Scott Rudin disses Patrick Healy in the Times

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 12:32pm

Anyone catch this in the Saturday Arts section of the Times this morning? All I can say is wow.

Updated On: 5/4/13 at 12:32 PM

[alliez92092]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 12:38pm

This is a David Merrick level ad.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 12:40pm

Did Healy write something negative about the show?

Updated On: 5/4/13 at 12:40 PM

[mikem]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 12:47pm

I'm sure Michael Riedel is so jealous right now!

Healy had a recent interview with Colm Toibin, the author of The Testament of Mary. I think Healy tried to press Toibin into saying something negative about Rudin, but Toibin was a gentleman throughout and only had positive things to say about their relationship. But I don't think Healy went anywhere close to crossing a line or offending Rudin. Rudin is way overreacting IMO.




http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/the-testament-of-toibin-a-tony-nod-and-a-closing-notice/?ref=theater

Updated On: 5/4/13 at 12:47 PM

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 1:04pm

Seriously??

I can't imagine that Rudin's snipe had anything to do with that Q&A from Healy. There was nothing there that would offend on the level that would require that sort of a response. Healy must have said something else in the press or to someone in the business who relayed it back to Mr. Rudin.

[egghumor]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 1:17pm

Never forget that it was Scott Rudin who threatened to wage an ugly war with Stephen Sondheim a few years ago.

[tazber]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 1:19pm

That is some good old fashioned showbiz bitchery.

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 3:30pm

Do share more about the Rudin/Sondheim debacle?? First I've heard of this.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 3:30pm

I can't imagine that Rudin's snipe had anything to do with that Q&A from Healy. There was nothing there that would offend on the level that would require that sort of a response.

Are you serious?

That entire interview is nothing more than one question after another begging Colm Toibin to say something nasty about Scott Rudin.

Healy isn't even subtle about it! He baits Toibin SIX TIMES!


* The voice on the other end said, “I have Scott Rudin on the line for you.” And so began one of the more surreal phone conversations that Mr. Toibin ever had: He was a freshly minted Tony nominee, but his producer Mr. Rudin was telling him that the play would close on Sunday, after only 43 performances and far earlier than planned, due to poor ticket sales.

* You learned about the Tony nomination around 8:45am Tuesday, and learned the play would close an hour or so later. How did you feel?

* Fortunately, a lot of the “Mary” producers are also “Mormon” producers – that’s how the business works, and I’m sure they will be fine financially. But did you ask Scott to reconsider closing the show?

* How did you deal with the news?

* Scott Rudin is one of the most successful and strong-minded producers on Broadway. What was working with him like?

*Did you two get along well, even when he told you that the play would close?


Colm Toibin should get a Tony Award just for refraining from taking the bait.

Updated On: 5/5/13 at 03:30 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 4:05pm

Eh. I can see how Rudin would be annoyed by that.

[Playbilly]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 4:05pm

Rudin is a nut and egomaniac from way back. Ask the Hollywood folks.

[mikem]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 4:23pm

Toibin's no fool. Rudin took on a financially risky project to bring Toibin's play to Broadway, and Toibin got his Broadway debut and a Tony nomination out of it. The show still ran for 6 weeks, which is around what a non-Broadway run would have been. The show was going to lose more money each week it stayed open, and Rudin did the right thing to close the show. And the show is closing with an air of, "The show isn't commercial enough for Broadway," not an air of, "The show is a failure."

Toibin appears to be appropriately grateful to Rudin for the opportunity. I don't think Healy comes across very well in pushing for a negative comment. That being said, Rudin is making a mountain out of a molehill by printing an ad like that.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 4:35pm

He is, but it's rude of the NYT for even trying to get a negative comment.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 6:43pm

Watch ANY media scrum with a politician or public figure. The ratings/readership crave scandal and the press provide it. I didn't get the idea that Healy was on any sort of personal mission against Rudin but I take the point made by PalJoey.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 6:53pm

Drama queenery all around!

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 7:24pm

"Rudin is a NUT and egomaniac from way back. Ask the Hollywood folks."

I capitalized nut, because I know it's true from personal experience. And yes, ask anyone in the business.

[wonkit]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 10:10pm

I know nothing about Rudin but I have always found Healy to be an egomaniacal jerk. His interview of Tom Stoppard a few years back was at about the level of a middle school theater geek - and that is probably unfair to middle school theater geeks.

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 4:21am

I think Patrick Healy is hot!

[BillyBoy4]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 7:23am

It was absolutely clear reading the Q&A that Healy was attempting to get back at Rudin, maybe for not giving him the news of the closing and for not giving him news and access going way back. Rudin always goes to Riedel with his scoops and seems to bend over backwards to make sure Healy gets the news last. Be curious to know when the bad blood started. Healy can be subversively vindictive; is extremely competitive with Riedel (when Riedel couldn't care less); and way too often has an agenda to his stories - and the Q&A this week was a blatant example of that.

Updated On: 5/5/13 at 07:23 AM

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 9:07am

After reading Healy's entire article, including Toibin's responses to not only the questions PalJoey listed, but the others Healy asked as well, I think Rudin is being a pompous jerk. To actually pay for ad space in the NYT to publish a snarky statement is pretty immature.

Healy found an interesting story and his first paragraph sets up the drama of that situation:

* First-time Broadway playwright's show gets nominated for a "Best Play" Tony
* Within hours, "freshly minted Tony nominee" receives call from producer that not only will the show close, it will close "far earlier than planned".

Healy then sets out to establish answers to questions that might come into a reader's mind, the most relevant being, "How and why does something like this happen?"

An average schmo like me believes Tony nominations (and especially Tony wins) usually imply a boost in ticket sales. Besides the "Best Play" nomination, The Testament of Mary also earned two additional nominations for lighting and sound. With the possibility of three Tony nods, why didn't Rudin wait to close the show until its scheduled June 16 date, after the Tony results?

Was Healy so wrong to describe this scenario as being "surreal", particularly from Toibin's perspective? Healy goes to Toibin rather than Rudin (IMO, Toibin is the more interesting interviewee) for answers.

Before any of his interview with Toibin is transcribed, Healy uses Toibin's initial reaction to make a point about the nature of producing a show on Broadway: "Mr. Toibin said he took the news in stride – commercial Broadway is a brutal business, with only 25 percent of shows ever turning a profit – and went off to his teaching job at Columbia University."

Is Healy wrong?

In his interview with Toibin, Healy asks provocative questions that shed light on possible answers a reader would be interested to know under these circumstances. His questions are worded in a way that provoke an emotional response. They also are inclusive enough to ask if Toibin, and/or the production itself are responsible for the closing. His last question isn't even a question at all. It's just a statement, and Healy allows Toibin to respond.

If Rudin weren't so hot-headed, he might be able to see that in playing "devil's advocate" with his provacative questions, Healy allowed Toibin's responses to paint Rudin in a favorable light and illustrate his (Healy's) opening statement that "commercial Broadway is a brutal business". Toibin's responses indicate that it's "brutal" on all sides and that it's probably just the current nature of the game.

Here's the interview, BTW:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/the-testament-of-toibin-a-tony-nod-and-a-closing-notice/?ref=patrickdhealy


Updated On: 5/5/13 at 09:07 AM

[billis2]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 10:07am

I think you're giving Healy way too much credit. If he really wanted to tell the story of why Testament of Mary closed so soon after the nominations announcement, he should ask Rudin as well as Toibin. Toibin doesn't know the answer. He's not the one who made the decision. No one says that Healy can't ask Rudin for a comment and put it in the story.

[ooblogway]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 10:19am

I think it's funny that Rudin did it in the ABCs...

Do it right and take out a proper ad!

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 10:32am

>> "If he really wanted to tell the story of why Testament of Mary closed so soon after the nominations announcement, he should ask Rudin as well as Toibin."

Agreed. But I don't think that was his intent. He published a short piece that illustrates a single thesis: "commercial Broadway is a brutal business" (which kind of summarizes why the show is closing). Healy chose to interview the more sympathetic character (from a reader's perspective).

Given ONLY the superficial facts of the situation, Rudin could very easily be pre-judged by readers as a "villain". Toibin's realistic responses soften the blow.

...and given Rudin's follow-up behavior, does it seem likely he would have presented a positive picture of himself had Healy included his input?
Updated On: 5/5/13 at 10:32 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 10:46am

In case some of you are unaware, Rudin's ad in the ABC's was a subtle nod to a famous instance of a producer getting even on the critics.

When David Merrick produced the musical Subways Are for Sleeping on Broadway in 1962, the reviews were unanimously bad.

Merrick found seven people with the same names as the critics of the seven major NY newspapers, gave them free tickets, drinks, dinner at the best Broadway-area restaurants, and limousines back to their homes in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.

The next day a full-page ad in the NY Times appeared with rave quotes from Walter Kerr, Howard Taubman and the other same-named faux critics.

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 11:06am

^^
Now, THAT'S comedy!