#126
Posted: 3/29/25 at 11:37am
Well if he is coming back.. can he get Metcalf in Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf up?!
Scott Rudin is returning to Broadway — Page 6
#127
Posted: 3/29/25 at 11:44am
Dancingthrulife2 said: "I need the yearly Laurie Metcalf productions back. They were what I most looked forward to every season back in the days."
AGREED!
#128
Posted: 3/29/25 at 12:08pm
Rudin does have excellent taste and was very good at his job- he was especially very good with developing new work, which is an ability sorely lacking amongst the active crop of producers right now (particularly noticeable with Seaview).
But it's worth remembering his abuse was not a late-in-life development, a result of reaching the pinnacle of success. The allegations go back almost 30 years. So to think that he's changed his ways in four-ish years is a little bit of wishful thinking. That NYTimes profile is also kind of short on details on how's he changed himself and what he'll be doing differently- and what those around him will be doing differently. Frankly, the big takeaway from that profile I got was that Rudin has no conception of himself if he's not producing. He comes off as bored and listless, not reformed.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#129
Posted: 3/29/25 at 12:16pm
If he wants to start producing again and he claims he's done the work on himself, great. The proof will be in the pudding. I don't think he should be welcomed back with open arms either. Any production he's on should keep him on an extremely short leash, but who's gonna be the person to demand that? And who's going to be the one to hold him accountable?
His downplaying of his assault incidents ("very very rarely"
which are well documented and supposedly numerous rubs me the wrong way. Also it's funny how they say he reshuffled his life by selling his two Manhattan residences and his house in East Hampton. Like, are we supposed to sympathize now that he only has one house to live in and less artwork?
"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible
Updated On: 3/30/25 at 12:16 PM
#130
Posted: 3/29/25 at 12:56pm
east side story said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "I need the yearly Laurie Metcalf productions back. They were what I most looked forward to every season back in the days."
AGREED!"
Does Metcalf only work with Rudin? How come she won't work with other producers? Or why aren't other producers working with her?
#131
Posted: 3/29/25 at 1:57pm
Wick3 said: "east side story said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "I need the yearly Laurie Metcalf productions back. They were what I most looked forward to every season back in the days."
AGREED!"
Does Metcalf only work with Rudin? How come she won't work with other producers? Or why aren't other producers working with her?"
Supposedly some stars only worked with Rudin bc he was very good at keeping any annoyances at bay ... for them. Like apparently he wouldn't allowed iced drinks in Hello Dolly! bc Bette didn't like the sound of ice when she was performing.
#132
Posted: 3/29/25 at 3:02pm
Some of the comments I saw from boldfaced names like Laura Benanti on BWW's IG post was impressive to see them continue with their convictions. I'm personally torn, because I believe people can and should have a path back, though should remain on thin ice.
#133
Posted: 3/29/25 at 3:50pm
Metcalf has worked with a lot of different producers, most recently Tom Kirdahy on GREY HOUSE. She probably turns down offers regularly. At the same time, she might not be #1 on most people's offer lists because she generates $0 in ticket sales.
The thing that separates Rudin from a lot of producers is he treated artists (actors, writers, directors) really well most of the time and championed work that others would not. The actors were not the ones being bullied. Of course all those actors KNEW about his behavior, but it didn't impact them.
What I wonder is who he'll surround himself with on the business side, as those people were more in the line of fire. He had split with Wagner & Johnson during the pandemic, but will he coax them back as general managers/EPs? Will SpotCo (which advertised his every show) be willing to work with him after the unpaid bills saga? Miramontez is his bestie, so no doubt O&M will continue to press-rep his shows. Will the usual suspect of Broadway co-producers/investors sign on to his shows, or will he have Barry Diller back him?
#134
Posted: 3/29/25 at 5:26pm
What Rudin did is well known in the industry. Moving forward, individuals will be making choices based on what is known. People have personal agency., They can choose whether or no to:
- invest with him
- appear in his shows
- work in his office
- collaborate with him
- provide services to him and his shows
- attend shows he produces
Some of you here seem to think you should get to make these decisions for others. Good luck with that.
#135
Posted: 3/29/25 at 5:30pm
SteveSanders said: "What Rudin did is well known in the industry. Moving forward, individuals will be making choices based on what is known. People have personal agency., They can choose whether or no to:
- invest with him
- appear in his shows
- work in his office
- collaborate with him
- provide services to him and his shows
- attend shows he produces
Some of you here seem to think you should get to make these decisions for others. Good luck with that."
Money talks as does a power vacuum. Why did people still make films with Harvey and work with Drabinsky. It’s show business, caveat emptor.
#136
Posted: 3/29/25 at 6:27pm
The actors were not the ones being bullied
Bullying isn't the same as abuse. Downplaying 30 years of verbal and physical abuse is disgusting and does a disservice to the victims. Do better.
#137
Posted: 3/29/25 at 7:39pm
It is a very good question: can you separate the great air from the terrible person who created it?
#138
Posted: 3/29/25 at 9:21pm
He absolutely did bully actors. Ask Donna Murphy.
#139
Posted: 3/29/25 at 10:03pm
SteveSanders said: "What Rudin did is well known in the industry. Moving forward, individuals will be making choices based on what is known. People have personal agency., They can choose whether or no to:
- invest with him
- appear in his shows
- work in his office
- collaborate with him
- provide services to him and his shows
- attend shows he produces
Some of you here seem to think you should get to make these decisions for others. Good luck with that."
You are ignoring power dynamics and scarcity of jobs in this industry. Sure, big name actors can turn down the opportunity, but what about actors who don’t get many opportunities at all? What about assistants, associates, who just need a job, who need to learn the ropes and get in the door?
If it were as simple as “choosing” not to work with someone who wields power in this industry, then why did even powerful women stay quiet about Harvey Weinstein? People like Rudin or Weinstein benefit from the desperation of many in this industry who are just trying to break through or stay employed.
#140
Posted: 3/30/25 at 12:43am
BroadwayGirl107 said: "SteveSanders said: "What Rudin did is well known in the industry. Moving forward, individuals will be making choices based on what is known. People have personal agency., They can choose whether or no to:
- invest with him
- appear in his shows
- work in his office
- collaborate with him
- provide services to him and his shows
- attend shows he produces
Some of you here seem to think you should get to make these decisions for others. Good luck with that."
You are ignoring power dynamics and scarcity of jobs in this industry. Sure, big name actors can turn down the opportunity, but what about actors who don’t get many opportunities at all? What about assistants, associates, who just need a job, who need to learn the ropes and get in the door?
If it were as simple as “choosing” not to work with someone who wields power in this industry, then why did even powerful women stay quiet about Harvey Weinstein? People like Rudin or Weinstein benefit from the desperation of many in this industry who are just trying to break through or stay employed."
I'm not ignoring that at all. You're suggesting the only way people can survive is to work for an abuser. That's a false straw man. All sorts of men and women wield power in this industry. Presumably, most of them are not abusers like Weinstein or Rudin or else that would mean almost everyone is willing to sacrifice a safe working environment/relationship in order to work.
It seems likely that very few people will wake up Monday morning and say to themselves, "Gosh, I guess in order to be successful from now on, I will have to subject myself to the risk of working with/for Rudin."
Desperation for roles and income will always be part of the entertainment industry. And yet people still make choices all the time that may further reduce the number of opportunities available to them in this already competitive field: will only work in LA or NYC, will only do limited runs, won't work in certain genres, et al. Moving forward some might now add "won't work for or with Scott Rudin."
No one if forced to opt in to working for anyone, let alone someone with a known history of abuse. Caveat emptor. And if someone does opt to work for/with Rudin and he misbehaves, it presumably will be easier before to call attention to it in a meaningful way.
Updated On: 3/30/25 at 12:43 AM
#141
Posted: 3/30/25 at 8:52am
SteveSanders said: "BroadwayGirl107 said: "SteveSanders said: "What Rudin did is well known in the industry. Moving forward, individuals will be making choices based on what is known. People have personal agency., They can choose whether or no to:
- invest with him
- appear in his shows
- work in his office
- collaborate with him
- provide services to him and his shows
- attend shows he produces
Some of you here seem to think you should get to make these decisions for others. Good luck with that."
You are ignoring power dynamics and scarcity of jobs in this industry. Sure, big name actors can turn down the opportunity, but what about actors who don’t get many opportunities at all? What about assistants, associates, who just need a job, who need to learn the ropes and get in the door?
If it were as simple as “choosing” not to work with someone who wields power in this industry, then why did even powerful women stay quiet about Harvey Weinstein? People like Rudin or Weinstein benefit from the desperation of many in this industry who are just trying to break through or stay employed."
I'm not ignoring that at all. You're suggesting the only way people can survive is to work for an abuser. That's a false straw man. All sorts of men and women wield power in this industry. Presumably, most of them are not abusers like Weinstein or Rudin or else that would mean almost everyone is willing to sacrifice a safe working environment/relationship in order to work.
It seems likely that very few people will wake up Monday morning and say to themselves, "Gosh, I guess in order to be successful from now on, I will have to subject myself to the risk of working with/for Rudin."
Desperation for roles and income will always be part of the entertainment industry. And yet people still make choices all the time that may further reduce the number of opportunities available to them in this already competitive field: will only work in LA or NYC, will only do limited runs, won't work in certain genres, et al. Moving forward some might now add "won't work for or with Scott Rudin."
No one if forced to opt in to working for anyone, let alone someone with a known history of abuse. Caveat emptor. And if someone does opt to work for/with Rudin and he misbehaves, it presumably will be easier before to call attention to it in a meaningful way."
This is such a deeply out of touch take.
Why do you think abusers survive in this industry? You think people didn’t know Rudin or Weinstein were abusers? Of course they did.You are completely ignoring the reality of this business. People take the work they can get. They take the opportunities they can get, because the doors NEVER open for most people.
If someone isn’t getting auditions and has a family and isn’t a name and then after months of a dry spell they’re presented with a Broadway audition with top level talent and Joe Mantello directing and getting the job means getting paid the top union rates and qualifying for health insurance—do you think they’re going to turn that down? Some people might—but it takes a certain level of power and security already to do so.
I really can’t believe the responses in this thread. It just shows you why this cycle never ends. People are really willing to forgive the worst in powerful people and then put the onus on the powerless to make change.
Updated On: 3/30/25 at 08:52 AM
#142
Posted: 3/30/25 at 9:44am
It will never end. People like Weinstein, Rudin and Drabinsky do not change but they surround themselves with artists and investors that look the other way, chanting; "the art, the art!" . I hope the community pickets Rudin and refuses to take his money.
#143
Posted: 3/30/25 at 9:59am
SteveSanders said: "What Rudin did is well known in the industry. Moving forward, individuals will be making choices based on what is known. People have personal agency., They can choose whether or no to:
- invest with him
- appear in his shows
- work in his office
- collaborate with him
- provide services to him and his shows
- attend shows he produces
Some of you here seem to think you should get to make these decisions for others. Good luck with that."
And if someone's employer (like mine) is the one who chooses to work with him (I sincerely hope they do not), what of the employees who are the ones who actually suffer under him to do? The CEO of those companies aren't the ones who suffer; it's the workers who make $60K/year and have to work 18-hour days to make him happy who do. A very small number of companies in NYC provide services to Broadway shows, and jobs are minimal. Per your message, I guess if he chooses to bestow his abuse and demands upon my place of work, and I detest him and his behavior, I should quit and hope I can find a new job at one of the 4 other options, knowing he very well could end up tapping that company as well?
He very much feels inescapable, speaking as a person who services this industry.
#144
Posted: 3/30/25 at 10:15am
Outing yourself as working at one of the ad agencies is a bold move.
#145
Posted: 3/30/25 at 11:36am
veronicamae said: "He very much feels inescapable, speaking as a person who services this industry."
Now's the time to start organizing your colleagues at your own firm and at others to sign petitions against working with him. If, say, 75% of people –– including VPs and more senior folk –– state disinterest in working with him, that could have a sway. Or at minimum could cause them to put strict protocols for client conduct in place. He's certainly not the only mercurial producer on Broadway with a history of throwing objects and tantrums.
Of course, he basically has to work with one of the big 4* agencies (SpotCo, AKA, RPM, Serino, plus all the digital-only or smaller firms).
This is also where the talent agencies and landlords have actual influence.
The Broadway League is meaningless in this case; if he's the sole lead producer, then yes he'll need to be a member, but he could also have a shadow-producer as the signatory.
Updated On: 3/30/25 at 11:36 AM
#146
Posted: 3/30/25 at 11:47am
My best friend of decades was in a nasty relationship for several years. The guy was a real piece of sh!t. She has been without him now for nearly a decade, but for several years she kept making excuses for taking him back. It was very frustrating, and honestly very hard to keep being supportive every time she took the dude back. A lot of this thread sounds like her making those excuses. It is very disheartening.
Normally, I am of the mindset that if you do the crime and pay your time, you are entitled to a second chance, but Rudin did a lot of crazy stuff with no real repercussions. He chose to step away, but didn't actually step away. He just worked behind the scenes. He didn’t do any time, there has been no public act of contrition. Why should anyone believe he has changed? Why is welcoming him back to the community because, ya know, reasons, any different than my friend taking back her chronically abusive prick? I contest that it is not different.
The theatre community has had its chance to grow without him. Others have blossomed in his semi-absence. My friend is doing better without the a$$hole, and the Broadway community is better without Scott Rudin working out in the open.
#147
Posted: 3/30/25 at 11:57am
I decided to go through the article and add some annotations with direct quotes on some of the abuse allegations in the sections of the article I felt didn't dive into them adequately. I hope this is helpful for other theatre industry folks who don't want to suffer from collective amnesia like the NYTimes seems to!
https://open.substack.com/pub/stageleftreport/p/scott-rudins-comeback-some-context
#148
Posted: 3/30/25 at 12:19pm
Thank you for putting that together, it looks great. Oh and anyone who justifies his abuse by saying "He's certainly not the only mercurial producer on Broadway with a history of throwing objects and tantrums" tells me all I need to know about them.
However, many people will never work with him especially popular women in theater who have power and influence. Him downplaying his felony abuse and aggravated assault by saying "I was just too rough on people" is nauseating.
Always remember how he attacked Audra McDonald for getting pregnant and continued trying to harrass her years later.
#149
Posted: 3/30/25 at 12:34pm
Or remember his fight over the stage rights for To Kill a Mockingbird, in which he threatened litigation against a number of community and semi-professional theaters across the country because they had the rights to the previous stage adaptation, causing disruptive and expensive last-minute cancellations? He spent decades punching down against people and companies he knew couldn't fight back.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#150
Posted: 3/30/25 at 2:01pm
Exactly-- The downplaying and omission of key details is so insane throughout. This quote stuck out to me from the Hollywood Reporter piece in 2021--
- Per a knowledgeable legal source, bullying claims against Rudin never see the light of day and are settled quietly. Fear of reprisals has kept many from speaking out. Employees typically sign a non-disparagement agreement. And several sources for this piece consulted with an attorney before proceeding, even off the record.
I'm navigating my own legal challenges within the industry due to former discriminatory management, and can confirm that it's incredibly hard to find legal representation as a lower-level worker at all in this industry, not to mention the fear of losing your career, contacts, etc. if you actually retain an attorney and anything goes forward.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95