Swindling a Famed Broadway Producer

[Norman M2]

Posted: 5/14/19 at 11:04am

Sometimes the intrigues percolating off stage are more compelling than what's on stage. And often, these backstage sagas are never, or barely, reported in the press. Here's an inside look at one good example.

https://normanmathewsauthor.com/embezzling-a-famed-broadway-producer-an-inside-look/

Updated On: 5/14/19 at 11:04 AM

[ValentineLaMar]

Posted: 5/14/19 at 11:20am

I don't understand the title of your article. 

Merriam-Webster defines embezzle as"to appropriate (something, such as property entrusted to one's care) fraudulently to one's own use."

You can embezzle FROM a famed Broadway producer, but you can't embezzle a producer. 

[Norman M2]

Posted: 5/14/19 at 11:45am

Thanks for that fine point of grammar.

[NYCblurb]

Posted: 5/16/19 at 9:10pm

What an interesting tale. Want to know more. 

[Norman M2]

Posted: 5/16/19 at 9:26pm

I also would love to know more, but unless someone tracks down Richard Chandler, there's not much chance of it. I've tried to learn about him but find absolute nothing.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/16/19 at 10:32pm

the other E-word faux pas cannot be passed off as a grammatical error. Extortion is "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats." 

I think you could easily make do with an F-word. It might not sound as sexy to you but what you are describing is fraud.

[Norman M2]

Posted: 5/16/19 at 11:10pm

Point well taken—word changed.  Who knew that so many theatre lovers knew the fine points of the legal definitions of words?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/17/19 at 7:02am

Legal definitions? No, basic vocabulary.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 5/17/19 at 7:52pm

This is a general response to the thread and not meant to pick on dramamama611.

Who among us has never misused a word while posting? Norman has been gracious about all the corrections. Can we please give him a break now and move on?

To wit, a friend of mine was ordered to kite a check for $45K to a famous producer. Her boss owed the money, but didn't have the cash on hand. So they photocopied the bad check and said, "See? We sent it. It must have been lost in the mail." Then they replaced the bad check with a good one when the boss accumulated the cash. So they made good in the end, but one could say they cheated the "famous producer" out of the interest on the $45K they were late in paying.

This sort of thing is why nothing that happened with REBECCA surprised me. In my experience in theater management, a lot of things were done "according to custom" rather than per written agreement. This left a lot of "wiggle room" for questionable morality, at best, and sometimes outright chicanery.

Updated On: 5/17/19 at 07:52 PM

[Norman M2]

Posted: 5/17/19 at 11:11pm

Thanks, GvaestonPS.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 5/18/19 at 10:01am

VERY interesting read. THIS is what should have showed up more in a TV series like SMASH.

Can NBC redo the series and instead set it in the 50's?

[Norman M2]

Posted: 5/19/19 at 1:22am

Thanks. I agree. The untold stories of Broadway. But even this one is still not truly discernible because Cheryl Crawrford, I believe, was too humiliated by it to be truly forthcoming.

[jdrye222]

Posted: 5/20/19 at 11:05am

Ummm .... I’m sorry, but after reading this ... am I the only one who feels like it is sort of karma for A) not replying to a letter seeking employment (a major pet peeve of mine - it’s not hard to have an assistant send a form letter of regret if there are no positions open), and B) allowing someone to work for you FOR FREE and then agreeing to accept an annuity from their aunt whom you’ve never met?
She sounds just as exploitative as he does.

[Norman M2]

Posted: 5/20/19 at 1:22pm

An interesting take on this. Sadly, I'm afraid that is how this business, for the most part, works.