Washington Post: Scott Rudin “stepping back” from Broadway ventures — Page 2

Just take a look at Karen’s story. Example shared of someone else doing similar things when abuse comes out, stepping back, but ultimately still having control and making profit off the work of those they abused.

As Karen’s story emphasized, the fight isn’t over just because he issue this vague statement.

Updated On: 4/17/21 at 12:51 PM

Mixed feelings about this.

I think this was realistically the best case scenario, and I am happy that the industry outcry has been successful in a way that won’t sacrifice the jobs of the people in his productions. But like many people in this thread, I have some lingering concerns:

I agree that the apology isn’t to be taken super seriously, but as other’s have said, it’s more important to examine his actions than his words.

If he does, in fact, keep cutting a paycheck from these productions, I can’t help but wonder if this issue is really resolved. Because going to see his productions will ultimately mean supporting him. But then I think, well, if the ultimate goal is harm reduction, and not punishment for the sake of punishment, then I guess it’s good that he will no longer be in the driver’s seat, and that he will have been taken down a peg. But won’t he still have assistants to abuse? It’s not like his company is being dissolved. And has is he taking steps to improve working conditions? Unlikely, but I hope so. I suppose the public scrutiny should keep him tame at least for a while. But we have to keep that scrutiny up. And yes, people should have the opportunity for redemption. But the longer you’ve been an abuser, the higher that bar for redemption is. And Rudin’s bar is very high.

In my first post on this topic, WAY back in the middle of last week (god, remember those days?) I said that boycotts ultimately come down to personal choice, and to what degree each individual is willing to rationalize unethical consummation of media for their own pleasure, and what ethical consumption even means. And I said in that post, I’m not excluded from that. It’s something I will definitely be thinking about carefully in the coming weeks/months.

As for his contributions: some may remember that I’ve actually defended Scott Rudin’s controversial business decisions in the past, because I considered him to be the most valuable producer we have in commercial theatre. I was something of a Scott Rudin devotee, from an audience standpoint anyway. It wasn’t until I became aware that his assh*lery crossed the line into abuse that I “switched sides” as it were. So yes, I can’t lie and say that I think the caliber of Broadway will be the same with him out of the picture (if he does indeed go out of the picture, which remains to be seen). But at the end of the day, the health and safety of Broadway’s employees is more important than Rudin’s cultural contributions. And I also have hope (especially with the upcoming slate of announced shows) that there will be other, more ethical producers who will carry the torch of keeping genuine artistic quality on Broadway.


EDIT: in the time it took me to type this - Hogan beat me to some of it!

Updated On: 4/17/21 at 03:03 PM

@JBroadway re "paycheck," I would assume that the producer's fee and charges would be eliminated so no "paycheck." I expect he will be compensated via profits post recoupment, if any. (Caveat: I know nothing.) Re his office, I assume he will keep it and he has not said anything about what he will do in relation to film. What I do know is that he will be walking around on pins and needles. I have no idea if he will actually get help but if he does not his future is going to be pretty bleak. I discussed this briefly with a mental health professional friend and while no one can say there are situations like this where a cloud and a burden are lifted. Some of the pathology I see (and tbc this is just me, not my friend, and I am no mental health expert), which may not be anywhere near all, is that he has long exhibited an extreme inferiority complex (for well documented reasons). He also came into an abusive business world, and like abused children who become abusers, dealt with people in the only way he knew. {None of this excuses any of it of course.}

Sutton Ross said: "Correct. He will be silent yet profit just as much as before. This changes nothing."

So basically, his name will be removed from the credits of running/future productions of which he had previously been attached, but he will be making just as much money as he did pre-pandemic if/when his shows were to recoup? That would just be sneaky and downright ridiculous.

Updated On: 4/17/21 at 07:19 PM

Haha. I have barely said a thing about this topic compared to other people. I am a good person and don't like people who physically abuse their employees though, I will that say (not ever) a Director. Kisses.

Ps: Men who start sentences with "Im not defending (insert predator here)" are always defending them.

So basically, his name will be removed from the credits of running/future productions of which he had previously been attached, but he will be making just as much money as he did pre-pandemic if/when his shows were to recoup? That would just be sneaky and downright ridiculous.

Correct, JL.

Updated On: 4/17/21 at 07:35 PM

If "Mr. Rude" steps back with no staff interaction, what is their objective for release of the NDA? To file a personal injury suit? They are free to file criminal charges for assault/battery regardless of an NDA. Or for other injury.

Stepping back does not necessarily mean financial loss, but more likely control. He'll likely get his share of profits even if he relinquishes public credit/involvement. Much like Patinkin wanted no involvement in the Great Comet Oak replacement dispute, Jackman, Foster similarly can't let "Rude's" quicksand pull them under

The unions and League have no credibility to claim his actions were inexcusable as if they were unaware of his hostile history. They simply turned a blind eye until too much crap hit the wall.

bwayobsessed said: "I agree that step back still has a lot of vagueness to it but it’s not like Rudin’s company is dissolved I think it sounds like Rudin will still be making money off of this but who knows at this point.

Removed being from the industry rather than just being a behind closed doors sort of player.

I think the issues that many are concerned about is that this is about so much more than Scott Rudin. The entire structure of Broadway has allowed abuse and/or inhuman working conditions that line producer’s pockets rather than fairly compensating the people actually doing the work. Just scapegoating Scott Rudin as the problem doesn’t solve the structural issues."

Rudin will still be profiting to the extent there are profits and he has points, but this action relates to workplace abuse, not solving all of the world's problems. What mechanism is there or could there be for forfeiture? What does it even mean to remove someone from "the industry." There has been talk of kicking him out of the League, but how do we remove someone more broadly? Regarding the rest of the industry, I guess my response is one step at a time. The immediately important thing is to deal with this ogre soundly. Changing "the entire structure of Broadway" is a tall order. Do you propose waiting to deal with Rudin until then? I am also not sure exactly what you are talking about. I think you have to identify precisely what you want to fix before you can fix it.

HogansHero said: "bwayobsessed said: "Which makes it seem sorta like him just stepping back without being removed is actually solving things and it certainly doesn’t do anything to halt further workplace abuses by other people in the industry."

At this point, no one knowswherethe "step back" will fall on the real or fake continuum, so we have to wait. But if it falls near the unsatisfactory end of the spectrum, I have no doubt that there will be people who will not tolerate it and there will be ongoing trouble. This type of meltdown is precisely what the powers that be are seeking to avoid which is why I am optimistic that Rudin will not be involved. And it is important to keep our eye on the ball and not get distracted by side issues. This is about workplace abuse.

I am not sure what you mean by "removed" in contradistinction to "stepping back." I am also confused by your reference to abuses by others. What does dealing forcefully with Rudinhave to do with that?Workplace abuse is against the law, and that law is pretty strong. What are you looking for in this context?"

Yup that's it right there in a nutshell.

The desire for vengeance (on behalf of others, at that, not one's self) is kinda bizarre, especially such a silly vengeance as withholding profits. I thought this was about stoping abuse and concern for people who haven't the power to speak. I hope he does still make money from the shows he produced, as he did indeed produce them and thus is owed those profits. It's one thing to say he shouldn't participate in future productions because of his behavior, and thus profits that could have been his won't be. But he doesn't stop becoming responsible for the success of shows he produced because his methods and behavior were odious.

Hopefully, "stepping away" will mean he won't be involved day to day, so staffers won't be put in harm's way, and "taking steps" will mean therapy/anger management. It may mean neither of these things, and I understand the snorts from commenters here. But those changes should be the goal, as that's where real change and improvement would occur. "I don't want you making money from shows you produced" is just empty spite, and meaningless in terms of any real change (and likely meaningless even to Rudin's financial health, considering the amount he's already made).