not logged in
| re: Sacked by Sonnenberg | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 09:24 am UTC 06/22/07 |
| In reply to: | Sacked by Sonnenberg - Scaramouche 08:24 pm UTC 06/14/07 |
Here's my psychotic take on it. > Perhaps not intentional, but I like how Jim drops little > crumbs of info into his blogs. Yes, it is intentional. It is as intentional that, although he is fully consumed by the BOOH show he manages to read Brian's blog. I really love it when the guy who I don't know at all of course, makes my arguments for me, even as he is disavowing all knowledge of my existence. "This tape will self-destruct in ten seconds". I'm having a Peter Graves moment :) > I always presumed that Jim 'walked' from DOTVampires in > exasperation, and not 'pushed' by Sonnenberg. I decided, despite all kinds of inexperience I have with Broadway issues other than the standard structures I learned in a college course Drama 102, in which I spent a semester studying the productions of Broadway shows, while in New York, and also seeing Broadway shows during class sessions, and the fact that a personal friend of my uncle's is the owner of the Minskoff Theatre and my uncle was serving my mother's interests for some reasons I could not fathom, and despite that I don't have any particular motivation to study the producers of Broadway shows, I decided....to study the producers of DOTV. And I didn't study them much. But I looked at two things. One, how many shows they had before and during that production period not just on Broadway but also with each other, and Two, how long those shows ran. And two, what shows they enjoyed their modicum of successes with after DOTV. Two two two twos in one. haha. Doublemint gum. The only ones who had no hookup with that buddy system were two company names (Ryan, you're on, who were they?) and David Sonnenberg. Sonnenberg was much too unconnected to the others to make a difference to them, and they had all of the ability in their numbers and experience with each other, to push Sonnenberg around. Sonnenberg "sacked" nobody, even if he was the one to put the feather in Jim's packing bag. I don't like the kind of weakness I see there, so I can't believe that Sonnenberg wasn't if anything, a pawn. Just like, by the way (arguments anyone?) Crawford was. I have my opinions and I like them very much. > > This tends to suggest that Jim intended to stay on board > until at least after 'opening night', and was kicking up a > fuss with the direction of the show? The show moved in its sly way from one form to the other between the first preview to the openning night. The first preview was one show, the openning night was another. In the middle of all of this, Crawford was left dangling in his actor's hell, and Steinman was home thinking of his next project. > > Presumably Sonnenberg got pissed off with it, and in his > capacity as one of the 'producers', sacked his composer. See above: Sonnenberg had the power that a hamburger has at a fish counter. > > Kind of ironic, 'cos I also read that Sonnenberg was asked > to leave the production at some point, as he never came up > with his promised investment?? They don't take promises on Broadway, they take money, and i would have been cash on the barrel before the first pen signing. He would have been asked to leave because like I do here, he was probably annoying the crap out of them. > > I've never heard of the composer being 'sacked' from a > production before, especially by his so called 'manager', > and Sonnenberg's involvement in DOTV, from start to > finish, does seem shambolic?? Yuppa do.......maybe Steinman was trying to tell you something? ;) > > Make a great chapter in Jim's autobiography one day. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Sacked by Sonnenberg - Scaramouche 08:24 pm UTC 06/14/07 |
| Next: | Well - rockfenris2005 06:20 am UTC 06/15/07 |
| Thread: | |