Michael Riedels's picks & pans

[kait]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 5:29am

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.

[mediakilled]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:01am

F$#K Michael Riedel.
He's only a critic. A vulture.
Like all critics, they make money out of destroying creation and the valuable efforts people are making to keep theatre alive.
Go see a show and judge it for yourself and love it for yourself and experience for yourself.
NEVER listen to a comment from these repressed so-called 'critics' or better yet, 'theatre gossip columnists' (haha, that's a cowardly title) 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.


especially,..Michael Riedel.

they are just jaded, unfortunate wanna-be writers who couldn't land a more reputable job.

they destroy the art form of theatre.
WATCH the film SHOW BUSINESS...it is truly dispicable , what they do.
Updated On: 6/1/07 at 08:01 AM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:02am

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

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:03am

mediakilled, Riedel never claims to be a critic. He's just a theatre columnist.

[mediakilled]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:11am

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

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:17am

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.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:17am

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.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:21am

Again with the jobs! It's a business, if something isn't good, it's not going to last. In regards to Taboo- it was never going to run that long and I doubt Riedel did much to make it close. It was expensive, had a small (if any) advance, got bad reviews, and had constant quarrels during the rehearsal process from the actors to the stage hands. It was a mess of show that was unpleasant for MANY of the people involved. Riedel did nothing to make that happen, he simply reported it.

The only thing I can imagine him having much influence in is Donna Murphy's absences from Wonderful Town and bad mouthing her. Many people in the theatre community read his column because he's 95% right, which is a higher accuracy than most mainstream magazines. He never reviews anything. The only times he ever voices his distinct opinion of a show is when he's hosting Theatre Talk. And are you REALLY suggesting that enough people watch Theatre Talk, and those that do despise Riedel anyway, to make an influence on how to make or break a show?

Say what you will about Riedel, but he has no more power to close a show than Clive Barnes. The actual critic at the Post.

[mediakilled]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:23am

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.

[mediakilled]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:27am

wicked fan...There's LOTS of things that aren't good,..and last.
ANd I'm not talking broadway shows. But there's plenty of those too.
Updated On: 6/1/07 at 08:27 AM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:29am

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.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:30am

"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."

If it had so much potential, why didn't it act upon it? Certainly not because of Riedel. I think you're giving the man way too much credit. It's not in his power to close a show. He doesn't have the poison pen that Ben Brantley does.

Taboo got universally negative reviews, as I recall. The weekly grosses barely even came close to breaking even. Rosie closed the show because she didn't want to lose any more money.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:33am

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.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:38am

Critics are like umpires. They calls 'em like they sees 'em. It's not their fault that a lot of shows suck.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:39am

That's my new quote.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:42am

Nice!

[EdmundOG]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 9:10am

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.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 11:11am

Critics are repressed? lol, so those who can't do criticize? And there are an awful lot of arguments to make about degees of removal with critics -- there are two completely different schools of thought when it comes to that. I'm too tired to bother, though, other than to say that as a generalization, you're wrong.

And "almost as IF" he has an axe to grind? You're too kind -- I mean, doesn't he?

I think the worst thing Riedel did to Taboo wasn't the gossip he leaked out about Rosie or the actors, but just the early reports that artistically, the show was in trouble. He grabbed onto the problems they were having pretty early on -- and if people hear that a show is having THAT much trouble in rehearsals, word spreads pretty quickly that it sucks. They didn't have a chance -- to run longer, to fix their mistakes, anything.

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

[lildogs]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 1:27pm

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

[mediakilled]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 7:03pm

anyone else for public flogging?
The stakes are burning. it's nice in here.
stones, get bigger ones. go, throw more.
take a stab!. geez louise. ouch .meow. sizzle.

Posted: 6/1/07 at 7:31pm

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

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 7:33pm

This is why I love the song about critics in Curtains

[TapTapTapioca]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 7:42pm

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

What was going on that he reported about?

[jv92]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 7:46pm

I'd actually rather have Riedel review for The Post than Old Man Barnes, who I no longer can stand reading.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/1/07 at 8:04pm

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.