Scott Rudin is returning to Broadway — Page 9

BroadwayGirl107 said: "Kad said: "...a Rudin production going into the Booth after John Proctor is the Villain closes is certainly a choice."

This made me so much sadder than it needed to.



I remember when John Proctor was in previews one of the criticisms of the show was that

and...yeah. That feels like this.

Why do theater unions not put Rudin on whatever do not work list there is???"



What would they list as their justification for "blackballing" him --- that he's been "a big old meanie" to certain people? If so, I'm no lawyer -- but I'm pretty sure that would not stand up in court.

Say what you want about the man (and I am in no way justifying his actions), he's put on a :LOT of goddamn good shows that probably wouldn't otherwise have happened.

JSquared2 said: "What would they list as their justification for "blackballing" him --- that he's been "a big old meanie" to certain people? If so, I'm no lawyer -- but I'm pretty sure thatwould not stand up in court.



Oh I dunno, maybe they could just attach the hospital bill from the assistant who was injured because Rudin's psychotic ass broke and shattered a laptop on his hand. For starters, I suppose!

I feel like workplace physical violence, particularly if it causes someone to need immediate medical attention should be a decent place to draw the line, but HEY, maybe my standards are just *too high*.



It would not be "blackballing". It would be "consequences for his own actions". Blackballing is what likely happens to people in the industry with little power who actually do choose to speak out against this monster.

I mean, if the price of great art is a few assaulted underlings, that’s a sacrifice that just has to be made, right? (This is sarcasm)

In all seriousness, it’s interesting that those who seem willing to give Rudin a pass, seem to conveniently ignore the fact that he’s been violent with his assistants. I don’t think Rudin should be cancelled, but he should be kept on a very short leash and hopefully kept as far from the crew as possible.

Did he ever REALLY leave????

Jonathan Cohen said: "Scott Rudin'sreturn to Broadway will beSamuel D. Hunter’s Little Bear Ridge Road this October, withLaurie Metcalf and Joe Mantello directing.

It's aSteppenwolf transfer, butSteppenwolf has opted not to participate in the Broadway version. No clue if that's related to Rudin or another reason."



Per Chris Jones at the Chicago Tribune, Steppenwolf removed their name from the transfer because of Rudin’s involvement. But “released the play and the cast” to give it a shot at Broadway and keep their relationships with Metcalf and Mantello.

PipingHotPiccolo said: "
What would they list as their justification for "blackballing" him --- that he's been "a big old meanie" to certain people? If so, I'm no lawyer -- but I'm pretty sure thatwould not stand up in court.

Say what you want about the man (and I am in no way justifying his actions), he's put on a :LOT of goddamn good shows that probably wouldn't otherwise have happened."

I am a lawyer and of course it wouldnt stand up in court, which is obvious from the fact that he was never taken to court. The guy was a control freak grade A prick, and I am perfectly OK with him getting his comeuppance, but its important that people stay clear on the differences between a reckoning for poor behavior and weeding out actual criminals."

one of his victims required hospital care ... we'll almost certainly never know why that victim did not litigate their claim, but it's conduct that amounts to substantially more than being a "big meanie" and, if admissible evidence of those injuries is available, it most certainly gives rise to a defense that WOULD stand up in court.

SmokeyLady said: "Has anyone questioned Laurie Metcalfe as to why she is ok with being in this? Maybe I shouldn’t go see anything she does anymore."

I take this to be sarcasm.

I don't believe in cancel culture, but I think it's a totally fair question to ask her why she is doing this. Though it sounds to me like Rudin swooped in and took over an already finished show, so it may simply be that those who were involved in the production from the begining at Steppenwolf don't want to abandon it and all the work they've done on it.

SmokeyLady said: "Has anyone questioned Laurie Metcalfe as to why she is ok with being in this?"

I'm assuming the most you'll get from her is a statement saying Scott Rudin said he changed and I believe him. When Rosanne Barr got fired by ABC on the Rosanne show, Metcalf didn't really address what Barr did one way or another. Publicly she mostly just recalled wondering if she still had a job or if the audience would accept The Conners spinoff without Roseanne.

I'm still curious to see to what extent the question will actually get asked. Usually, you'd want Metcalf doing as many interviews as possible to drum up interest in the project. However, Rudin even getting brought up in an interview is a net loss for the production.

SmokeyLady said: "Has anyone questioned Laurie Metcalfe as to why she is ok with being in this? Maybe I shouldn’t go see anything she does anymore."

I love Metcalfe and I’m still a fan of her art. I just think she, just like most of us, want and need work.

Im surprised no one has called out the investors. After all that we have heard about Rudin, investors are still backing him up. According to New York Times gift link article about the announcement, media mogul Barry Diller is backing Rudin in this production. I always say Broadway is only in trouble when investors leave but clearly this investor believes in Rudin despite how he treated his assistants and thus… here we are.

Broadway was alive and well before Rudin, and alive and well after his demise.
Broadway does not need abusers like Scott Rudin.

whatever2 said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "

one of his victims required hospital care ... we'll almost certainly never know why that victim did not litigate their claim, but it's conduct that amounts to substantially more than being a "big meanie" and, if admissible evidence of those injuries is available, itmost certainly gives rise to a defense that WOULD stand up in court."

Right, we will never know what actually happened there because there was no investigation, no charges (criminal OR civil) etc. So that tells gives me (and I think most attorneys) pause before calling this guy a criminal for being a total prick, which is not a crime in the State of New York, the same way all employment is at-will and *every industry* has horrible people in them who make life extremely unpleasant for underlings.

This is no defense of Scott Rudin as a person, but the reason you see the ice melting for him now is because of a slow return to "wait, is he a criminal or not?" For lawyers the distinction is important. For anonymous people on the internet, i get it, not so much.

And the comparison to MJ is ridiculous- no one is making a production ABOUT Rudin, lauding him, or even ignoring his misdeeds. MJ Is a celebration of someone who I cant say much more about because the overlords here will delete any such comment.