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

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 4:14pm

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.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 4:21pm

True.

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 4:29pm

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.

[me2]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 4:42pm

Who let him in anyway? If he came to your workshop, wouldn't you pull the fire alarm or something?
Broadway Blog: Clip Me, Kate

[Cholly]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 4:57pm

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

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 5:11pm

Cholly-I think your strongest cards in that hand are SEUSSICAL, THE WIZ and OLIVER!

ONCE, WOODS, SOUND, MUSIC MAN, MATTRESS and PIPPIN were unknown titles, however familiar the charatcers in them might be.

ANNIE was certainly a known title, but not exactly popular with the kids at the time the show was written...it was a comic strip from The Great Depression after all.

And I really don't think PIPPIN is all that kid-friendly...there's ALOT of sex and murder in that one--at least with Bob at the helm.

SEUSSICAL is the best example of what you're talking about--though not exactly a trailblazing work of art.

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 5:19pm

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.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 5:23pm

As a side note, I just re-read Chapter 28, "The Business," in William Goldman's book, THE SEASON, which expresses the tension between business decisions and the preview process more beautifully than I could ever hope to. Of course, the book deals with Broadway in 1967-68, so the entire Internet critics issue is far in the future, but the question of how to fix a show when the advance sales aren't there is painstakingly described. (Of course, Reidel knows the book, but he has publicly mischaracterized some of it, so I shouldn't think he'd understand this chapter either!)

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 5:23pm

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]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 5:43pm

Well he also only heard a couple songs apparently. That's hardly the whole score. It's all just so tacky.

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 6:18pm

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

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 6:18pm

oops double post!

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

[Cholly]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 7:01pm

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.)

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 8:26pm

Art is Sondheim, LaChusia, and Guettel, musicals that are produced in limited runs, knowing that they will probably not re-coup their investment, but put on for the sake of furthering the genre.

Hairspray(which I also enjoyed) was not art. It was a pop score(which is brilliant), but it was showstopping musical, lavish costumes, great sets, produced in conjunction with New Line to generate revenue.

Dreamworks is producing Shrek to compete with Disney, just as they released Shrek to compete with Pixar, just as Don Bluth released The Secret of Nihm and An American Tail to compete with Disney. Shrek was massively successful in the theaters, and Dreamworks, seeing the success of movie turned stage musicals, are jumping on the bandwagon. Nothing wrong with that, just the way it is. And if they stray from the pop-score formula and delve into uncharted territory, they risk losing their investment. And it's not beneficial for them to go off the beaten path.

[Not Barker, Todd.]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 11:35pm

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

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 12:46am

Broadwayjim,

To my thinking, Riedel's comments were not those of a turd.

This was far more into ****territory.

But he's been pretty petty and snide for years now, so why should I yearn for more from him?

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 2:43am

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.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 4:03am

R&H certainly had some bad books but I don't think they had any bad scores....

http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=972787#3631451 http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=963561#3533883 http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=955158#3440952 http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=954269#3427915 http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=955012#3441622 http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=954344#3428699

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 9:20am

Comparing R&H to todays works is silly. They were a different generation with different standards for the stage. Now we see all forms of music taking place on the stage, pop scores, hip-hop inspired scores, song catalogs, classical melodic scores. To compare R&H to a Menken & Ashman, Webber & Rice, is insane.

Tastes change as the times change.

And art is subjective, while some people love Warhol, others despise him, while some people love Monet others think it's a blurred mess.

Shrek is not about making art on stage. It's about fattening the wallet of it's producers.

And to be honest unsuccessful Broadway shows are those that took a risk to push the genre(for the most part), but failed to reach a wide audience. Art is subjective, and my definition of art is just that MY definition. Not yours. It's a beautiful thing opinions.

[JBSinger]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 9:29am

Reviewing a show out of town (where it IS on public display) and reviewing a presentation of an unfinished show are two completely different things (regardless of artistic or financial goals).
I agree with Weidman. completely inappropriate.
Bashing a show before it evens goes into rehearsal. Crazy & mean.

EDIT -
Don't think for one minute that R&H weren't business-men. Rodgers was known as one of THE most saavy Bway business guys around. they knew their audience. they wrote for the working man. they happened to actually SAY something in their work (it's gorgeous and artistic), but it's over all goal was to make $. ShowBUSINESS Updated On: 3/6/08 at 09:29 AM

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 9:36am

I think Hairspray is actually quite artful--there is substance behind the flash. It may not make PROFOUND statements about race relations and prejudices of all kinds, but it certianly has a very strong point of view, a sense of style all its own and a great deal of sincerity.

I think it's fair to compare R&H SCORES with those of today, but to compare PRODUCTIONS is more unfair--like you said, the musical has been expanded so much since their heyday, the old-fashioned stagings their shows usually get seem naive and out of touch. But there's no reason a CAROUSEL should be any less spellbinding than a LITTLE SHOP. Unless it's being directed by Arthur Laurents...hee!

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 10:12am

I think everything is just too subjective to have a definitive answer. Yeah Hairspray is good, but it's artfulness is in the eye of the beholder.

Art is subjective and reviews are subjective, we have to remember that a review is just someone's opinion of what constitutes being good. There are so many shows that I love, that others hated, and so many shows I hate that people loved. Does that make me more right than they are? Does that mean that they are right and me wrong? No, it just means that people have different taste levels. If everyone liked everything the same, and we all thought the same, then the world would be boring. *sigh*

But this discussion is amazing.

[lildogs]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 10:37am

"but it's artfulness is in the eye of the beholder"

That's the case of every show, acrock...it's a bit of a cop-out.

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 11:04am

How is it a cop-out?

What I see is artful is obviously not what other's see as artful. Therefore art is in the eye of the beholder.

It's just how people bring their own experiences to something. If I went into a show having no connection to it, would I still consider it art? If I see something and it doesn't move me the way it moved the person sitting in front of me, does that make it not art?

Yes there is a difference between commercial moneymakers(those with movie studios behind them) and those productions with something to say. Hairspray, as brilliant as I thought it was, was still a production meant to capitalize on movie-turned-musical genre. Black is black and white is white. If it happens to say something more, then horrah, but it is what it is.

[don logan]

Posted: 3/6/08 at 11:17am

Riedel is an idiot. He's obviously just in it for the money. If he was an artist he wouldn't be working for the Post, he'd be working for an underground newspaper for free. What a sellout.