Vanity Fair Delves Into REBECCA THE MUSICAL's Scandals in June Issue

The whole thing is worth it for the last line.

---

Fascinating, and how is it that Thibodeau is not found more culpable in the downfall of the show? Sounds from this like he is the real reason the whole thing collapsed.

Updated On: 5/18/13 at 05:23 PM

I still think Sprecher is immensely misguided if he thinks the continuing success of PHANTOM and MAMMA MIA, and the previous success of LES MIS, are indicators that REBECCA would be a hit - particularly after the Broadway in Bryant Park performances last year showcased just how poor the English lyrics were.

I hope the show opens in English somewhere someday, however. And I hope Sprecher is able to let go and put this all behind him someday, and move on to another project without this baggage.

I was starting to feel sorry for Sprecher, but now that I know he's attacking Thibodeau, who seems to have done the right thing, I have no sympathy for his troubles.

^ When's the last time YOUR fake investor died?

---

I dunno, man, it doesn't seem to me like his motivation was "I'll show you, you unfeeling non-listening douche." It seems like it was "I don't know who to trust anymore, and these people are on a sinking ship." But that may just be my reading of events.

---

bwayphreak, I completely agree that he should have gone about things in a more up-front manner. But his explanation for what he did, and why he felt so conflicted, seem compelling to me, and I don't think he should be punished for his actions, awkwardly executed though they were.

I'm not defending or damning anyone, but is a general partner required (morally or legally) to disclose that he has been duped by one of his employees? Any place I've worked would consider such info to be highly confidential.

By the time Thibodeaux started sending fake emails, Sprecher had already acknowledged that a certain percentage of the funding was no longer in place. Did Sprecher have an obligation to tell everyone why? (I doubt it, at least not legally.) If not, then why was Thibodeaux right to disclose the reason for the shortfall?

Put another way (and I admit I read the article several weeks ago), if Thibodeaux had remained silent, wouldn't the new investor have made up the shortfall so that REBECCA could proceed according to the new schedule? What would have been wrong with that?

I assume Thibodeau wanted to cover his ass without getting a reputation for betraying confidential information. But since Sprecher was the victim of the fraud, not its perpetrator, I'm not entirely sure why Thibodeau thought he needed to protect himself.

I wasn't there, however, and I don't know what representations Sprecher was making to the savior-investor.

It's a good story, but it has serious second-act problems.

---

I assume Thibodeau wanted to cover his ass without getting a reputation for betraying confidential information. But since Sprecher was the victim of the fraud, not its perpetrator, I'm not entirely sure why Thibodeau thought he needed to protect himself.

Well, and I might be reading this wrong, the article seems to be clear that what Sprecher explained as tunnel vision in the lead-up to rehearsals sounded to Thibodeau like empty assurances designed to shut him up. In the paranoid atmosphere created by the bottom falling out twice, he couldn't be sure that Sprecher wasn't in on it, and lying to him to keep him pacified.

Again, could be wrong.

---

Well, it's such an atypical situation I don't think any of us could predict how we would react in his shoes, as easy as it sounds to us to step back and say what he should have done. It's easy to judge what he did from where we're standing, but unless or until we ever have that kind of pressure on our shoulders, it's hard to know how we'd handle it.

Oh yeah... and with a track record like he has pre-Rebecca, I'd hire him in a heartbeat.

---

Updated On: 5/19/13 at 01:50 PM