Michael Riedels's picks & pans

He can be terribly vicious--also very patronizing to certain
shows--almost as if he has an axe to grind; he's a better
interviewer than a columnist; supposedly straight, he cer-
tainly pursues the queenly banter on Theatre Talk.

He's not a critic. He's a gossip columnist.

---

Yeah, you're very right, BUT, when you have people reading to see his 'picks and pans'..it does influence readers to a degree. The general public will not think 'Oh, he's a gossip columnist'..they'll just say,'That guy from 'the post' hated that show. And anyone who has the power of words to be transmitted across the board, nationally and worldwide, has a responsibility. He doesn't call himself a critic. But he is to an extent. And he has ruined the likes of many shows because he has influenced many to not attend. I think morenotably and publically with Taboo, but There's many others, but that's the big one in recent memory.
And honestly, I think he used Taboo as a way to give himself more notoriety because it was a target he created to make a name for himself and give himself more 'theatre cred'. So, he may not be a critic. But he's a vulture. And he, and many others should not be allowed to run away with hurting the passion, creation and efforts and JOBS that people fight to keep on a daily basis.

Updated On: 6/1/07 at 08:11 AM

But Riedel rarely (if ever) comments on whether or not he likes a show. In talking about a show, he tends to say "the critics, who (loved/hated)...."

He didn't ruin Taboo. He just reported about the goings-on. He didn't run out of a rehearsal, he wasn't getting sued by his publishers. He didn't create a mediocre book and he certainly wasn't the one who poorly directed the show.

Yeah Yankee, true.
But Taboo was not the worst thing ever either. It had potential to grow, it had potential to change. The show was not frozen and he was the main reason people started buzzing bad about it from the start.
And in retrospect, there are far worse shows out there that didn't need to survive based on those reasons alone.
Taboo was begining to build an audience and it defenitely had an amazing score.
What it lacked in book and direction was made up for in costumes, lighting, music and a dynamite cast with incredible performances and alot of heart.

The show needed to breathe a little, and Riedel led the abortion a bit premature.

Um, when a show opens it's frozen. Taboo opened, the critics saw the final product and it stunk. It's got a very good score and had a pretty great cast, but why sit through a boring, confusing, and long show just to hear the music? People realized it was just easier to listen to their Boy George albums.

And no, it wasn't building an audience. Rosie wouldn't have closed it if grosses were picking up and attendance was higher. The grosses were dropping, attendance was getting lower, and she was losing money. If you liked Taboo, fine, but don't rewrite history.

---

Also media- whatever is deemed "not good" and lasts usually has somethign going for it. Many people hate Phantom, but despite it's flaws in the material, it's flawlessly executed and received generally positive reviews. Many people hate Wicked, but it got a number of good reviews (if not raves, and a few negative ones), and featured likable characters in a harmless setting.

Whether it's reviews, or the way it is presented, or just the material itself, a long lasting show doesn't last because it sucks. There are plenty of movies out there that do amazingly well despite their quality, but what do you expect when you're paying $10 or less and have the movie playing conveniently next to you? For Broadway, and yes we're talking Broadway because that's what Riedel talks about, tickets are too high and seeing something isn't convenient enough for people to just go to anything.

---

That's my new quote.

---

Though mediakilled has been thoroughly picked apart already, I must say...

"Like all critics, they make money out of destroying creation and the valuable efforts people are making to keep theatre alive. "

They also champion and support worthwhile achievement.

"Go see a show and judge it for yourself and love it for yourself and experience for yourself. "

I hate when people even say this about movie critics. And if I'm not gonna drop nine bucks to take a chance on something every critic hated, I'm sure as hell not gonna spend a hundred.

"NEVER listen to a comment from these repressed so-called 'critics'... who probably couldn't make it in theatre themselves, so they had to find an 'in' so they could feel self-validated to say they're involved in theatre. when in all actuality, they are so far removed. "

I'm a teacher. A drama teacher at the high school level. I have worked as an actor. Worked, gotten paid, etcetera. However, teaching is what I want to do with my life. So every time I hear the expression "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." I want to hit someone. I imagine it's the same with critics. They go to school, learn all they can about theatre, film, literature, or whatever, they use their knowlege to share and educate, sitting through awful material so you don't have to, and what do they get? Bitter people calling them names because their tastes don't match up.

TABOO didn't need Reidel to sink it--it had VERY limited appeal and didn't find an audience. Simple. And I hated it.

I get the hatred towards critics (I still say Clive barnes' review of Follies caused a lot of problems) but I think they have their place. A good critic can raise people's awareness to something the general public might have missed, can champion certain elements of a production--etc

He didn't ruin Taboo. He just reported about the goings-on.

What was going on that he reported about?

---

Tap- if you read what yankee and I both said, the rehearsal process for Taboo was a long, difficult, and unhappy one. The script saw major changes in rehearsals, with numerous scenes getting cut (most of them influential to the story). Rosie was a horrible producer who never took command of the situation and let Boy George pretty much have his way, causing Raul Esparza to have a huge smackdown with her and walk out of a rehearsal. Boy George couldn't act, so all of his major "acting" scenes, most of them with Euan Morton, were cut. This made what was supposed to be one plotline, into two boring ones. The director didn't have a "vision" for the show, so the designers of the show had to come up with dozens of different sketches in terms of themes for the show. Eventually, the designers went with their own thing and the entire show, though at times visually stunning, looked like a cross of the costumes for Club Kids and the sets for Jekyll and Hyde.

---