Riedel: "The Savior of 'Sunday'" or "Don't Go Giving Buntrock Any Credit!"

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 8:39am

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02292008/entertainment/theater/the_savior_of_sunday_99707.htm

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 8:55am

So what?

Buntrock is credited as the director of SUNDAY, so if the direction is worthy of a Tony Award, it goes to him.

Doesn't Riedel have anything better to write about?

[Craig]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 9:08am

Apparently a slow news day

[WestVillage]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 9:46am

Why shouldn't Reidel report on this? After all the love letter reviews, he's exposing Buntrock as someone who couldn't direct the show by himself, and almost had a mutiny by his cast. Sounds like if Lapine hadn't stepped in, this production would have never made it to Broadway.

[bschneid76]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 9:55am

And Riedel knows this as facts? Why shouldn't a director have some advice! It doesn't mean that James Lapine came in and "rescued" a production. Ah, the press.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 11:18am

There have been so many "show doctors" over the years, helping with no credit, this is just not news.

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 11:22am

Riedel knows the show doctor thing isn't a big deal. But I think he's trying to stir up some trouble by claiming Sam didn't/doesn't know how to direct a musical, and that the Westend cast threatened to leave the company.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 11:26am

Having sat through this ghastly production, I can't say that Lapine's alleged "doctoring" did very much to help. The show is DOA, Buntrock has turned Studio 54 into a big morgue.

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 11:29am

Roscoe, have you ever liked anything?

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 11:41am

Well, he absolutely loved Rob Marshall's take on CHICAGO. You can find many posts on here where he goes on and on about how much he loves the film.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 11:44am

I've liked plenty of things. I just really detested this ghastly ill-cast revival.

[Brick]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:46pm

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

[RoseStopnikCooks]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:55pm

Funny, because I know several people involved in the production and have spoken to others I'm not too close with but all have praise for him and loved working with him.

[joniray]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:33pm

I thought it was a bit ridiculous the way Riedel kept making cracks about his age referring to him as a child and such (the "crib" crack). 32 isn't exactly a spring chicken.

[bob8rich]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:58pm

To begin with, I doubt that Mr. Riedel ever saw Buntrock's original production at the Menier Chocolate Factory, in which case he's hardly qualified to comment. I was privileged enough to have witnessed the Menier staging - and it was magical, as was the production that later transferred to the Wyndham's theatre in the West End. I also saw Sam Buntrock's world premiere staging of the Maltby/Shire/Weidman show "Take Flight" at the Menier, which was quite stunning. Perhaps Mr. Riedel is going to suggest that Sam Buntrock was coached by the ghost of Charles Lindbergh in order to present that show.

[jv92]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 3:09pm

"Sondheim also gave extensive notes, which a grateful cast used to develop their characters."

He ALWAYS does this. Personally, he should try directing a musical because he seems like a fabulous director.

Lapine is an author of the piece. Perhaps he was unhappy with some bits of the staging in London and wanted to make a few suggestions. That's perfectly fine. I think Riedel, being the asshole that he is, decided to put a damper on this production's success and kudos by writing this. It seems highly untrue.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 4:00pm

Leave it to Riedel. One would think that a man of his extensive "knowledge" would know that revivals typically enlist the aid of the original authors. This is not uncommon. Even if the author has passed the estate will often have a say in approving changes and what not. It's silly to think that Sondheim and Lapine would not have been involved. At the end of the day, however, Lapine is not listed as the director -- Buntrock is. And the saving grace of the entire production is the cast and production design of which neither Sondheim or Lapine had any involvment.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 4:09pm

If Sondheim and Lapine had had any involvement, the casting probably would have been much better. Like it might have been good. Or even serviceable.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 4:32pm

Reidel could use some notes (from Sondheim, Lapine or even AA Gill) on his prose. The London theatre critics had a deserved drubbing last year for their uninspired and uninspiring writing and the style of his article (irregardless of its contents) is similarly poor.

[Jibbfann]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 5:25pm

As a brit, I don't know who this "reporter" is. But he seems to have some big issue with Mr Buntrock. I have also seen not only Sunday in the Park several times, but saw his brilliant production of Take Flight. I'm sure there probably were issues with rehearsals, which rehearsal period does not? And when a revival of a Sondheim/Lapine show is done I believe both writers like to be involved. What has resulted is a magnificent production led by two incredible leads, a fantastic american supporting cast, and an incredibly exciting new young director. I suppose the fact that he is creating such a buzz, negative or positive, could be construed as all good publicity. I expect to see thoroughly exciting things from him in the future.
BTW Take Flight had no "Techno" in it at all, just good honest storytelling and imagination.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 6:50pm

This is like saying that an actor's accomplishments aren't their own- they are the achievements of acting teachers.

This is ridiculous.

I hope Sam Buntrock wins the Tony, and then goes on to win some more.
Riedel, in this case, is out of line.

[jv92]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 7:36pm

Mr. Buntrock should not only win the Tony, but he should punch Riedel in the face at Angus David Leveaux-style.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 8:39pm

Riedel is living proof of the axiom "Those that can, do. Those that can't, join the NY Post." No successful production is the creation of a single participant, even an experienced director.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 8:41pm

Amen to that.

[jv92]

Posted: 2/29/08 at 9:15pm

As if Clive Barnes wasn't enough proof.