Riedel: "Timing is Critical if Comment Hits Early" — Page 2

rosscoe(au) - previews are probably the most difficult (and therefor possibly the costliest?) part of the process since it amounts to a full performance schedule and rehearsal/revision time, possibly on a daily basis. Whatever the cost of previews, they are there for the purpose of getting it right and frozen for review, not to sell newspapers with sensational public criticism of the process of trying to make the show better.

keen--I don't know FOR SURE, but I think preview pay for actors is the same as rehearsal pay, which is usually squat--but don't quote me on that.

Whatever happened to opening shows out of town?

Even if Reidel hadn't written that, we live in a world where ANYONE can post his two cents on the internet and create just as much havoc as a professional critic.

Producers who fear bad publicity need to have closed previews for pre-approved audiences--otherwise, that's show biz, kids.

And I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone buys the POST for its theatre reviews...check out who's reading it on the subway next time.

Is writing that the score and lyrics aren't particularly clever or fresh "sensational?" It seems like a pretty tepid criticism.

Acrocksyo, I meant merely that you knew nothing about Shrek the musical since it hasn't even gone into rehearsal, not that you didn't know anything about ANYTHING. Apologies for hitting a nerve. I too know nothing about the show as I haven't seen any of it either. My main point was simply, how can we tear a show apart based SOLELY on our assumptions. You are 100% positive that it's an artless piece of crap and that the creators are crass oportunists cashing in. Whereas I think, sure, okay, MAYBE that's possible, maybe you're right, but it is ALSO possible that the creators (an artful interesting bunch in my opinion) may actually LIKE the source material (including the beautiful Steig book) and may be able to reinvent it in an interesting, theatrical, family friendly and artistic way. I don't KNOW that that's what they're doing of course, anymore than I know they're all a bunch of blood-sucking cash-whores. I simply objected to your know-it-all absolutes. You are so completely positive in what you know, even though you haven't heard a note of the score. Would that I owned your crystal ball. I'd be rich. If the show sucks, I'll be the first one to throw rocks at it, but until I know what it is I won't. That's all I was saying.

As for your snarky request for "a score that was artful and kid-friendly, and managed not to isolate it's audience" here are a few that in my opinion fit that bill...

Annie
Once on this Island
Music Man
The Sound of Music
The Wiz
Into the Woods (not for ALL kids obviously)
Pippin
Once Upon a Mattress
Oliver
Seussical

Obviously the artfulness and success of any of these are subjective and debatable, but I do think they are relatively kid-friendly shows and that their creators were trying to do something artful. It IS possible in my opinion to do both.

Updated On: 3/5/08 at 04:57 PM

Re-read what he said . . .

"These people are not making art. They're in it for the money. Period."

Wether or not the lucritive nature had an effect on Ms. Tesori's decision to do the project, he flat out accuses her of not doing ANY artistic work at all! None what so ever! I would be pretty darn pissed if someone said that about me, and I'm pretty darn pissed he said it about Ms. Tesori. I don't know her, but she seems to be a perfectly respectable person and artist. I realize he thuoght he was saying this to some pissed off old queen, but I still think it was a major screw up on his part.

---

P.S. As a part of a major publication, I do think he should show at least a little more restraint in proclaiming a score bad. If it were him talking to a friend, or someone chatting on here, I would probably feel differently. But as a part of a major publication, I think he should at least be a little less blunt in critisism this early in the game.

---

Cholly, I wouldn't exactly call Annie artful, accessible yes, artistic no.

But yeah The Wiz(however dated it sounds), and Suessical are good titles.

And it didn't hit a nerve, it was just ignorant to think that something produced in order to compete with whorish Disney would be anything other than commercially palpable. Art tends to isolate it's audience, If you are investing millions of dollars into a production, you are not going to take a risk, you need it to be safe. If you take risks you also risk losing your investment. It sucks, but it's business.

And judging a whole based on the sum of it's parts is bad yes, and Riedel did exactly what he is paid to do, stir the poo and get people riled up.

And Cholly, no hard feelings. Passionate people tend to cause unnecessary drama!

---

Updated On: 3/5/08 at 06:18 PM

Thanks for the clarification AC. And the olive branch. No hard feelings. I still might argue that you're making assumptions when you say things like Dreamworks is producing the Shrek musical in order to compete with whorish Disney (we don't know WHY Dreamworks is producing Shrek the musical, maybe they just thought it would make a good musical and, yes, also make them some money?) but I understand your cynicism.

As for Annie, I think it's a wonderful, yes VERY accessible, but also catchy, melodic, lyrically fun, and emotionally driven score. While not John Cage, it's certainly a well-crafted piece of populist music that feels like the perfect score for that particular story and treatment. Do you disagree? The artists who created the score seemed to have clear intentions, and suceeded in fulfilling what they set out to do with that score. Is that not artful, constructing a fulfilling score that tells a good story and illicits genuine emotion in people? Why wouldn't you define Annie as artful? Because it has straight-forward accessible tunes?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're defining artful as artsy, so if the music is accessible to a mainstream audience then it isn't artful. You might define Light in the Piazza as artful, but not Hairspray. (Correct? If not, please help me understand what artful is or isn't to you.) Whereas I would say they're both well-made pieces of art - therefor artful - but one is more interesting, lush and textured to me. (Piazza obviously.)

Wow. I COMPLETELY disagree with that definition of Art. Are you really saying only unsuccessful things constitute art? Are R&H shows not art because they were wildly successful?

---

Updated On: 3/5/08 at 11:35 PM

This is a really interesting conversation. Good or bad taste, Riedel did give us something to talk about. Art has always been in the eye of the beholder. I definitely see Shrek as Dreamworks reaching in for it's piece of Broadway gold from those who have to do something with their kids on a Saturday afternoon.

I won't check it out. I always saw Shrek as a bad take off of Disney in general. I realize that is the whole point of it but since I liked a lot of Disney's, though often warped, take on fairytales I take it for what it is. Shrek will bring more families to Broadway but it will also prevent someone else from putting on something that may challenge us more creatively.

It is to sell tickets and make money. I wish it didn't clog up big Theaters though and prevent shows that offer us a better variety. Shrek, like most popular Movies will bring in a crowd, even if the score is mediocre. Folks will come to get more of Shrek, period. So Tesori can get away with writing something less challenging. It's her reputation and well, she has bills to pay. If it sucks, then she will have to try to out live it because it will go to CD and a lot of people will have to hear it, good or bad.

Even R & H has their bad scores, so hopefully she can take whatever is thrown at her. This does create more jobs and bring kids to Broadway. I am though in the crowd that would much rather take my family to something picked up out a favorite book that I don't have on DVD. I think those too, are the shows people will pay to see more often.

As for advertising? I love the new ad for the Little Mermaid CD. I have to go out and buy that. That is a good example of a nice ad that is well designed and catching. In The Heights, the one with the Cast Picture is very eye catching too. It is the difference between some shows making it and biting the dust. Many only have these pictures to sell their ideas. I feel terrible when they fail to sell a great show. Word of mouth is good but to have a show survive on Broadway, it takes a lot of good advertisement to fill in so many seats.


I agree, too, if you don't want others to give their opinion, you close the set, make your staff sign no disclosure and hush, hush contracts. Yet, good luck enforcing that. The smart thing for Shrek's people to do is, come out and say, we are working on our Production right now and we welcome all critics comments. It will help us bring to the Public the best that we can possibly Produce.

It works best to spin something negative into something positive and to your advantage. Reidel is still a critic. Even if it is only his narrow opinion. A controversy is great publicity if played right.

If someone accused me of working for the money, not the art, then I would smile and say the check is good! When you get to the point that you actually believe that everything you do is wonderful and marvelous, then you are just too far gone on yourself. Everything you write is a gamble. If you are lucky, everyone likes it. If they don't, then it should challenge you to come up with something different. Either that or be content that what you did was for yourself and hopefully some of your audience enjoyed it as much as you did.