#1
Posted: 11/18/11 at 12:23pm
Did anyone else read this? This seems almost too personal for Riedel to cover it.
READ
READ
Riedel: "Clear DaY" Cast Member Stealing Money?
#2
Posted: 11/18/11 at 12:55pm
I'm normally a Riedel defender - I'm happy that we have people all across the ecosystem writing about the Great White Way, from smart reviewers all the way down to obnoxious NY Post gadflys. He's usually entertaining and fairly accurate, and I appreciate the pot-stirring. It's the only way the NY Post is ever going to have a theatre column, and I can't imagine someone doing a better job of being obnoxious.
But once in a while, he crosses a line - and I think this is one instance. There are people with these sorts of problems in every industry. It's a horrible thing for a company to have personal problems like this come to light, and to have it gossiped about in the tabloids is really bad form. It sounds like this person has some support in the industry and from the company and so this is the kind of thing that should be handled personally and quietly.
Rag on people throwing away money on foolhardy endeavors or behaving like the silly minor celebrities Broadway folk are all you like, but personal stuff like this seems way out of bounds. Not juicy, not entertaining, not even guilty-pleasure Schadenfreude, just sad and unfortunate. I normally get a cynical chuckle out of MR's column, but not this time.
But once in a while, he crosses a line - and I think this is one instance. There are people with these sorts of problems in every industry. It's a horrible thing for a company to have personal problems like this come to light, and to have it gossiped about in the tabloids is really bad form. It sounds like this person has some support in the industry and from the company and so this is the kind of thing that should be handled personally and quietly.
Rag on people throwing away money on foolhardy endeavors or behaving like the silly minor celebrities Broadway folk are all you like, but personal stuff like this seems way out of bounds. Not juicy, not entertaining, not even guilty-pleasure Schadenfreude, just sad and unfortunate. I normally get a cynical chuckle out of MR's column, but not this time.
#3
Posted: 11/18/11 at 1:04pm
I know Parade has its champions, but a musical about the lynching of Leo Frank isnt exactly my idea of An Evening With Jerry Herman.
What a moronic statement.
Not juicy, not entertaining, not even guilty-pleasure Schadenfreude, just sad and unfortunate.
Precisely how I feel.
What a moronic statement.
Not juicy, not entertaining, not even guilty-pleasure Schadenfreude, just sad and unfortunate.
Precisely how I feel.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#4
Posted: 11/18/11 at 1:15pm
"I know ?Parade? has its champions, but a musical about the lynching of Leo Frank isn?t exactly my idea of ?An Evening With Jerry Herman.?
What a moronic statement."
Truth!
What a moronic statement."
Truth!
Butters, go buy World of Warcraft, install it on your computer, and join the online sensation before we all murder you.
--Cartman: South Park
ATTENTION FANS: I will be played by James Barbour in the upcoming musical, "BroadwayWorld: The Musical."
#5
Posted: 11/18/11 at 1:28pm
I'm mildly surprised that anyone is defending Reidel. The man is only minimally fluent in the English language.
To wit:
"Bartlett, I’m told (by him), was unbelievably brilliant as the gangster Johnny Sandwich, a pivotal, groundbreaking role Hugh Jackman was desperate to play."
Jackman was "desperate to play" the gangster when? In the original film? Hardly, since Jackman was barely out of university.
In the backer's audition for the musical then or even the actual production of the musical? Right. Jackman was available and the producers turned him down. Or Jackman was unavailable because he has so little control over his own career that he can't make himself available for things he is "desperate" to do.
And that's just the word "desperate". I don't want to speculate as to what would be "groundbreaking" to the man who thinks Brown should try to be more like Jerry Herman. (No offense to Mr. Herman. I'm sure he would agree Brown should just be Brown.)
To wit:
"Bartlett, I’m told (by him), was unbelievably brilliant as the gangster Johnny Sandwich, a pivotal, groundbreaking role Hugh Jackman was desperate to play."
Jackman was "desperate to play" the gangster when? In the original film? Hardly, since Jackman was barely out of university.
In the backer's audition for the musical then or even the actual production of the musical? Right. Jackman was available and the producers turned him down. Or Jackman was unavailable because he has so little control over his own career that he can't make himself available for things he is "desperate" to do.
And that's just the word "desperate". I don't want to speculate as to what would be "groundbreaking" to the man who thinks Brown should try to be more like Jerry Herman. (No offense to Mr. Herman. I'm sure he would agree Brown should just be Brown.)
#6
Posted: 11/18/11 at 1:34pm
I'm pretty sure that Bartlett is using Hugh Jackman's name to aggrandize the importance of his own role in the backer's audition. I wouldn't take this too literally.
#7
Posted: 11/18/11 at 1:53pm
I'm sure you're right, frogs, but that doesn't excuse Reidel from repeating the ridiculous remark. To me, an actor who exaggerates is forgivable; a writer who can't find a dictionary is not.
#8
Posted: 11/18/11 at 1:53pm
Rob Bartlett vs Hugh Jackman is like comparing apples and calendars
#9
Posted: 11/18/11 at 2:02pm
I won't lie, I'm kind of curious to know who the actor is, but I know that's really tacky.
As for Honeymooners, it sounds kind of interesting. I just wish Jason Robert Brown was doing something original.
As for Honeymooners, it sounds kind of interesting. I just wish Jason Robert Brown was doing something original.
#10
Posted: 11/18/11 at 2:33pm
...Bartlett was clearly making a joke.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#11
Posted: 11/18/11 at 2:41pm
uh, seriously, who took Bartlett's statement seriously? That was clearly a joke.
http://tapeworthy.blogspot.com
#12
Posted: 11/18/11 at 2:55pm
¡Ay Dios Mio!
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
"Hey little girls, look at all the men in shiny shirts and no wives!" - Jackie Hoffman, Xanadu, 19 Feb 2008
#13
Posted: 11/18/11 at 3:36pm
Bartlett may well have been joking. But Reidel puts the Jackman info outside the quotes where it becomes a paraphrase of whatever Bartlett actually said. At that point, I don't see how the reader is suppose to know whether Bartlett made a self-deprecating remark that referenced Jackman or whether Bartless communicated a long, details anecdote of Jackman's alleged involvement (or lack thereof) in the project.
Or is the joke entirely Reidel's and not something said by Bartlett at all? In fact, the sentence doesn't make that clear.
Or is the joke entirely Reidel's and not something said by Bartlett at all? In fact, the sentence doesn't make that clear.
#14
Posted: 11/18/11 at 5:37pm
Gaveston, you seem like an intelligent guy based on your posts, but I think you're giving this too much thought. Referring to the role of Johnny Sandwich as "pivotal" and "groundbreaking" didn't raise ANY humor/hyperbole flags for you?
"You travel alone because other people are only there to remind you how much that hook hurts that we all bit down on. Wait for that one day we can bite free and get back out there in space where we belong, sail back over water, over skies, into space, the hook finally out of our mouths and we wander back out there in space spawning to other planets never to return hurrah to earth and we'll look back and can't even see these lives here anymore. Only the taste of blood to remind us we ever existed. The earth is small. We're gone. We're dead. We're safe."
-John Guare, Landscape of the Body
#15
Posted: 11/18/11 at 5:48pm
Just wanted to agree that Reidel's reporting of the theft story was a total douchebag move.
#16
Posted: 11/18/11 at 6:19pm
Reporting on a crime is a douchebag move?
Updated On: 11/18/11 at 06:19 PM
#18
Posted: 11/18/11 at 8:34pm
I am NOT a big Brown fan (I like Parade but feel like something is lacking I can never put my finger on, and like his other work less), but that's a personal thing. Statements like:
"Heavily influenced by Stephen Sondheim as so many writers of his generation are, to their detriment hes attracted to dark, often pretentious material.I know Parade has its champions, but a musical about the lynching of Leo Frank isnt exactly my idea of An Evening With Jerry Herman.
In high school, Brown attended musical theater camp. While the other kids were rehearsing Bye Bye, Birdie and No, No, Nanette, he was working on a song cycle about teen suicide."
are just so many levels of insanity. It actually makes me respect Riedel even less than I do (as does the stealing thing for all the reasons mentioned). Does this mean we should never take anything he says about a musical that doesn't seem like Jerry Herman light, seriously? He's not offering his critique on Brown, he's merely stating that anyone inspired by Sondheim (which frankly I'm sure even "light" composers like Marc Shaiman are) sucks, and if you do a dark themed show you're pretentious. Parade wasn't even his idea--Hal Prince and Garth Drabinsky chose the theme, and Prince approached Sondheim first. So it makes Prince the pretentious one, not Brown...
"Heavily influenced by Stephen Sondheim as so many writers of his generation are, to their detriment hes attracted to dark, often pretentious material.I know Parade has its champions, but a musical about the lynching of Leo Frank isnt exactly my idea of An Evening With Jerry Herman.
In high school, Brown attended musical theater camp. While the other kids were rehearsing Bye Bye, Birdie and No, No, Nanette, he was working on a song cycle about teen suicide."
are just so many levels of insanity. It actually makes me respect Riedel even less than I do (as does the stealing thing for all the reasons mentioned). Does this mean we should never take anything he says about a musical that doesn't seem like Jerry Herman light, seriously? He's not offering his critique on Brown, he's merely stating that anyone inspired by Sondheim (which frankly I'm sure even "light" composers like Marc Shaiman are) sucks, and if you do a dark themed show you're pretentious. Parade wasn't even his idea--Hal Prince and Garth Drabinsky chose the theme, and Prince approached Sondheim first. So it makes Prince the pretentious one, not Brown...
#19
Posted: 11/18/11 at 10:38pm
Just so that we're all clear, arrests are public record, and reporting on them violates no rule of journalism or, even, common decency, unless the journalist states that the person arrested was convicted of the crime.
#20
Posted: 11/18/11 at 11:00pm
PJ-I was just thinking the same thing. Riedel could have actually given the person's name had he wanted. He showed some restraint.
Plus, in my book-if you steal s@#t from people-especially co-workers-all bets are off. He's lucky they allowed him back in the theatre. Hopefully their graciousness is a wake up call to get his act together.
Plus, in my book-if you steal s@#t from people-especially co-workers-all bets are off. He's lucky they allowed him back in the theatre. Hopefully their graciousness is a wake up call to get his act together.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
#21
Posted: 11/19/11 at 2:40pm
Honestly, no, AC, I didn't know Riedel was joking. I think others here are much more familiar with his column than I. A musical about teen suicides isn't all that unlikely, given the student work I've seen in playwriting classes, and I don't know Riedel (or remember the film) well enough to know what he might consider "groundbreaking" and "pivotal". My main knowledge of the man is the documentary, "ShowBusiness", and in that he seemed to be both mean spirited and wrong about everything.
But most of all , I don't expect a column that leads with true crime (however petty) and someone's personal tragedy to interject facetious one-liners that aren't even funny when one is let in on the joke.
I know what Riedel does isn't illegal, but the tradition of third-rate writers (John Simon) leeching off those who are trying to create honest art or popular entertainment isn't my favorite aspect of show business. Perhaps I'm misjudging Mr. Riedel, but it is my impression that he belongs in that category.
But most of all , I don't expect a column that leads with true crime (however petty) and someone's personal tragedy to interject facetious one-liners that aren't even funny when one is let in on the joke.
I know what Riedel does isn't illegal, but the tradition of third-rate writers (John Simon) leeching off those who are trying to create honest art or popular entertainment isn't my favorite aspect of show business. Perhaps I'm misjudging Mr. Riedel, but it is my impression that he belongs in that category.
Updated On: 11/19/11 at 02:40 PM
#22
Posted: 11/19/11 at 2:57pm
I'm with Pal Joey, I see nothing wrong with Reidel reporting this. There are SO many things to call him out on, this is not one...
#23
Posted: 11/19/11 at 3:29pm
"There are SO many things to call him out on, this is not one..."
Normally I find a lot of what Riedel writes as crossing a line/breaking down the 4th wall/etc... However, I have to agree with PJ and Owen. While it is not a 'nice' story, it is a fact (unlike much of what he normally writes about). I don't understand the uproar in a columnist reporting something that is actually true - whether or not he is normally a gossip columnist.
A story about an employee stealing from other employees would regularly make the news, newspapers and other media with a full account of the employee's name and information if it took place in other professions. I think he showed restraint by not crossing the line of fully disclosing and publicly ruining the name of the cast member.
Normally I find a lot of what Riedel writes as crossing a line/breaking down the 4th wall/etc... However, I have to agree with PJ and Owen. While it is not a 'nice' story, it is a fact (unlike much of what he normally writes about). I don't understand the uproar in a columnist reporting something that is actually true - whether or not he is normally a gossip columnist.
A story about an employee stealing from other employees would regularly make the news, newspapers and other media with a full account of the employee's name and information if it took place in other professions. I think he showed restraint by not crossing the line of fully disclosing and publicly ruining the name of the cast member.
Updated On: 11/19/11 at 03:29 PM
#24
Posted: 11/19/11 at 6:48pm
I feel bad for the guy, am happy for him that no charges are being filed and hope he gets his act together and can regain the trust of his company.
And I'm not fan of Reidel who is often a complete twit.
But newspapers routinely report investigations into crimes (even pre-arres or when no arrest takes place, and often for incidences much more serious and reputation-damaging that petty thefts) and, this being an investigation of backstage crime, it's Reidel's beat as much as anyone else's. If it came to his attention, it would be quite odd for him to say nothing. And he exercised discretion in not naming names, which he certainly didn't have to do. Moreover, It's a matter of public record that the police made this investigation.
And I'm not fan of Reidel who is often a complete twit.
But newspapers routinely report investigations into crimes (even pre-arres or when no arrest takes place, and often for incidences much more serious and reputation-damaging that petty thefts) and, this being an investigation of backstage crime, it's Reidel's beat as much as anyone else's. If it came to his attention, it would be quite odd for him to say nothing. And he exercised discretion in not naming names, which he certainly didn't have to do. Moreover, It's a matter of public record that the police made this investigation.
#25
Posted: 11/19/11 at 6:57pm
I also feel bad for him, Henrik, he's surely got a lot going for him and I hope he gets his act together. But-I ask you, have you seen this incident reported anywhere besides Reidel's column? I haven't.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
Updated On: 11/19/11 at 06:57 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95