Scott Rudin takedown — Page 2

castlestreet said: "I think that’s a question better suited to Sutton Foster, Hugh Jackman, Denzel Washington, Bette Midler, Viola Davis and the list goes on.

He doesn’t sign my paycheck so my hands are clean!"

You’re here defending someone who is a documented abuser and trying to frame it as being anti-cancel culture, so, maybe not so much, hot shot.

Owen22 said: "KFC1991 said: ""It's about time"?
I read a similar article about a decade ago. If a nobody like me knows how awful he is to his staff it is pretty common knowledge by this point."

Yes, but during this time, when people-- awful, evil people like Rudin are being held accountable, it needs to be stated again. And again and again!

But we are part of the problem. I wish I had the strength, after reading this THR article, to trash my tickets to "The Music Man" and boycott his productions from now on. But, unfortunately....I know I won't...."

Yeah, an important thing that people should keep in mind when watching any project he produces is "Why should everyone else involved with Rudin's productions be punished for his actions when they literally did nothing wrong?". Sure, they agreed to take part in his projects, but that doesn't mean they did so just to work with him. They probably did just to work on the material, everyone else involved who isn't Scott Rudin, or both.

Okay folks - If it’s over why are the likes of Sutton and Hugh still working with him. “

Psych 101. He doesn’t treat them they way he treats others. It’s called privilege. Celebrities lean into it all the time. Like when celebrities stood up for Ellen when her employees called her out for her inappropriate behavior. Celebs have NO IDEA what it is like to be line staff for these individuals. It’s truly shameful and shows their blind spots.


Also, it’s clear he is open to abusing newer talents as shared by Jeremy O Harris. God only knows what he has done to newer talents without power.

It actually speaks more to the lack of integrity of the A-listers who kiss his butt. If they truly know what he is doing and refuse to work with him or at the least call him on, that’s on them.

poisonivy2 said: "Bette Midler is very outspoken on Twitter about a variety of issues. Disappointing that she's silent about this. She doesn't need Scott Rudin."

Thank you! He helped her get her Tony so it’s “ok”...

LOL "We need to cancel him--but I'm not giving up my tickets to The Music Man!" Essentially the position of many people here. Giving up your tickets to The Music Man is how you cancel him. That's literally the only thing that will work: not giving his work your money, so he doesn't have to money (or make the money that lures investors) for his next project. That's it. That's the one thing you can do. But no, you're "doing something" by posting outraged posts and demanding "something be done" while eagerly awaiting his next show--and helping him make millions, able to employ all those people you claim he abuses.

Don't know whether that's hypocritical or just plain stupid.

JBroadway said: "While I disagree withcastlestreet's implication that this is just something to accept, I think he brings up some worthwhilepoints about how we, as audience members, and how stars are complicit. I personally have been a dedicated audience member of Rudin's work for years, and I've defended some ofhis controversial business decisions, because I believe he adds so much value to the theatre community. But until recently, I've mostly been under the impression (possibly self-deluded)that he fellunder the "difficult" category, not the "abusive" category. With this recent incident, I'm seeing that this isn't the case.

And yes, there's some hypocrisy to all this. Can I honestly say that I won't ever see another Scott Rudin production? Will I try to rationalize it by reminding myself that I only ever pay rush prices, which barely make a dent in his grosses? Will I continue to support the artists who repeatedly work closely with him, and make him his money? These are things that I, and many of us, have to think about going forward. Where will each of us draw that line, and how much are each of us willing to compromise our morals for great art? Preferably not at all, but it can be difficult when, we, as dedicated theatre people, are so deeply entrenched in this world of seeing/discussing everything that comes to Broadway.

As for the artists - it's a tough one, because I thinkcastlestreet is right to point out that believing their claims of ignorance may be a bit naive. And yes, they should be held accountable for enabling him. But I also think that trying to boycott/cancel artists because of their associations with problematicfigures is a game of rapidly diminishing returns. There may be a lot of social value in robbing Rudin of his outlet for abuse, but the social value of cancelling Laurie Metcalf for working with him is limited, to the point of maybe not being worth it.

But then, the question becomes, how does one practically bring down a man at the top, without de-incentivizing others to continue giving him power? And how does one de-incentivize artists to continue working with him, without presenting them with the risk of tainting their own public image?

I don't know. It's very complicated. And it's something I wrestle with constantly as someone who consumes art in the way that I (and many of us on this board) do."

Thoughtful post. I think the issue of holding someone accountable doesn't really work in most of adult life. It works for children because adults control them. It works for lawbreakers because the law controls them. But for the most part, you can't hold someone accountable--you can complain, but that isn't the same thing--and you're right that the web of interconnections makes "canceling" every person who willingly associates with a terrible person essentially a cancellation of the arts--actually of all businesses.

What I'm objecting to here are the preening "We won't stand for it!" posts by people who are...apparently quite willingly standing for it by supporting his shows. It's "internet activism" at its worst.

Updated On: 4/7/21 at 01:29 PM

Fosse76 said: "without some sort of massive public exposé and outcry"



You say that like it's out of the realm of possibility, but maybe that's exactly what needs to happen. Clearly there are already journalists who are trying to do that work. As for most people not having heard of him - I agree that makes it more difficult. It's easy when it's a public-facing figure like an actor or comedian, or even a director or writer, to make people aware of artists who shouldn't be patronized. Much harder with a producer. Weinstein was an extreme example, and not to mention he had his name clearly displayed in the opening logos of all his movies.

With Rudin, I think it helps that his audience consists largely of New York theatre-goers, especially for his plays. And NY theatre-goers are much more likely to know Rudin by name, and by the signposts of his productions: the black-and-white Playbills, the strict audience policies, etc. plus the types of productions he's known for putting on, and the artists he's known to work with. But his big musicals generally attract more tourists, and at the end of the day, that's where he's probably making most of his money. So yes, that's definitely a challenge. But "it's a challenge" isn't necessarily an excuse to say "oh well, then there's no point in trying to do anything about this problem."



And while I agree that it's unlikely Midler and Jackman were unaware of his behavior, personal experience will color one's perception over "rumors." They wouldn't have experienced or witnessed his abusive behavior, so could easily believe that the "rumors" are exaggerated."



Possibly, yes. And even more likely, they might have even witnessed him being "difficult," "stubborn," "strong-willed," "demanding," etc. - so when people say he's abusive, they might think to themselves, "oh, sure, I saw him being demanding and difficult. That must be what they're talking about, and from what I saw it isn't so bad."

But if it becomes an ongoing pattern, to the point of being an "open secret" like Weinstein, you have to wonder who might be willfully burying their heads in the sand.