http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/may/13/

Streetcar was produced by the Shubert Organization, among others. Jerry Schoenfeld, now represented on Broadway by his legacy and the house we currently occupy, was very much alive then and seemed keenly interested in teaching me some of the ropes of selling tickets to a non-musical production. Whatever tensions we had during the mounting of Williams’ iconic drama, and there were a few (can you say Maria St. Just?), Jerry made sure that none of that sullied our public relations. Bad press about films or shows of any kind can negatively affect your chances. The opportunity to influence an audience through any kind of well-conceived or well-timed ad campaign is lost. First impressions do count. If “trouble” is that first impression, it’s difficult to swim out of that riptide.

Our show involved the firing of an actor. Those things do happen. I’ve been fired before and I can tell you it’s not pleasant. But the tabloid culture that dominates the media today, with its jettisoning of nearly all journalistic tenets, rushes to paint the most sensational and, at times, least fact-based presentation of a story. Whatever information that is the most damning/salacious/judgmental is posted as quickly as possible and replaced by the next “event” even more quickly.

I assure you that, in the case of Orphans, every professional consideration and courtesy was extended to the “aggrieved” party and, sometimes, it’s just not meant to be.

Tabloid journalism, and its viral impact through the Internet in particular, has changed Broadway since 1992.

The New York Times is still a key player in the life of a Broadway production. The imprimatur of the Times serves as a necessary guide for people who do not have limitless resources to buy tickets, or are traveling to New York to enjoy the theatre and need a reliable opinion as to where to invest their time and money. In 1992, Frank Rich, of course, was the chief theatre critic for the Times. Rich was feared by many and even loathed by some. However, Rich was viewed as a critic who was both a good writer and someone who actually understood something about what was happening on stage. After Frank was gone, many talked about how intelligent and fair he was.

Ben Brantley, who I must state up front is no fan of mine (every John Simon must have his Amanda Plummer, I suppose), is not a good writer. Whereas Rich’s keen sense of what worked or did not work on stage helped to elevate the position of his desk, Brantley is viewed as some odd, shriveled, bitter Dickensian clerk who has sought to assemble a compendium of essays on theatre, the gist of which often have no relationship to the events onstage themselves. Brantley carries the Times into the performance and little else. Beyond the obvious impact that a weak or scathing review in the Times has on sales, particularly with booking agents for tourists, no one I know of in the theatre reads Brantley except in the way that a doctor reads an x-ray to determine if you have cancer. Brantley doesn’t offer criticism, per se, as much as he seeks to signal to some that they are actually unwelcome on Broadway. If you aren’t Brantley’s type, why bother? And it is this very “Why Bother” approach of Brantley’s that I think is the most troubling.

A critic’s job is to evaluate two things: what you are attempting to do and how close do you come to pulling it off. Highbrow, lowbrow, Shakespeare, Williams, movies like The Hangover, movies like Lincoln, they all deserve the same fate. If it’s trash, then call it. But is it good trash or is the bar too low? Then call it. Is the piece ambitious and groundbreaking? Factor that in. But never say “why bother?’

In the case of Orphans, Brantley wrote “Why bother?” And that is to spit in the face of the playwright, the producers and all of their investors, the cast and director, the designers and the Shuberts, all of whom have had some success in the theatre. Brantley says we were wrong-headed to have even tried. Where would the theatre be if that was the prevalent thinking?

Thus far we have performed 48 shows and we have had 48 consecutive standing ovations. That’s not easy with a drama. And as much as I am not one to say that this indicates we have a great production, I think it does indicate that Brantley spits in the face of all of those audiences, too. Write that you don’t like something, surely. But, on Broadway, at least, don’t mock those who do.

Frank Rich got cranky in his last year. He hated nearly everything and later admitted that, towards the end, he did not enjoy going to the theatre. Perhaps that is now true of Brantley, who has occupied his seat since 1996 (hard to believe) and seems to have spent the current Broadway season writhing/writing in agony.

I read the print version of the Times every day and will continue to do so, I assume, regardless of (or in Brantley’s case, in spite of) who covers the theatre. But the “Why Bother” theme seems wrong for the Times. And with the more insightful Isherwood sitting there, writing circles around Brantley, I think it’s time for the Times to get rid of Brantley. I don’t know anyone, anyone at all, who will miss him or his writing.

Orphans closes soon and with it the good work of Dan Sullivan and his team of designers, the hard-working backstage crew, the cast and their understudies. I am so pleased for Tom Sturridge and his Tony nomination. What a fantastic welcome to Broadway for a very talented young actor.

Most of all I want to thank Ben Foster, who, in the wake of the cast upheaval, parachuted into New York and saved the play from closing. Ben is not only a truly gifted actor, he is one of the great gentleman I have ever worked with. Every night before our respective entrances, Ben would give me a sign of “encouragement,” a clap on the back or some such, to let me know we were heading into this together. Some nights, that gesture alone put the wind in my sails.

And thank you to Lyle. I bothered because of you, Lyle, and your beautiful and weird writing. Without playwrights, there is nothing. I will never forget your play, Lyle. I only wish we could have given it the success that it, and you, truly deserve.

Originally posted on the Huffington Post 05/07/2013 10:43 am

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/apr/29/

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/apr/15/

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/apr/01/

Christine Quinn is not qualified to be mayor of New York.

I know. She was so strong on the marriage equality issue. And New York City has never had a woman mayor before and if not now, when? New York appears to be “greener” than ever before and crime is down. Or so I’m told. As Bloomberg leaves office, he leaves a city that is more polarized than ever by issues of wealth, taxes and how much a city such as New York owes its residents versus what it owes the wealthy corporations that define it as much as its people. However, he also leaves a city that many believe is in pretty good shape, considering the economic buffeting it has taken, along with the rest of the country, over the past five years.

Or, is there a connection here? Is New York a place now so wholly overwhelmed, in a political context, by the demands, whining and blackmail of wealthy individuals and corporations that we accept reports that New York is doing well only when the climate for the very rich is favorable?

Where do the concerns of New Yorkers making below $100,000 a year fit into the policies of the past twelve years?

To assess Quinn is to reassess Bloomberg, as Quinn, by her thought, word and deed, is Bloomberg 2.0. We all remember when Bloomberg, a self-made man who seems to have forgotten what the essence of a self-made man is, told New York, and the world, that in the wake of the economic crash of 2008, we needed him to steer us through that fiscal storm. Never mind that voters had implemented explicit term limits for Bloomberg and his time was up. Never mind that Bloomberg could easily have volunteered his precious financial advice to the city he served for two previous terms without upending those term limits. Bloomberg, it might be assumed, was thinking of running for President in 2012 and better to run for that office as mayor than ex-mayor.

Quinn, whose political ambitions have always left little doubt that she would eventually seek the mayoralty, was Bloomberg’s handmaiden. Like the murder of Luca Brasi in The Godfather, Bloomberg simply diverted people’s attention from the dangers of killing a voter approved referendum, at times by giving money from his charitable operation to literally buy the silence of potential term limits advocates. But the garotte around the throat of term limits was wielded by Quinn.

Quinn basically had a deal with Bloomberg that he would support her and, as such, is clearly presenting herself now as pro-business, while walking and talking her way across the five boroughs as a populist. Therefore, Quinn has positioned herself uncomfortably over the issues like paid sick leave. The backlash on the sick leave issue has already cost her the support of Cynthia Nixon (one of the stalwarts on marriage equality) and may cost Quinn the support of Gloria Steinem as well, as women are perceived to suffer disproportionately without sick leave reform.

Quinn is married to her partner, Kim Catullo, yet appears to bat her eyelashes for one man, Ray Kelly, New York’s police commissioner. “Stop and Frisk” procedures are sure to be a hot topic in the mayor’s race, and Quinn wants to be seen as tough on crime. “Stop and Frisk” may be effective anti-crime policy, but it is also anti-U.S. Constitution to a lot of rather vocal political figures in the City and beyond. Quinn appears not to care.

Term limits aren’t the only thing Quinn killed. She assisted in bringing down the only hospital trauma facility in the Greenwich Village area when she helped St. Vincent’s Hospital to close and sell to developers at Rudin Management, who then contributed to her campaign. Although some note that the St. Vincent’s deal ended up being the best of a bad situation, Quinn’s other marks regarding housing issues rank from wanting to downright deplorable. Quinn has been dogged by suggestions that she is too cozy, vis a vis a quid pro quo, with specific developers. Quinn backed Jamestown Properties in their bid to build on top of the Chelsea Market in Quinn’s neighborhood, over fierce opposition from her own constituents. Jamestown then pledged money to the High Line project, who, in turn, contributed to Quinn. Some say Quinn is also stepping over dollars to save pennies regarding her opposition to the HASA For All Act, which expands housing benefits to more New Yorkers with AIDS.

Democratic opponents of Quinn point to her deflection of issues related to tax increases, assuming that Quinn will continue Bloomberg’s program of demonizing any new taxes on some of the country’s wealthiest citizens. However, Bloomberg did raise taxes, after 9-11, in order to offset the cost of the avalanche of emergency services and public assistance the attack created. Some candidates believe it’s time to raise taxes again in order to address the needs of New York’s chronically underperforming school system. According to the New York Times on January 15th, Bill DeBlasio wants new tax money to address the significant gap in early child care with which public school parents must contend. Quinn said in the article that funding for her education spending would come from “redirecting existing Department of Education financing.” What good are all of those jobs that Quinn claims she will manifest in New York in the coming years if you have no where to send your young children to learn during the day? Those programs cost money. Quinn is nothing if not vague on where that money will come from.

Another issue that has arisen is Quinn’s use of a slush fund that she controls and doles out to Council members as unrestricted, discretionary “member items.” The good old Village Voice reported this story and the scandal doesn’t seem to be going away. Bloomberg promenaded around New York and dispensed his own cash to buy three elections (the New York Times reported here that Bloomberg spent over $250 million of his personal money on three elections), to gild his reputation as a steely management type and to upend the voter referendum that would have forced him to run for president in 2012 from an office in Bermuda. Quinn doesn’t have that kind of bank account, yet she has found a convenient source of grease for the skids of her own track to take Gracie mansion. Quinn is simply happy to spend the taxpayers’ money to buy influence.

Quinn offers a ray of hope on the issue of homelessness, backing a plan by Coalition for the Homeless director Mary Brosnahan to move homeless New Yorkers more effectively into public housing. However, homeless rates in New York are at an all time high while Quinn has led the Council.

Even if Quinn got on her knees and begged forgiveness for the murder of the term limits law, I still regard her as too compromised to become mayor. She is clearly viewed as the frontrunner and many New Yorkers seem downright medicated by the prospect of an openly gay woman as mayor of the “The City.” (The New York Times seems to be bending over backwards in their adulation of Quinn, covering her official announcement in March 11th’s paper with a photo spread that can best be described as a proud parent’s album.)

But as Mike Lupica asked in the Daily News, also on March 11, who cares who the front runner is in March? And none other than Ruth Messinger commented in the Times on January 10 that “New York women don’t vote on the basis of gender.”

Recently I reread Ed Koch’s obituary in The Times, realizing that the pendulum does indeed swing in New York mayoral politics, just like everywhere else. Abe Beame oversaw the ruination of the City’s finances. Koch came in and did great work to right that fiscal ship. But by the end of his third term, another economic crash and racial divisions that Koch was unprepared to deal with engulfed New York. Enter David Dinkins. Dinkins once told me, in his own words, that the unions expected more from him. “If they wanted six percent and I gave them three and a half, I had betrayed both sides. With Rudy, they expected nothing, so two and a half percent was a gift.” One term for Dinkins, a gentleman to a fault, and out. Enter Giuliani, reshaping the mayoralty to fit his skill set; which meant catching people doing bad things. New Yorkers have always placed crime high on their agenda. Giuliani, a racially tone deaf and essentially unsophisticated man in a city possessing great cultural resources and ethnic diversity, just kept the fear level high and earned two terms.

Then Bloomberg for twelve years. Twelve years of a more muted version Koch’s cloying “How’m I doin’?” but emanating from a man who could care less what the public’s response was while he hired a chorus of sycophants to provide the answer he sought.

I have known a lot of rich people in my life. And the self-made ones fall into two groups. Those who have money and learn to think and behave like a rich person (fear of change) and those who remain the same person they were before, but they just wait in shorter lines.

As the pendulum inevitably swings again, New York needs a mayor who is three things: one who truly possesses middle class values (whether they be middle class or not), one who is uncompromising in their integrity and one who can genuinely stoke the ineffable spirit that defines New York. A spirit of diversity that says come as you are. A spirit of community that says all for one and one for all, yet encouraging an opinionated, muscular individuality. A great New Yorker once told me “If you are truly one in a million, there are seven other people like you in this town. You can form a club.”

In a forthcoming post, I want to tell you why Bill de Blasio is that New Yorker.

Originally posted on the Huffington Post: 03/18/2013 12:09 pm

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/mar/18/

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/mar/04/

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/feb/18/

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/heresthething/2013/feb/04/