Sheryl Lee Ralph on the Toxic Environment of Dreamgirls

[Tag]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 3:22pm

HERE she discusses the "toxic environment" of Dreamgirls, and throws Michael Bennett under the bus.

Updated On: 10/5/20 at 03:22 PM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 4:20pm

How is this news? It’s not only well known info but written in books. Giving up their rights for $1 also factored into Bennett’s A CHORUS LINE. This is the scenario of being part of workshops: your contribution goes uncredited.

If anything, the truly toxic situation was between Holliday and Bennett, who had a brother/sister/love/hate relationship all thru workshops and until she left the show. In fact, to spite her he took her huge applause away at the ending of “And I Am Telling You...” by having her set pull back and the Dreams cross the stage singing “Love, Love You, Baby” as a FU to her. The way it was staged, the audience felt awkward roaring and screaming for Holliday (now offstagel) as the Dreams are now center stage so it looked like they were getting the applause.  Bennett took away Holliday’s shining moment in the show.

Updated On: 10/5/20 at 04:20 PM

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 4:56pm

This constitutes "throwing Michael Bennett under the bus"? The gripes are fair (although obviously it ignores that their "suggestions" just happened to coincide with the story of the Supremes), but clearly this is how things are done, and had any of those cast held out for a part of the rights, they would have simply been replaced, or their suggestions ignored. No way was that pie going to be split anything like equally. 

[A Director]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 5:33pm

joevitus said: "This constitutes "throwing Michael Bennett under the bus"? The gripes are fair (although obviously it ignoresthat their "suggestions" just happened to coincide with the story of the Supremes), but clearly this is how things are done, and had any of those castheld out for a part of the rights, they would have simply been replaced, or their suggestions ignored. No way was that pie going to be split anything like equally."

This may have been okay 39 years ago, but today; people are questioning the practice. Saying "this is how things are done," is not an excuse; it's being part of the problem.

 

[wiggum2]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 5:33pm

BrodyFosse123 said: "How is this news? It’s not only well known info but written in books. Giving up their rights for $1 also factored into Bennett’s A CHORUS LINE. This is the scenario of being part of workshops: your contribution goes uncredited.

If anything, the truly toxic situation was between Holliday and Bennett, who had a brother/sister/love/hate relationship all thru workshops and until she left the show. In fact, to spite her he took her huge applause away at the ending of “And I Am Telling You...” by having her set pull back and the Dreams cross the stage singing “Love, Love You, Baby” as a FU to her. The way it was staged, the audience felt awkward roaring and screaming for Holliday (now offstagel) as the Dreams are now center stage so it looked like they were getting the applause. Bennett took away Holliday’s shining moment in the show.

"

but doesn't this make sense dramatically as Effie is being pushed into the back, they just kicked her out of the group

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 6:16pm

A Director said: "joevitus said: "This constitutes "throwing Michael Bennett under the bus"? The gripes are fair (although obviously it ignoresthat their "suggestions" just happened to coincide with the story of the Supremes), but clearly this is how things are done, and had any of those castheld out for a part of the rights, they would have simply been replaced, or their suggestions ignored. No way was that pie going to be split anything like equally."

This may have been okay 39 years ago, but today;people are questioning the practice. Saying "this is how things are done," is not an excuse; it's being part of the problem.

"

I agree with you ethically, but there's also the financial reality to consider: if everyone contributes, and so there is no way to divide the proceeds so as to insure a profit for the producers, then there will be no show. I definitely want to see anyone who helps create a project share in the financial success, but I also understand how difficult it is to make that happen, and why what Bennett did is customary.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 6:39pm

A Director said: "joevitus said: "This constitutes "throwing Michael Bennett under the bus"? The gripes are fair (although obviously it ignoresthat their "suggestions" just happened to coincide with the story of the Supremes), but clearly this is how things are done, and had any of those castheld out for a part of the rights, they would have simply been replaced, or their suggestions ignored. No way was that pie going to be split anything like equally."

This may have been okay 39 years ago, but today;people are questioning the practice. Saying "this is how things are done," is not an excuse; it's being part of the problem.”

Isn’t that what the Hamilton law suit was about and they won a settlement, didn’t they?

 

[JSquared2]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 10:19pm

Tag said: "HERE she discusses the "toxic environment" of Dreamgirls, and throws Michael Bennett under the bus."

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the term “throw under the bus”.  

[blaxx]

Posted: 10/5/20 at 10:30pm

Bettyboy72 said: "A Director said: "joevitus said: "This constitutes "throwing Michael Bennett under the bus"? The gripes are fair (although obviously it ignoresthat their "suggestions" just happened to coincide with the story of the Supremes), but clearly this is how things are done, and had any of those castheld out for a part of the rights, they would have simply been replaced, or their suggestions ignored. No way was that pie going to be split anything like equally."

This may have been okay 39 years ago, but today;people are questioning the practice. Saying "this is how things are done," is not an excuse; it's being part of the problem.”

Isn’t that what the Hamilton law suit was about and they won a settlement, didn’t they?

"

Pretty close. Times have definitely changed; back in the day there was little consideration for matters that have finally received just attention.

[SweetLips22]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 1:32am

Dear Lord, How could Bennett DO that?  Holliday had to perform one of the most difficult songs EVER and to be upstaged nightly and robbed of her applause--that was so childish and petty.

I always wondered why it was written that way? Trust a bitchy queen to f^ck it up.

Comment removed for my insensitivity-sorry.

and...I have read comments below and MAYBE I was too hasty to judge. I did see the show in SF and it was my first experience being amongst a majority black audience and remember getting the fright of my life when the audience started calling back to the performers. What the hell is going on here??? I was young and boy! I will never forget that performance. 'Arms to short to box with/for? God' was another, don't know when.

Updated On: 10/6/20 at 01:32 AM

[BJR]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 9:54am

Isn't there a lot more to this than she's saying?

As for giving away their rights, workshops were still fairly new and the concept of devising a script together in rehearsal, all still fairly new. Chorus Line, famously, but that was only a handful of years before. So, to expect them to have known better and not signed them away is both a bit insensitive but also not exactly fair.

But I think the dynamic with Bennett goes beyond that. A dresser once told me of the time Bennett restaged the top of Act 2, after the show had already opened, which of course almost never happen, and at great expense (but it was Bennett, so who would say no?). There was a huge fight with Sheryl Lee and Bennett was really nasty. So, that night, when that sequence was to debut, she called in. The understudy didn't know the new staging yet, and the production team had to scramble to put in the old costumes etc. She didn't show for a couple days, until Bennett sent her flowers and an apology.

Or there's the Phylicia Rashad's story of being the Deena alternate, but blocked from going on.

I think it's fair to say that was not a harmonious production, as that is always the director's job or responsibility.

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 10:11am

SweetLips22 said: "Dear Lord, How could Bennett DO that? Holliday had to perform one of the most difficult songs EVER and to be upstaged nightly and robbed of her applause--that was so childish and petty.

I always wondered why it was written that way? Trust a bitchy queen to f^ck it up.

Karma came around."

It's too bad the change was made for petty reasons, but I think it's the best way to close the act. It's the only way to make the reappearance of the Dreams with the new singer work as an ending tag for the act. If there was a pause, applause, and then that tiny bit, it would feel odd. Plus literally shutting off the ability for the performer playing Effie to get her due applause in that moment effectively demonstrates exactly what happens to Effie--she's cut off, no matter how good she is. It's a great theatrical moment. That feeling you have agonizing over her as the "new" Dreams go into their routine and continue their momentum of success if very, very effective. You feel totally alienated from them, and you don't enjoy seeing them, though up to this point you always have. It's, frankly, brilliant. 

[carnzee]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 10:47am

joevitus said: "SweetLips22 said: "Dear Lord, How could Bennett DO that? Holliday had to perform one of the most difficult songs EVER and to be upstaged nightly and robbed of her applause--that was so childish and petty.

I always wondered why it was written that way? Trust a bitchy queen to f^ck it up.

Karma came around."

It's too bad the change was made for petty reasons, but I think it's the best way to close the act. It's the only way to make the reappearance of the Dreams with the new singer work as an ending tag for the act. If there was a pause, applause, and then that tiny bit, it would feel odd. Plus literally shutting off the ability for the performer playing Effie to get her due applause in that moment effectively demonstrates exactly what happens to Effie--she's cut off, no matter how good she is. It's a great theatrical moment. That feeling you have agonizing over her as the "new" Dreams go into their routine and continue their momentum of success if very, very effective. You feel totally alienated from them, and you don't enjoy seeing them, though up to this point you always have. It's, frankly, brilliant."

There is certainly a case to be made for the Act I ending (as you do) beyond Bennett being petty. I will say I think it is brilliant but also disappointing because the audience wants to applaud the diva. 

I had the opportunity to ask Ralph about Bennett but I was at work and didn't want to piss her off. She certainly carries herself like a grand lady offstage and on! 

[carnzee]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 10:50am

SweetLips22 said: "Dear Lord, How could Bennett DO that? Holliday had to perform one of the most difficult songs EVER and to be upstaged nightly and robbed of her applause--that was so childish and petty.

I always wondered why it was written that way? Trust a bitchy queen to f^ck it up.

Karma came around."

I don't think dying from AIDS is appropriate karmic retribution for denying a performer applause. Ymmv. 

[IronMan]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 10:54am

If you think Bennett was a "bitchy queen" you never saw Arthur Laurents at work. 

[morosco]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 12:31pm

if anything, the truly toxic situation was between Holliday and Bennett, who had a brother/sister/love/hate relationship all thru workshops and until she left the show. In fact, to spite her he took her huge applause away at the ending of “And I Am Telling You...” by having her set pull back and the Dreams cross the stage singing “Love, Love You, Baby” as a FU to her.

I had never heard this before. Is there a source where I can read more about this? I've always read that the reason the Dreams came out was because otherwise the audience would have never stopped endlessly applauding Holliday.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 1:25pm

I had never heard this before. Is there a source where I can read more about this? I've always read that the reason the Dreams came out was because otherwise the audience would have never stopped endlessly applauding Holliday.

You just answered your own question.  

He knew Holliday would tear the roof off at the end of the number so he purposely had her dressing table slide upstage out of view so the Dreams can boast in the applause.  Heck, he even had a faux curtain come down to cover her as the applause is going.  Holliday would not be the one to bring down the Act 1 curtain as long as he could help it.

https://streamable.com/x56mfp

Updated On: 10/6/20 at 01:25 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 1:47pm

He knew Holliday would tear the roof off at the end of the number so he purposely had her dressing table slide upstage out of view so the Dreams can boast in the applause.  Heck, he even had a faux curtain come down to cover her as the applause is going.  Holliday would not be the one to bring down the Act 1 curtain as long as he could help it.

But I never heard that the reason it was staged this way was in order to spite (or punish) Holliday.

It's also interesting that the end of Effie's portion of One Night Only was also staged in a way that muted the audience's response. 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 10/6/20 at 3:19pm

She goes into great detail regarding the off-stage debacles during her run in "Dreamgirls" in her autobiography, "Redefining Diva" including Bennett gifting Holliday a pair of diamond earrings from Tiffany's for Christmas and gifting Ralph a brass belt buckle of the show's logo.

She also goes on to say that they reconciled and made amends before his untimely death.