Today's Riedel: Scott Rudin pulls plug on Clybourne Park- Page 2

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 9:18pm

I can't believe that anyone is taking anything Ridel says with any grain of truth. This man is not at all close to accurate in anything that he reports and does a great job of back peddling when he gets egg on his face.

So he wasn't right about CLEAR DAY closing early, REBECCA not being able to make its capitalization, or LEAP OF FAITH swooping into The St. James this season? And that's just in the last month alone.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 10:16pm

There has been no word as to whether the show will be cancelled. I would imagine someone would come in and put the play up. It has everything it needs but a couple million.

On another note, I'm surprised Roundabout didn't put "Sons of a Prophet" into it's Studio 54 space considering how much of a success it was Off-Broadway.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 10:27pm

would anyone want the Walter Kerr now??

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 10:55pm

Pat Healy of the Times has a more in-depth article. Here's Rudin's statement:

“Bruce Norris came in twice to audition for ‘The Corrections’ and subsequently spent many months negotiating every point in a four-year agreement to appear in the show. Mr. Norris called to tell me — after every issue had been resolved in his favor — that he had decided not to appear in the show, and had in fact during the negotiation made a series of what he termed more and more outrageous demands in the hope that we would turn him down, and that he would not have to face the responsibility of reneging on a commitment he made. I think he’s a wonderful playwright, and an equally wonderful actor, but I am unwilling to support or de facto condone this behavior and have decided not to proceed with ‘Clybourne Park,’ or ‘A Parallelogram,’ or with the production of a new play I commissioned from Mr. Norris. I look forward to seeing his next play as a member of the paying audience. ‘Clybourne Park’ is a fabulous play and I hope Bruce finds somebody else to produce it. I have encouraged our investors to stay with the play. It deserves to be seen on Broadway.”

And Healy noted that Rudin was behind the leak to Riedel.
Read it here

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 11:03pm

Hm. I imagine it will still end up on Broadway. Why doesn't Roundabout swoop in and move it to Studio 54?

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 11:04pm

Because HARVEY will be playing there...

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 11:05pm

I think that the Roundabout is also just afraid of every having a hit play. Or, gasp, a new play on Broadway.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 11:16pm

Wow - negotiating outrageous demands for months and then backing out, knowing all along that he wasn't going to go forward with it? Insane level of disrespect for the time of the people supporting him.

I now feel regret that i just bought a ticket to see the play in April a couple of days ago (in a regional production). If i had read this first i would not have wanted to spend my ticket money supporting that kind of disrespectful behavior, and that's just the price of one ticket. I can completely understand why someone with more to invest would not want to spend several million dollars supporting that kind of behavior.

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 11:26pm

Can people really not separate artists from their work? It's a fantastic play, whether or not the author is an asshole. Rudin obviously has his reasons for feeling screwed over by Norris, but as he himself says, it's still a play that deserves to be seen.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 12:28am

Can separate? Of course. Think that it is the most desirable option? Not always - depends on situation. I also choose (for example) not to eat domino's pizza since the owner donates to doctor-killing "pro-life" (sic) organizations. Can i tell the difference between the quality of a pizza and the actions of the individual owner of the company that makes the pizza? Of course. Do i think that is the preferable choice? Not for me. If others choose differently the options best for them, that's all fine. Different strokes, etc.

For me, there's enough assholery in the world that i have to deal with (at work, etc.) and don't have a choice, so that when i do have a choice on something optional, i'd rather not contribute to negative karma in the world if it isn't important enough to do so. I already paid for the ticket, so my contribution to world assholery has already been made in this case. Therefore, i do still plan to go and watch the play, since whether i see it or not makes no financial difference once the ticket is purchased.

Updated On: 2/2/12 at 12:28 AM

[vf]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 3:05am

LA Times article on it
Feud Clouds Fate of

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 9:09am

So Adam, are you going to apply that to all the theatre you want to see? Watch out, there usually is an asshole involved in every production.

David Merrick was the biggest ****alive, would you not have seen any of his shows.

Arthur Miller divorced his loving wife he had been married to for years to marry a bimbo young enough to be his daughter. Are you boycotting the revival of "Death of a Salesman"?

And then there is Arthur Laurents. Did you refuse to see Patti Lupone in "Gypsy" or the revival of "West Side Story" because Arthur Laurents was always a nasty hateful toad?

Updated On: 2/2/12 at 09:09 AM

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 9:50am

Marc, you hit on the point I try to make to people whenever they say something like, "I won't (read/see/listen to) X because the (author/actor/producer/musician) seems like a jerk." Do you do a background check on every writer or actor or person involved? Does what constitutes "assholery" (sic) in one situation because acceptable in another situation. Whatever, it's the person's loss, but it's also fairly hypocritical if you're not going to then apply it across the board.

I already paid for the ticket, so my contribution to world assholery has already been made in this case. Therefore, i do still plan to go and watch the play, since whether i see it or not makes no financial difference once the ticket is purchased.


Since you yourself said you're going to see a small regional production, I'd imagine very little of your money is actually going into Norris' pocket.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 11:52am

Reidel's predictions on what will open or close doesn't bother me, his famous character assasinations do. And the fact that Rudin "leaked" the story to him reeks of petty revenge.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 12:16pm

Oh. I assumed Harvey was in the American Airlines. Roundabout has 3 theaters on Broadway. How are they not producing new plays and musicals in at least one space?

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 12:33pm

RippedMan- Because that is not Roundabout's mission, which it has to follow. The beginning of their mission statement is: "Roundabout Theatre Company is committed to teaming great theatrical works with the industry's finest artists to re-energize classic plays and musicals"

[Brick]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 12:37pm

It's pretty clear Rudin's leak was indeed petty revenge, but he's going on record for a paper like The Times, so it's a bit more than gossip at this point.

And what Norris did would get any producer extremely riled. I'd be livid.

Curious what the other side of the story is.

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 1:57pm

It seems like Rudin really wanted Norris for The Corrections. Why else would someone as powerful as him acquiesce to what Norris himself admits were outrageous demands? It's understandable that any producer would be pissed in a situation like this, but especially when a producer of Rudin's stature was also planning to produce not just Clybourne Park on Broadway, but also commission a new play and produce the New York premiere of an existing play.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 6:29pm

"So Adam, are you going to apply that to all the theatre you want to see? Watch out, there usually is an asshole involved in every production."

That's a perfectly fair point and I appreciate your comment. I've been a theatre enthusiast for almost 4 decades (as audience member and onstage), but have been reading broadwayworld.com for only about half a year, so it is only fairly recently that I have ended up reading about behaviors of those involved as opposed to just reviews of the productions themselves in newspapers or online.

To answer your other questions and those from AC126748 - i'm not calling for a boycott or asking anyone else to take any action whatsoever. So the idea that expressing my feeling of sadness is somehow "hypocritical" (AC's word) i think is inaccurate in this situation - i'm not asking others to do something that I don't, nor saying that it is unacceptable to do something and then doing it myself. I think "haphazard" is a more accurate description here of my behavior of taking action or not taking action in different situations. It depends much more on finding out about stuff or not finding out about it than on anything else.

I expressed sadness at having financially supported someone who purposely and unnecessarily hurt other people by being intentionally dishonest and disrespectful, when he could have had what he wanted by apologetically backing out as soon as he knew what he wanted. That sadness is real, but it in no way implies that I actively seek out all instances of hurtful behaviour in the world in an effort to try to avoid supporting it, nor do i even try to achieve that kind of thoroughness. It is impossible anyway, and there is too much other stuff to do that is far higher in priority.

The way it ends up happening that i avoid supporting someone or some organization financially is that i accidentally hear about or read about issues such as domino's supporting the doctor killers or salvation army not offering its charity services to homosexual people, and if the behavior bothers me enough, I choose not to support it with my money. That happens quite regularly, but I don't actively seek out all instances of cruelty in order to actively avoid supporting them. It's just that once you find something out it's impossible to unlearn it, and if it is troubling enough then supporting it will lead to discomfort. It's just empathy, nothing more than that. It's not a promise or commitment to find all such examples in the world and root them out or at least to do something about them.

I appreciate the very valid points that there are lots of other examples of mean behaviour that I never hear about and therefore never act on, and if i don't know about them then i won't feel uncomfortable about supporting them, but once i find out i might end up feeling an inclination to do something or not, depending on the specific case and how much it bothers me.

It is also indeed a comforting thought to consider that most of the financial support from the ticket that I already bought in this case will go to the regional production participants and hopefully only a small proportion to licensing revenues to the author.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/2/12 at 9:07pm

My thanks to AC and vf for giving us links with more background info.

So Scott Rudin's dick is bigger. Good to know.

But apparently Norris is the first actor Rudin has ever met, because making outrageous demands to get out of a contract is not something Norris invented. Of course it's annoying. So are a lot of negotiating tactics.

A temper tantrum is still a temper tantrum.

Nobody looks good here.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:31pm

adam.peterson44 I completely understand what you are saying. Here is my example: I think Mel Gibson is a total @$$hole, yet I continue to watch his movies because I think he is a great director and a fine actor. His misguided personal beliefs have little to do with the talent he has. I don't know him personally, so his personal feeling don't affect me.

On the flip side a corporation like Chick-fil-A that donates money to some very seedy causes. That is enough to turn me off from their company and tasty sandwiches forever.

Sometimes things just bother you more than others, and you have to decide if you are going to financially support them or not. That said, if this play is really as good as people are making it out to be, I'd still seek out a ticket. An actor wanting out of a project and leaving before contracts are signed doesn't bother me enough to skip out on his other projects. Besides, that seems like a common practice anyway. He just pissed in the wrong guy's cheerios this time.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/3/12 at 4:54pm

Well put, jimmy. The difference to me is that however badly he may have behaved, Norris' alleged misbehavior was a private matter between him and an employer.

Intentionally or not Gibson has used his public forum to broadcast anti-Semitic, homophobic and sexist ideas, thus giving support to others with similar notions. That is not merely private (though he may have thought his statements would remain so).

But I certainly think you're entitled to see things differently. Nothing here is meant to imply otherwise.