Riedel on LEAP- Page 3

[dexter3]

Posted: 4/21/12 at 6:35pm

"He does not make sh888t up "all the time". He's a writer he interprets and embellishes."

Oh, so he's the Mike Daisey of theater columnists...

[Pammylicious]

Posted: 4/22/12 at 12:33pm

I was at last night's performance (Sat). Had Row C, Front Mezz smack in the center seats. Great for this show. Enjoyed the pre-show and got a couple of those $ bills as a souvenier. It was critic's night so they were giving out Opening Night playbills. I got two.

The show was entertaining. The performances were good. I liked some of the score and hated other parts of it. Raul was terrific, he really put his heart into it and looked fantastic (fat?????? not). I didn't think it was God awful like most of you and I had no issue following the plot line. The theater was pretty full (couldn't see the balcony) and people jumped to give the cast a standing O.

Yes, I think this show will have a short life not because of any of the above but because I think the religious preachy tourists will not go to see this. It is offensive to the religious sorts and mocking them (unlike BOM) won't help. We'll see...time will tell.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/22/12 at 12:50pm

No, it wasn't as horrid as the boards suggested, but it still wasn't very good.

As far as standing ovations: I saw this Wednesday night, and while a decent portion of the audience DID stand...it was not a jump and not enthusiastic by any means. In the mezz, I would say just over 1/2 stood. (I did not.)

Updated On: 4/22/12 at 12:50 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 4/22/12 at 4:48pm

Riedel's column is often malicious, for no good reason. His unwarranted and continuous attacks on the Ragtime revival, for instance- claiming those involved had no Broadway credentials or that the show was closing before it actually was. Why? Simply because he didn't like the show.

[wonkit]

Posted: 4/22/12 at 5:14pm

Pammylicious - I guess I don't see this show as mocking religion at all. It mocks fake religion (or, at the very least, con men revival preachers) but the whole premise of the show (hence its title) is that faith is real and can redeem even a true sinner. Why would anyone be offended?

[Hest88]

Posted: 4/22/12 at 9:44pm

Gee, there are so many threads about this show it's hard to pick which one in which to post!

I saw the show last week (Wed night). It was *much* improved from L.A. Much tighter and snappier. At the show I was at, the audience in the Orchestra section seemed to be enjoying themselves quite a bit, with what seemed to be much unforced laughter.

Is it a great show? No. It's rather pat, but it is fairly solid and I was never bored. It will never be a favorite of mine, in part because I prefer more Broadway-type than gospel-like music and I prefer more intricate wordplay, but it was an energetic, fast-paced show.

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 4/22/12 at 11:42pm

What is puzzling to me is that Reidel is such a great host on TheaterTalk but then he goes and writes columns like this.

[wonkit]

Posted: 4/23/12 at 9:57am

The answer is obvious. Reidel doesn't care about theater. Reidel is out solely and exclusively for himself, and, oh, the money. He has the intellectual depth of a sheet of paper, and the moral sense of an alley cat. (Sorry, apologies to alley cats everywhere.)

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/23/12 at 11:51am

No, he doesn't care about theatre at all. He made that clear in a TV interview he did on Breakfast with the Arts a few years ago when asked why he didn't review shows. (I suspect the main reason is that nobody ever asked him to write reviews. I also got the sense that he doesn't want to be bothered seeing a show and then having to create a 1000-word assessment of it pointing out the strengths and weaknesses and helping readers decide whether it is worth seeing ...or not.)

What he is trying to be a is a modern-day Walter Winchell, but he lacks Winchell's superb writing skills. M.R. has tapped into the Post reader's thirst for sensationalism and melded that with his theatre coverage. It is cheap exploitation for Broadway producers who leak him insider's gossip (hoping that a negative piece on his page will stir up interest in their show.)

He loves to pick on weak or struggling shows so he can gloat when they close quickly. (Remember his early preview reports on SPIDERMAN?) He wishes he had the power of a New York Times reviewer to close down shows he doesn't like but he doesn't have the knowledge, interest or skills needed to write a proper review, so he goes for backstage gossip.

Notice how every time he writes a really bitchy column everyone rushes to be the first to post a link to it on BWW? By doing that it just gives the man the power he craves.

Many people who post here on BWW do the same thing but generally do it in a far more entertaining way with much more eloquence.

[newintown]

Posted: 4/23/12 at 11:57am

He does have an astoundingly easy job, doesn't he? But I imagine he doesn't get paid more than $30,000 a year; his seedy wardrobe and bad haircuts would support that theory.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 4/23/12 at 12:50pm

I know this ain't gonna be popular but the only comments I heard about Raul during the show was about his voice. People (the tourists) weren't into it.

As far as his physique, I didn't notice anything interesting other than the time he wore a discoball jacket. Just plain jane really. If they wanted sex appeal they should have gotten Harry Connick Jr.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/23/12 at 2:27pm

No, his physique is not remarkable but if you're acquainted with Raul for any amount of time, you'd notice the improvement.