Broderick pulls a Lupone?- Page 3

[LesWickedly]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 11:08pm

I know it's rude of the audience member but it's also rude of Matthew to break character and very unprofessional

[winston89]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 11:28pm

I just came home from seeing The Who (amazing concert by the way) and before the show, they made an announcement saying that Roger Daltry is allergic to cigarette smoke and to not smoke in the arena. This got the crowd to boo the announcement. However, towards the end of the show, Roger made a comment about how someone's smoke was bothering him and how he understood the need to get stoned, but said that they should stick to brownies. The audience cheered.

The point and connection to what Matthew did is that people are going to be more forgiving/entertained when the star yells at someone in the audience verses when the house staff does. In both situations someone was doing something that they shouldn't have done. But, since people put rock stars and Broadway stars (after all, there haven't been any stories of chorus girl number 8 yelling at someone in the audience) on a pedestal, they feel that they can do no wrong.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/22/13 at 12:47am

Winston, almost none of that makes sense. Daltrey was a HUGE pot smoker, but it's tobacco he apparently has issues with - and eating tobacco is a very bad idea.

Your point/connection is lost on me. First of all, I don't put celebrities on pedestals - and if others do, where then is the problem if actors address photographers etc in the audience directly, if the audience approves the action? Seems here you're the odd man out -and as per your own words, you haven't even experienced this situation yet.

How do you truly know how you will react?

[morosco]

Posted: 2/22/13 at 9:06am

Aren't there any bootlegs of Broderick chastising the audience member for bootlegging?

[winston89]

Posted: 2/22/13 at 11:31am

Ghostlight, I wasn't clear because I was tired when making the post. However, despite the fact that Daltrey was a smoker, he has since stopped and has become allergic to the smell of smoke, both tobacco and pot. He has joked in concerts, that he understands the desire to get stoned but wishes that people would stick to pot brownies rather than a joint in order to do that.

The point that I was trying to make, is that the fans were booing when a member of the house staff got on the PA system and told people to not smoke, but for some reason when Roger himself gave the same message it suddenly became okay and got a different reaction from the crowd that was given the same message. I was trying to say that people view Broadway stars or rock stars differently then they do house staff and view them as people that can do no wrong. However, I am sure that some people were cheering Mathew because it was fun to watch him freak out while others actually agreed with what he was saying.

As for how I would react in this situation. Well, I was raised to believe that there are some things that you just flat out don't do. Things that you cannot justify no matter how hard you try. An example of this is that if you're a parent, you don't lay a hand on your child regardless of what is going on. You just don't. To me, stopping the show for a selfish reason (I am not caring about the minor legal infraction that bootlegging is) is something that you just flat out don't do. Grow up, have a pair and deal with it. If someone is doing something that is bothering you and you don't like, you take the high road always. And, I am not the only one in this thread who thought that what Matthew did was wrong either.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/22/13 at 12:14pm

" I was raised to believe that there are some things that you just flat out don't do. "

You were raised to never chastise an audience member who is taking photos or using a phone during a perfprmance?

"I was trying to say that people view Broadway stars or rock stars differently then they do house staff and view them as people that can do no wrong. "

What people? I don't think "stars" can do no wrong, and I don't think the vast majority of people do, either. Of course audiences are going to respond differently to an invisible authoritarian voice denying them something, rather than a rock star joking with them about it it, especially about something "naughty" like marijuana brownies. Besides, if I take the point you are trying to make, it actually makes mine: most people (aside from you and a couple others here) would applaud an actor doing what Matthew did.

As to Matthew stopping the show for a "selfish" reason, legality aside (and personally, I'm neutral on the subject of bootlegging), it's distracting, not just to him, but to the other actors and the people around the bootlegger. From the moment the camera is spotted, it can't help but affect the actor's choices, knowing that it's being filmed - and that affects me, even if I'm in the balcony.

The filmer is in the wrong. The actor is in the right, both morally and legally. Take your own advice " Grow up, have a pair and deal with it. If someone is doing something that is bothering you and you don't like [sic], you take the high road always."

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/22/13 at 12:58pm

Good for Broderick! I didn't hear any of you bitches complaining when the Doobie Brothers stopped their concert because they saw the tape recorder fall out of Rerun's coat.

The reason why actors yelling at the audience bugs me, is because legal or not, it is a minor infraction.

That sort of thinking infuriates me even more. One of the main reasons it happens so often is the idea that it's a petty formality and no big deal.

If I spend my hard earned money and see a show, and this happens, I'd talk to the house manager and either try for a refund or to get my ticket past dated. Reason being is that I didn't pay to see an actor yell at the audience. I paid to see the show, and clearly yelling at one audience member isn't in the script or part of the show.

None of which wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the behavior of the audience member. Personally, I'd pay EXTRA to have the cast humiliate audience members who feel they are above the rules and insist on distracting everyone else including the cast.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 2/22/13 at 2:11pm

I don't see how an actor calling out an audience member for doing something illegal and wrong is immature. If the actor broke character to make fun of an audience member for no reason, you have a good argument there. Maybe I'm just that type of person, but I would certainly be more embarrassed and ashamed to be called out by anyone on a stage versus an usher.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 2/22/13 at 11:06pm

I disagree with the people on here calling Broderick an "unprofessional" because of how he chose to handle the situation. I've been to many performances where people are recording or taking pictures during the show. No matter how many pre-show announcements, signs around the theater or warnings on your ticket there are, there is always someone doing it.

Unfortunately, an usher doesn't always see this. It doesn't mean they aren't doing their job, because when they do catch someone, they will stop them. So maybe Broderick breaking the fourth wall wasn't the most ideal way of handling it in your eyes, but hell, I'm sure it got the audience's attention. And just because you don't see the light on the cell phone or camera doesn't mean someone else isn't distracted by it. So, no, he wasn't unprofessional, but was merely trying to knock some sense into people who can't listen to the pre-show announcement or read "NO RECORDING DEVICES."

[sparrman]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 12:45am

I'm baffled here by people's perceptions of the magnitude of various actions. Is taping a performance wrong? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Can it be distracting to the actors onstage? Yes. Can it be distracting to other audience members? Yes.

But...does that mean an actor should stop performing, completely destroy the world we're all there conspiring together to believe in, and completely distract every single person in the theatre just because they're annoyed by a little red light in the audience? Absolutely not. It's ridiculous, childish, and unprofessional.

What about audiences coughing? Candy wrapper crinkling? Someone leaving to go to the bathroom? A fellow actor going up on a line? A missed lighting cue? All perfectly good reasons for an actor to disrupt the show, because they got "distracted"?

There are methods in place for taking care of the videotaping problem. Are they perfect? No. But is videotaping a dangerous problem that simply must be stopped at any cost? Of course not.

An actor should stop the show for reasons of safety only. Otherwise, do your job, and stop ruining it for everyone in the theatre.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 1:14am

"What about audiences coughing? Candy wrapper crinkling? Someone leaving to go to the bathroom? A fellow actor going up on a line? A missed lighting cue? All perfectly good reasons for an actor to disrupt the show, because they got "distracted"? "

These are all ridiculous examples and you know it. That "little red light" means a lot more than just the light - it means the performance is being recorded, which not only can make an actor self-conscious, it screws hundreds of people out of royalties.

"An actor should stop the show for reasons of safety only. Otherwise, do your job, and stop ruining it for everyone in the theatre."

Whose edicts are these? I'm going to say this one more time. I have been present many, many times when an actor has stopped a show for bad audience behavior (usually filming or photography). On every single one of these occasions, the audience has responded in an overwhelmingly positive manner. Applause, cheers "throw the bastard out" kind of thing.

You, Winston, and a few others in this thread are the odd men out. If an actor stopping a show to stop illegal, distracting and possibly dangerous behavior upsets you, fair enough. Go directly to the house manager and ask for a refund or past date. You'll probably get it, because no one else will be asking for it because they're loving every minute of it and will be dining out on it for years. It doesn't ruin it for them. It's live theater. Most people love when live theater goes awry.

Please, though, stop calling it "childish". Childish is a word that comes to mind when people complain that their fantasy worlds are temporarily interrupted by a professional who calls to task some ass that's not only breaking the law, but is keeping them from doing their job properly and disturbing others around them.

To be fair, even a child understands interruptions sometimes happen, and is able to rejoin the story without too much trouble. One would hope an adult ought to be able to as well without having these little verbal hissy fits. That's what I'd call selfish and childish.







Updated On: 2/23/13 at 01:14 AM

[winston89]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 3:29am

So ghostlight let me see of I got this right. Me and others here who have a similar opinion as I do are the odd men out because we simply disagree with you? Because that makes logical sense. I mean we are entitled to differing opinions.

[sparrman]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 8:30am

Exactly. Ghostlight, as you are clearly incapable of carrying on a discussion without constantly disrupting it to personally attack those on the opposite side from you, I'm sure you have no objections whatsoever to Broderick's behavior.

Argue much? You almost never change the other person's mind. It's more about the process of exchanging ideas, trying to see things from the other side. "The journey, not the destination", that sort of thing. Not really so much repeating the same points over and over, insulting the great many "odd men out" who don't agree with you, and thinking everyone will suddenly say "You know what Ghostlight? You're right! You've convinced me with your infallible, airtight logic! What was I thinking?????"

Peace out, y'all.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 9:23am

I was raised to believe that breaking the law, such as illegally recording a Broadway show, is a bad thing. This was confirmed in the many IPR classes that I took in college explaining why it was illegal.

Furthermore, I have been onstage when people were illegally recording shows and it is a huge distraction. Your eye is drawn to the stupid bright light on the back of the camera or phone and it's a problem. The show must go on, true, but it's not fair to criticize someone in a very dance heavy show for looking out for the safety of his castmates. And it's not just a little red light. It's a very bright red light in a darkened auditorium. You can spot it easily from the stage but not as easily from the audience.

You want front of house to take care of it? Fine. When was the last time you flagged down an usher because the idiot next to you or near you was illegally recording the show or causing a distraction? In a Broadway house, there are very few ushers compared to audience members and they can't possibly catch anything. You want front of house to get the bootlegger thrown out of the audience? Then maybe you should make it a point to point out bootleggers to the usher and help them do their job. Actors don't always have the time in the wings or backstage to flag someone down to radio someone in the front of the house to figure out where in the audience the person is who the actor saw doing something bad. The FOH staff is doing the best they can but they can't catch everything. Want the actors to stop breaking the fourth wall and looking out for the safety of the cast and crew? Take an active role in performance and alert the ushers to distracting behavior.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 9:29am

"So ghostlight let me see of [sic] I got this right. Me and others here who have a similar opinion as I do are the odd men out because we simply disagree with you? Because that makes logical sense. I mean we are entitled to differing opinions."

There is no right or wrong (except for the legal issue). You're entirely entitled to your opinions. Nope, you're the odd men out because, as Winston has admitted, he's never experienced this phenomena, and unless I missed it, neither have you, sparrman. I have, and have never once heard a single boo amongst the cheers and applause when an actor has stopped the show.

You think it's unprofessional and childish, go ahead and get your money back. Most of the rest of the audience will be applauding the actor for standing up for himself, his craft, and the rest of us.

"Ghostlight, as you are clearly incapable of carrying on a discussion without constantly disrupting it to personally attack those on the opposite side from you, I'm sure you have no objections whatsoever to Broderick's behavior."

No, I don't object to Broderick's behaviour, and since I've said so, that's obvious. I don't know why you're using the word "disrupting". You talk, then I talk. That's the way a discussion works. I can't possibly disrupt you in this forum. Also, what's all this talk about Broderick "yelling" and "freaking out"? Nothing in the article linked to mentions anything of that nature. He spoke to the guy and asked him to stop.

"You almost never change the other person's mind. It's more about the process of exchanging ideas, trying to see things from the other side. "The journey, not the destination", that sort of thing. Not really so much repeating the same points over and over,"

You mean like using the words "childish" "selfish" and "unprofessional" over and over? I and others here have given a myriad of reasons why Broderick - and Merman, LuPone, Fishburne, Alan Cumming, Hepburn and many others have done what they have - and you keep coming back with nothing but "selfish", "childish" and "unprofessional".

That exchange of ideas? It works both ways.

Updated On: 2/23/13 at 09:29 AM

[iabwayfan]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 10:20am

I wonder if making the consequences a little more harsh, such as immediate removal from the theater would help. I'm new to NYC and Broadway shows. I've only been going the past 6 years and can see an increase in poor patron behaviors in that short time span.

Could there be more blunt signs and warnings on the tickets? I know this part is my problem, but it makes me really uncomfortable when I'm seated near someone taking pictures.

There are many first timers who don't know all the etiquette, but people, LISTEN to the pre-show announcements!

[Kad]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 10:41am

Removing an audience member from the theatre would be far more disruptive than an actor embarrassing them. And, I'd wager, a good number of audience members asked to leave would not do so willingly.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 11:07am

If a video camera light or a flash from a camera were to put an actor's life in danger, then yes, it should be stopped immediately. Just because you don't think it is, doesn't mean it isn't.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 12:27pm

Why are so many pretending that ghostlight is the only one who feels this way? Read the thread: a number of people side with ghostlight (and Broderick). I'm one of them.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 1:33pm

Me too.

How would some of you feel in Matthew just turned around and walked off the stage?

[winston89]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 3:13pm

Reginald Tresilian

I know that Ghostlight is not the only one who feels this way. I personally am annoyed that he thinks that it is I who is the only one who's opinion differs with his. That is something that isn't the case at all.

And, for Ghostlight. You're changing your stories. First, you said that I was the odd man out for being the only one with the differing opinion form yours. And, then after I pointed out that there were others who agreed with me, you then changed it to me being the odd man out for never having been in the theatre when this has happened. Which one is it, Captain Flipflop?

[BeadleDeedle]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 3:47pm

Winston, did you seriously just call ghostlight "Captain Flipflop"? And you call a theater professional like Broderick childish?

Ghostlight and others have stated various supported and informed reasons for an actor to call out an audience member for filming. Its illegal and can be very dangerous. Your reasoning is emotional, knee jerky and all about you you YOU. Theater is a collective experience. Broderick has command of the room. He was absolutely in the right.

Updated On: 2/23/13 at 03:47 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 4:14pm

Bravo(a), BeedleDeedle!

Captain FlipFlop? That's your attempt at an insult, Winston?

I haven't changed my stories. First I said "Seems here you're the odd man out - and as per your own words, you haven't even experienced this situation yet. "

Then, to sparrman, I said: "Nope, you're the odd men out because, as Winston has admitted, he's never experienced this phenomena, and unless I missed it, neither have you, sparrman." I merely added sparrman to the list, which changed "odd man" to "odd men" as a result. No flip-flop. Plus, on an informal tally of this thread, more support Broderick's actions than not.

Obviously many people disagree with me, many in this thread, but some of them at least have had the experience, which you and sparrman (and here I assume) have not, and thus have never experienced the overwhelming positive audience reaction.

Hell, Listen to LuPone's audio. The audience loves it. IF this ever happens to you, AND you don't approve, just ask for your money back.

Taking photos or filming is inarguably illegal. It is unquestionably distracting. It is quite often, in the case of flash photography, dangerous. It is disrespectful to the actors and fellow patrons. You've heard from many others in this thread, most making various cases FOR actors doing this and giving you the reasons why.

The best you've come up with is selfish, childish, and unprofessional - ALL of which are arguable points.

I don't know why you continue to pursue this discussion with such ardor, attacking me specifically, unless it's because you still harbor ill-will towards me for pointing out that Andy Borowitz story you published as an actual news article as the satire that it truly is some time ago - because if that's the reason, you should really get over it.




Republicans accuse Obama of using position as President to lead country Updated On: 2/23/13 at 04:14 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 4:31pm

How would some of you feel in Matthew just turned around and walked off the stage?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 2/23/13 at 5:56pm

Whatever side(s) one comes down on with this issue, there's a considerable difference in the impact at NICE WORK and in the final, heart-stopping moments of VIRGINIA WOOLF. Had either Letts or Morton stepped outside George and Martha, particularly in their ultimate or penultimate show downs, the play would've been ruined. And they wisely, intuitively, know that. Broderick is in a musical comedy, an enormous portion of his performance presentational, pitched toward the audience. Of course it's distracting for him to break character. But returning to the stylized world of singing and dancing rum runners is very different from stepping back inside George and Martha's living room. One can stand by a preference for actor behavior, but there's no denying that the suspension of disbelief is a very different leap for audiences attending these 2 shows with little or nothing in common.

Updated On: 2/23/13 at 05:56 PM