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
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
