doesn't make him wrong.

(And for the record: I'm not a huge fan of Riedel's, I just believe he is doing the job for which he was hired. )

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 2/2/11 at 8:24pm

dramamama - I'm with you to a point. Not a huge fan of his, and I GUESS he's doing his job. I just feel like he does it with so much of a focus on himself. ("Am I coming across as the persona I've created? Am I being sarcastic enough? Do I sound jaded enough?") It just feels like he's thinking only about how he's coming across and not genuinely about informing people or even really sharing his opinions in a productive way.

When I read his columns (which I always have to; I work in News PR and scan the dailies, well, daily...) it just always feels like the Michael Riedel Hour. Blah.

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 10:33am

To HummingAlong,

I enjoy reading your posts, and am glad you are a member of this forum. You have worthwhile things to say. As one who is no fan of either nastiness or snark, I particularly appreciated the thread you began on that subject.

But when I read a phrase like "jaded, sarcastic old bag," well that seems pretty nasty to me, and ageist, too. What do you think?

As for Riedel, I think he can be very funny. He's on the mark more often than not. Sometimes, though, he goes too far. But he's self-deprecating, and is able to laugh at himself. He gets high marks for that, in my book.

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 1:09pm

He can hate and like whatever he wants. But there's no doubt in my mind that the guy was biased against the show before he walked in the door and then essentially reviewed it. That's a shame.

At the end of the day, what matters is the money. If the show lasts a long time and makes money (turning a profit or at least cutting into the $65 million investment in a significant way), then the people have voted with their pocketbooks, and that's that. The critics will have spoken, but then so will have the paying public.

I posted my "thoughts" about the show on a earlier thread after I say it. This guy pre-wrote his review before he sat down in the seat.

[bryan2]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 1:43pm

Riedel is a smug little creature who thinks he is the next Frank (old smug little creature) Rich. He wants to destroy a show before it opens because he wants credability..
Those who can do those who cant become critics

[TheatreDork3]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:00pm

I do find it interesting that Riedel is interviewed by Musto. Let's face it, neither of them are huge fans of the show, so it's almost like a vortex of Spidey-Negativity.

TD

[JimCo]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:23pm

In my humble opinion, he makes a lot of sense. Everybody I know that has seen it has hated it. I do think people's safety is a very important issue. I think that it should stay in my mind as the wonderful film that it was, not the abysmal show that it is. It takes more than a lot of special effects to make a show good. What about a book and a theatre score?
BILLY ELLIOT is a masterful show from a great film, but it lends itself to being musicalized. SPIDER MAN does not! I will save my money. Any show that takes $1,000,000 a week to brake even, most probably will never turn a profit. There must be lots of people who need a tax right-off.

[newintown]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:25pm

Neither of them will be remembered 10 years after they retire or expire either. But what they write is diverting enough on a particularly dull morning, I suppose.

Musto in particular kind of creeps me out while simultaneously amusing me. He's writing exactly the same content in exactly the same way as he was 30 years ago. He's a paragon of consistency, you must admit.

But neither will be remembered even as little as Winchell, Hopper, or Smith are today. Gossip is of the moment, and disappears faster than smoke in the wind.

[Pippin]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 2:42pm

"
Let's face it, neither of them are huge fans of the show, so it's almost like a vortex of Spidey-Negativity."


A Web, maybe?

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 3:42pm

His dislike for the show continues with this past week's episode of Theater Talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBwb4QG7J3c

[Adam Chris]

Posted: 2/3/11 at 7:09pm

I think if the show can keep audiences in the theater until next summer, the new Spiderman movie will generate more interest the following year. I bet that's the hope of the producers.

[KT1385]

Posted: 2/4/11 at 2:15am

He's becoming the Perez Hilton of theatre critics! I can't wait till he starts drawing cartoon penises on pictures of Julie!

[PReeves2]

Posted: 2/4/11 at 5:06am

i think any investors in this show are now investing for a tax write off.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/4/11 at 7:40am

If he had said "Look, this whole thing reeked of the kind of corporate cynicism that seems antithetical to the creativity of theater. However, if the product was any good I totally would have been behind it", I totally would have believed him.

But no...it's Reidel...it's all about me me me me me me me. Ad infinitum.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 2/4/11 at 7:53am

(...but how 'bout that great mention for Knickerbocker Holiday ?! )

[tazber]

Posted: 2/4/11 at 8:06am

I like Reidel. I find his self deprecation amusing and think people (his targets) generally take his comments to heart more than they should. He doesn't wield as much power as some believe he does (and he's the first to admit this).

But his crusade against Spiderman definitely seems personal at this point. And that's a shame.

Of course they did make him move from his orchestra seat to the nosebleed section so I guess he has an axe to grind. But even before that he admitted it was going to be his whipping boy.

I have gathered from reading his many columns on the show that his main problem is Taymor's lack of understanding regarding the budget. He seems to feel (and this my interpretation of what he's written) that her ego has allowed the show to balloon to its unprecedented budget on her artistic whims.

That's not Taymor's fault of course, it's the producers who have indulged her. And it's also their fiscal loss, not hers (although her reputation is certainly damaged to a degree).

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 2/4/11 at 9:26am

Going back a bit... I do not think Mr. Riedel was being sarcastic the evening we spoke. I truly think he has some very serious issues, and his "being in therapy" comment genuine. Quite honestly, I was taken by surprise when I spoke with him. He was far more likable in person, one-on-one, than he is in his column, or even just a few minutes earlier, before we spoke, when he sat on a panel and acted like a jerk.

When we spoke, he was clear that he saw himself as a gossip columnist and not a critic. This makes sense and I thought honest.

Oh, for the record, I didn't think Mr. Riedel, "old". Perhaps that's because I am in my 50's.

As for Spider-man... I finally saw it and thought it beyond brilliant: a masterpiece. One of the most exciting pieces of theater on Broadway today. If you're interested, you can read more about my thoughts in the "Preview" thread.

* * *

After my experience here on this board first with Memphis and now with Spider-man, I have come to see many members on this board no better than Mr. Riedel. I really have to look for another place on the web to discuss theater. I find my tastes often completely at odds with members here.

Without any doubt, I find much of what was typed here inaccurate and often just plain nasty and cruel. There are some people who's ideas are of value to me and I truly appreciate those of you, but...

[juice23]

Posted: 2/4/11 at 4:10pm

I've never had much of an opinion on Riedel, but after watching that documentary "Show Business:THe Road to Broadway", I am left wondering why he chooses to write about theatre at all.

He pretty much trashed all 4 shows being discussed in the film, and claimed ridiculous things like "Avenue Q will close before January." When it won the TONY (and was still running in June), he gladly attended their party.

What DOES this man like?

I'm sure he's not too far off about Spiderman... but still, it's beating a dead horse. Everyone knows it's in trouble. He's just an attention whore.