Scott Rudin, the producer of “The Year of Magical Thinking” on Broadway, is pissed at the New York Times for allowing readers of its website to post “Reader’s Reviews” while a show is still in previews. He got back at the Times by taking out ads in the paper, quoting one of those “Reader’s Reviews,” which said, “An evening of magical theater. Get yourself a ticket to the Booth Theatre,” and Rudin purposely and misleadingly attributed the quote to “The New York Times Online.” And the Times is not happy. Letters ensued.
For those who don’t know, before a show’s official opening, there are usually a few weeks of previews, which is an opportunity for the creators of the show to see what works in front of an audience and what doesn’t and to adjust things accordingly. From night to night, entire songs might be added or removed, scenes might be rearranged or taken out or whatever. The show doesn’t get “frozen” until opening night. Anyone can see a preview; the ticket prices are usually the same; you still get a Playbill. The average theatergoer would have no idea whether he or she was attending a preview.
Here is the page on the New York Times website where you post Readers’ Reviews. There’s no indication of whether a show is in previews or not. Savvy readers can tell that a listing without a New York Times review is probably still in previews, but the average reader won’t catch that. It’s probably a good idea for the Times to designate shows in previews as such.
But if Scott Rudin’s pissed at the New York Times for allowing readers’ reviews before a show has opened, he may as well go after All That Chat, and the entire Intarweb for that matter.
If you’re going to charge audience members full price to see a preview of your show, they have the right to know what they’re getting into beforehand, and that includes hearing about the show from others. If Rudin’s unhappy with the Times policy, he should, um, TELL THEM, instead of acting passive-aggressively.
Yikes. Yeah, taking a clearly marked reader’s review and crediting the New York Times Online just to make a (weak) point seems kind of petty. (After reading the letters, I’m not sure if his objection is the pre- vs. post-opening night timing for reader reviews, or rather the larger fact that readers can post on the Times site at all?)