Riedel: Motherf**ker will be nominated for Best Play and Actor...

[ljay889]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 1:00am

Who in the world saw this coming?

It will also -- and you read it here first -- pick up several Tony nominations next month, including Best Play and Best Actor (Bobby Cannavale).

Who will Cannavale knock out of the Best Actor category? There is Mark Rylance (x2), Al Pacino, James Earl Jones, Dan Lauria, Brian Bedford, Robin Williams(?).

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/skeptics_can_eat_their_hat_au8fQlSbWdJe0A4bnXDtDN#ixzz1JNNklvS6

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 1:24am

Dan Lauria.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 1:30am

Geez, I wish Brian Bedford was going to be considered for featured.

As for Riedel's prediction- I'll believe it when I see it. However, if it does come to pass, I could see lead actor going: Rylance (Jerusalem), Pacino, Bedford, Williams, Cannavale.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 8:47am

Riedel is a motherf**king snake, that's all I can say. His backpedaling here is pathetic.

Posted: 4/13/11 at 10:00am

God, i wish Reidel could at least be somewhat sheepish when he blows it so badly.

[amyfairycakes]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 11:50am

My favourite part of that article is how Riedel says that, despite penning an article which basically put the nail in Motherf**ker's coffin, "if you read between the lines, you knew that my faith in Guirgis and his play was unshakable.

Never mind the fact that the article boasted about the situation being "dire", made mocking allusions to the playwright's struggle with depression, pondered about Chris Rock's supposed "failure" to draw audiences and even quoted an anonymous source as saying, "For whatever reason, nobody wants to see this show," - this was just Riedel's way of telling the show and Stephen Adly Guirgis, "I believe in you!"


Updated On: 4/13/11 at 11:50 AM

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 12:46pm

Ugh. What a stupid article. If Riedel is going to be mean to be people and sometimes inaccurately report things, I can take it with a grain of salt. That's why most people read his column. And it's in the New York Post for God's sake. Not like that's a bastion of integrity or anything.

But to blatantly just say that his previous article was misunderstood is childish. It wasn't. He was being mean-spirited and now he's eating crow. This amounts to an anti-retraction, and a terrible one at that.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 3:38pm

"'pondered about Chris Rock's supposed 'failure' to draw audiences and even quoted an anoynmous source as saying, "For whatever reason, nobody wants to see this show,'"

Not to defens Reidel, but part of that is true. Up until last week, the house was mostly in 600s (only having reached above 700 twice), and that was with only 7 performances per week. So cl;early Chris Rock's name wasn't doing much. But I think advertiosing may well have been an issue as well. My understanding is that post-review ticket sales have reached a comfortable level.

[amyfairycakes]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 6:50pm

I'm not saying it wasn't true - I just don't see how any of that article could have been read as Riedel having faith in the show, as he stated it was in the later article.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/13/11 at 7:04pm

I love it when Reidel farts in the room and everyone knows its him but he pretends its not happening.


Oh, and his face looks like a booger.