I find this particular Reidel piece really unnecessary and malicious. I realize most of his pieces are, but this one did it for me.
The extent of Lapine's help is not specific enough in his reporting to warrant the existence of the article at all. So, he spent some time with him, gave him some friendly advice before a high-profile transfer? Does that really mean Buntrock desperately needed the advice? Should he have turned it down, in case gossip columnists later said that somehow he learned everything he knew in one afternoon? Preposterous! It just shows Reidel's ignorance of the difficulty of the director's role. There is nothing that could be taught in an afternoon or even two that would cover everything a director would need to know for the entire rehearsal periods of a West End, then B'way musical. It's a little more complicated then that, I'm afraid, Mr. Reidel.
And if Lapine was even a show doctor, he would have been at Studio 54, working on the show extensively. Notice how the article never mentions what Lapine was doing while the show prepped for its first New York revival.
And Sondheim giving a list of notes? He always does, to every major B'way or West End production, especially to the leads.
I realize I'm quibbling, and his articles aren't worthy of the attention and quibbling, but this one really got me. To suggest that a praised, young director of a praised production doesn't deserve the praise he received because he took advice from an elder director is not only prepsterous, but it is damaging to the theatre community. Learning the craft from veteran artists is what artists do. And young artists who show promise should be encouraged, not called out.
Disgusting.
Updated On: 2/29/08 at 12:46 PM
