So Who was the Photographer Ejected by Patti from "Gypsy"?- Page 4

[bk]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 3:27am

Pal Joey is correct - and these "people" who keep spreading this crap should be banned from this site. The fact that people believe these "confirmed by members" stories just says everything about the age of most of the posters on this site. No actual sources can be provided but they still believe. There is not one whit of truth that it was a NY Magazine photographer or ANY professional photographer.

I suspect that the two posters doing this malarky may have intended their posts to be satirical, but in order to be satirical you have to understand humor.

I do enjoy Winston89, a nineteen year old (I'm presuming 89 is the birth year - or maybe the birth year is 3) telling everyone how immature Miss LuPone is. It is to laugh, but then again, this is broadwayworld.com.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 8:00am

I don't think banning is enough, bk.

I believe the liars should be drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, publicly humiliated and then WATERBOARDED on the TKTS booth.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 1:57pm

In a case like this Equity would only take action if the producers or her fellow cast members filed charges. Equity will rarely initiate charges except in cases of members attempting to work on non-Eq shows.

Knowing her reputation with the way she treats stage management/company management, there is no way in hell she would not have been notified about a professional photographer being in the house, nor told that the person had left but in reality hadn't. The rules/stipulations would have been laid out very clearly with that person, and if he/she was supposed to leave or stop taking pictures after intermission they most definitely would have.

As for the Sunset fiasco. I had heard that a large part of the problem between Patti and Lloyd Webber was a misunderstanding of the language in the contract. She was originally contracted to do London, obviously, then the Broadway premiere, which she also assumed would be the American premiere. The blow up came, from what I had been told, when it was announced that the show would open first in L.A. with Glenn Close while Patti was completing the London run before the show opened on Broadway. If I remember correctly this is the scenario outlined in the Sunset Blvd companion book so of course it will be biased to show Webber in a good light. I personally think it was a combination of this and the fact that the initial reviews were indeed tepid.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 2:37pm

MODERATOR: Please delete the defamatory lies from this and all other threads.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 2:44pm

"The reporter worked for New York Magazine and was given permission to take pictures. The cast was told there would be a photographer in the orchestra. Patti was under the impression that the photographer had left at intermission, and when she saw the focus light on the camera go off a few times she got pissed and threw a fit. The photographer was ejected, and paid some money since they were not able to get all the pictures they were given permission to get for their article, as well as compensation for Patti's behavior if they promise not to bad mouth her."

What's not very plausible is the idea that New York magazine or the photographer would quash a great story like this for what would probably have been a relatively small payment from the producers. And why would the producers even care once the show was closed? Or is the payment supposed to have come from LuPone? This story really doesn't make much sense.

Yes, plenty of people remember Spy.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 2:58pm

As for the Sunset fiasco. I had heard that a large part of the problem between Patti and Lloyd Webber was a misunderstanding of the language in the contract. She was originally contracted to do London, obviously, then the Broadway premiere, which she also assumed would be the American premiere. The blow up came, from what I had been told, when it was announced that the show would open first in L.A. with Glenn Close while Patti was completing the London run before the show opened on Broadway. If I remember correctly this is the scenario outlined in the Sunset Blvd companion book so of course it will be biased to show Webber in a good light. I personally think it was a combination of this and the fact that the initial reviews were indeed tepid.

Based on news report, LuPone was contracted to take the show to NY. The show opened in London in summer 1993, which was followed about 5-6 months later by the LA production. LuPone was never contracted for that production. In the end, Glenn Close had the better critical notices in LA, and she was favored for the 1994 Broadway mounting.

The articles provided earlier in this thread provide officials' statements verifying this.

Updated On: 1/25/09 at 02:58 PM

[skb2010]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 7:31pm

I saw Spamalot in Chicago yesterday, and I was SOOOOOO pissed because an asshole in the balcony was taking flash photography for the first 10 minutes of the show. I was really hoping for a Patti LuPone style show-stopper, but they eventually stopped.

[logan0215]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 8:50pm

The reporter thing is absolute bull****.

There are over 10 PRESS QUALITY photos of "Rose's Turn" available for any news source to use. It's completely implausible that a magazine would demand "live" shots from a production that was "frozen" after previews and photographed in its entirety at that point. What would be so different?

[logan0215]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 10:55pm

Guess what everybody?

New York Magazine WAS there!

AT THE FINAL PERFORMANCE

http://nymag.com/arts/theater/features/53603/

There's the elusive "feature" that was allegedly being shot on the eve Patti stopped the show. Nice try guys!

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:04pm

those NY Mag pics are amazing. I especially love the fact that she's wearing one of the red LuPone Gypsy City Center shirts in the first two pics.

and I hope this doesn't sound creepy, but I hope I'm that happy with my husband after 20 years.

[logan0215]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:10pm

That isn't creepy. That shot of her hopping in the truck and kissing him is terribly romantic, especially compounded by the fact that both participants are on the cusp of 60.

Sweet sweet exoneration.

[BNN]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:11pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this fiasco happen at the second to last performance? Meaning those pictures were from the day FOLLOWING her ejecting a photographer. You can tell becase the final show was at 3, and they show a picture at 2:55 saying 5 minutes before curtain.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:25pm

logan, yes, it's terribly romantic.

BNN, yep, that's what logan was saying when posting the link to the feature. I think this effectively deflates the rumours that the photographer thrown out was someone from a magazine doing a feature on her.

[BNN]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:28pm

Ok, I gotcha.

Those pictures are lovely by the way, thanks for adding!

[April Saul]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:29pm

I really don't understand why people were so furious and disbelieving of the folks who seemed to be calmly reporting this about NY Magazine. I'm a photographer, it sounded quite plausible to me, and I didn't see why it provoked cries of "Liars!" and calls to destroy the thread or ban people from the board. And now, the story was probably true and Lupone may have forgotten the guy was supposed to be there or didn't realize he'd stay so long, and completely lost her cool. The most amazing part of all of this to me isn't that it happened, but that it inspired such rage between posters here! And having been in a few situations where I was shooting photos in a place I was supposed to be, and screamed at and humiliated for it unexpectedly, I am starting to feel for this photographer--who incidentally, did a really nice job on Patti's last day. If, in fact, the poster who just said that this might have been a performance a day later than the one where Lupone yelled at a photographer, it still debunks the idea expressed here by several folks that no professional photog would have been allowed to do what the NY Mag guy obviously did...and if it was the NY Mag guy that she dressed down, I hope she apologized, because I'd bet anything she requested copies of some of those beautiful shots he took of her day!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:31pm

Moderators: Can you please take appropriate disciplinary action again the LYING SCUM perpetrators of the defamatory and libelous false rumors?

Thanks in advance.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:33pm

April--the professional photographer from New York magazine was NOT the amateur photographer ejected from the theater the day before.

They were two different people.

[April Saul]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:41pm

Joey, but if that's true--and it might be--doesn't it kind of beg another question? Like: how could it be that incredibly offensive and distracting for Lupone when an amateur does it if it's perfectly okay to have somebody do the same thing for NY Magazine during the same song, at the same point in the play? Unless the amateur used a flash, which isn't what people seem to be reporting, it does make Lupone's rant a little bit disingenuous, no? And please don't misunderstand, I certainly don't support the right of audience members to take photos, it's of course incredibly rude.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:45pm

Because a true professional would have gone through the proper channels and obtained permission from all necessary parties, as opposed to a random audience member who thinks they are above the rules.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:46pm

April--I think you answered your own question.

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:48pm

I've talked to several people who were there at the performance, one being a good friend who was in the audience and confirmed there was NO FLASH, and secondly someone who works at the theatre who confirmed the story about the photographer. You can call me a liar all you want PalJoey, and send me all the nasty private message you want calling me names, and call for me to be banned, but I'm just stating what I was told by a handful of people who I KNOW were actually at the theatre when it happened. The person ejected was a professional photographer and had every right to be there.

[logan0215]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:53pm

Half of the reports from the theater were that no one was actually ejected at all and the House Manager simply announced "they're gone Patti" so that the show continued.

He probably did so because anyone within a 10 foot radius of a camera had already shat their pants.

[April Saul]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:53pm

Joey and Byron--
Yes, I do get that it's thoroughly obnoxious behavior...but we've also had a ton of posters here saying things like, no photog would EVER be allowed to shoot during a show, and that any actor would be distracted by that kind of thing, etc. and I think the NY Mag item certainly debunks a lot of that...to wit, it happened and it was sanctioned. More importantly, it seems to make it more likely that perhaps there's a misunderstanding here rather than people setting out to lie and defame, which is what they've been accused of. Yours for peace on the boards and no disruption in theaters,
April

[logan0215]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:55pm

The shots in the NYMag piece that are taken during the actual show don't seem to be using flash at all, except for during the curtain call (which as reports from the theater have shown, were rampant and not shunned).

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/25/09 at 11:59pm

FlyingMonkey has made it very clear that his intentions were to spread his contemptible lies on as many different sites on the Internet.

He should be banned from this site.