REBECCA Cast Member Karen Mason Speaks Out on Producer Controversy - Remains 'Invincible'

Click Here to Read REBECCA Cast Member Karen Mason Speaks Out on Producer Controversy - Remains 'Invincible'

She's an awesome performer. Even in WONDERLAND you could see she was a pro.

I'm glad she wrote that. It's great to hear the other side of things.

Well, what else would she say? "Whoops, I made a really bad decision, didn't I? Guess I need to work on my character-judging skills."

Beautifully written Karen, your a talented Lady & beautiful inside & out .......

Beautifully written Karen, your a talented Lady & beautiful inside & out .......

Mr. Spracher may be an absolute saint, but has demonstrated in his handling of this situation that he is not a competent producer.

It's nice that Mason has come out to 'defend' him. But with every detail uncovered about the ordeal, she just looks more of a victim.

---

Kad, now that I've read up on the "scandal", what do you think Sprecher did that was so wrong? Surely he's not the first producer who ran into a con man! (Isn't that a staple plot of Busby Berkeley movies?) And while it would have been nice if he had met Abrams, a face-to-face meeting with someone claiming to be Abrams wouldn't have necessarily proved anything.

Just to be clear: I haven't seen Sprecher for 30 years. So while I still feel a good deal of fondness about our friendship in our early 20s, I'm not so sensitive that you shouldn't speak plainly.

Updated On: 10/3/12 at 08:45 PM

I didn't say there was no additional research that might have been done, blaxx. My point was merely that a face-to-face meeting with a con man doesn't necessarily set off any alarms. (My father is a professional con man; unfortunately, I have a little experience in this area.) There are plenty of people out there who come across very convincingly in person.

Lots of very smart people met Bernie Madoff face-to-face and still trusted him with all their savings. And HIS con was obvious on its face, as any number of people warned there was no way for him to provide ever-increasing returns even during downturns in the market.

Nonetheless, people trusted him because he was recommended by a friend or the head of a major charity, he was convincing in person, it seemed like a great opportunity, etc. and so forth.

In this case it appears that some additional research might have been helpful. But if the imaginary investor came recommended by a trusted source, I don't think it's all that unusual that the investor wasn't vetted as thoroughly as it now appears he should have been.

As the saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20.

^ Stole my material. I called the 419 angle long before you did, hyperbolic.

---

Ms. Mason is a huge talent and probably a very nice person, but I'd rather here a more realistic opinion from other cast members, like, say, Henry Stram who is so smart and yet caustic.

I bet not everyone is as supportive as Mason.

I've yet to see one article where Mr. Sprecher owns up to his mistakes, takes responsibility and displays the attributes of a true leader. Instead, this situation has clearly become the "blame game". Articles on many Broadway sites read more like propaganda pieces trying to detach Mr. Sprecher from any wrong doing, squarely placing the blame on an alleged deceased investor, potential con man and anonymous email. Whether Karen Mason's statement was heartfelt or simply a favor to Ben Sprecher is irrelevant. Combined with very one-sided articles promoting Ben, this all stinks of PR spin.

And that's simply why I don't have much respect for Mr. Sprecher. Instead of manning up to a situation he created, his entire strategy is based on being defensive and deflecting blame. At the end of the day even if Ben was lied to and 100% innocent from any wrongdoing, he is still FULLY responsible for his neglect to Rebecca's best interests, the cast, crew and the property's other investors.

I've raised money for several Broadway shows previously. It's a must to conduct proper due diligence and research. To base 1/3 of your show's capitalization on such a shadowy figure is supremely irresponsible. He was short on money and time, so Ben put all his chips on black and at that moment relinquished control of his show. Unfortunately the "roulette wheel of life" came up red. As a savvy businessman, one is supposed to make well thought out decisions not take big gambles using associate's money.

A competent producer would have mitigated his risk and delayed the show, BEFORE any of this nonsense could have ever been allowed to happen. If he was missing money, Rebecca should have been delayed long ago instead of accepting such a risky proposition.

Instead, Ben has not admit to this or taken responsibility publicly. He's just trying to squirm his way in and out of the situation, presumably thinking he's saving face. However if I was an investor I'd never trust my money with someone of this nature. By the way, in life many people make mistakes and are forgiven. How you handle the aftermath of a mistake is often more crucial than the initial error itself.

Updated On: 10/4/12 at 11:57 PM

At the end of the day, Sprecher's job as producer was to get the show on, and he failed. And he left a lot of talent high and dry.

Actually, he failed to get it on twice...It's unusual for a show to fold before rehearsals once the marquee is already up in front of the theatre, but I've never seen it happen twice to the same show. He's created a situation where Rebecca will likely never make it to Broadway, no matter who's producing. And there's a criminal investigation. It's nice of Karen to stand up for him, but seriously, this guy has really screwed up.

---

Gaveston, I simply don't, and cannot, grasp how a producer worth his salt could never have communicated directly with an investor. A phone call. Something. Let alone a face-to-face meeting! Skype! FaceTime!....

Thank you for the considered response, Kad. I don't understand the lack of communication with an investor either. (My only point above was that if one is perpetrating a fraud, a face-to-face meeting isn't hard to stage. That doesn't mean no due diligence need be done.)

If I understand the controversy now, the charge against Ben is that he tied up a theater and artists, and spent investors' money when he--knowingly or not--lacked sufficient capital to fully mount the show. And his defense is that he was duped by someone pretending to be an investor.

I'm not excusing him, but that's not the oddest thing I've ever heard a theatrical producer accused of doing. Not by a long shot. It's a strange profession and more stolid types open shoe stores instead. I hope Ben isn't on the hook for anything illegal; as I said, in my admittedly ancient experience, he was a good guy and I trusted him implicitly.

As for the claim by Broadwaybob2 that Ben's press releases and interviews have been self-serving, what business does B-Bob2 think Ben is in?