Book Review: Michael Riedel

Michael Riedel has written two books about the history of Broadway, his first was “Razzle Dazzle: The Battle for Broadway”, which looks at Broadway in the 70s and 80s and I have just finished reading “Singular Sensation: The Triumph of Broadway”, which looks at theatre in the 90s and early 2000s. I’m going to start off by saying I would heartily recommend both books. They are well researched and detailed, making you feel like you were there in the rehearsal room or at Sardi’s waiting for the reviews to come in. You are as invested in the shows as the people who actually invested in them. Riedel puts the effort in and interviews a vast range of people, making the legends of these shows feel well rounded and fair.

Where I run into problems is with this idea; can you enjoy and discuss the stories and legends of shows without disrespecting the people involved in making them? It’s a question I often asking myself when writing episodes of Take Me or Leave. I want to understand the invisible magic that means some shows succeed and some don’t. Why does having a good show not automatically result in having a hit show? But I have no desire to insult or mock those involved in creating those shows and of course I have my own opinions about what I like and don’t like, but I don’t want to trash anyone. Yet where is the line between joshing and belittling? I’ve commented on Trevor Nunn’s “Dennis the Menace” wardrobe of denim on denim on denim, that has nothing whatsoever to do with his craft, so is that a silly joke or a cheap dig?

This brings us to what Michael Riedel is best known for, his column in the New York Post, which he has written for over 20 years. He is described as a theatre critic on his Wikipedia page, but his column is a gossip column, one that happens to be about Broadway. His reputation is controversial, people love a good rumour but sometimes it feels as though Riedel can go too far, veering into insults rather than just what casting news he’s heard on the grapevine. When looking into him, I found he has a selection of chat rooms dedicated to him on the website Broadwayworld.com, their titles range from the dull “Michael Riedel’s New Book” to the libellous “Michael Riedel is not a critic, he’s an idiot”. He’s even been known to bring people to violence. At a opening night party of a production of “Fiddler on the Roof” directed by David Leveaux, Riedel found himself knocked off his barstool by a furious Leveaux. Riedel had previously written in his column that Leveaux’s production was noticeably un-Jewish and then proceeded to tell Leveaux that “English directors often ruin American musicals”, the result Riedel found himself flat on his face on the floor of a New York bar, with nothing broken, except his watch.

I first came across Riedel when he was co-host of the public access television programme “Theatre Talk”. It has now sadly been cancelled after 25 years but it was a wonderful find, for a theatre starved 20 year old when I came across it. YouTube is full of old episodes (I would urge you to check them out pronto), they give you the opportunity to listen to an incredible array of people talk about all aspects of theatre. Highlights include the annual Tony’s predictions and some wonderful live performances; Jessie Muller and Joshua Henry’s duet from Carousel, is one of the most glorious things I have ever heard and I’ve posted the whole episode below, so you’ve no excuse not to be blown away! Anyhoo back to Riedel, his persona on Theatre Talk seemed at best condescending and at worst outright rude, you can see a small example for yourself in the video below. He is hardly endearing, but who says you have to be. It just seems strange, in what is considered a people business, to seem so unappealing to, well, people.

In his latest book, he talks about the Patti Lu Pone and Andrew Lloyd Webber feud on Sunset Boulevard, something I covered on my very first episode. It’s a great theatre story, based halfway between truth and legend. If inclined it would the perfect opportunity to dish dirt and call people out but it is a great retelling of the events, detailed and fairly weighed out. Riedel points out that Lloyd Webber broke his contract, wasn’t a man of his word and talked behind performers backs multiple times, whilst also making in clear that Lu Pone perhaps didn’t come to the show with the best attitude, alienating herself from the production team. He gives a balanced account and leaves the reader to make their own decision on who was more at fault (my opinion hasn’t changed, I’m still a Lu Pone fan).

So Riedel has this reputation, where he is feared for his opinions in his weekly column but can write two books which seem balanced, fair and loving. So who is the real Michael Riedel? Can you like one aspect of his work and dislike another or can you not have one without the other? It’s a question I don’t know the answer to but I will continue to ponder, in my research of theatre history. I believe people should be called out for bad behaviour. I believe people should be able joke about things. I believe people shouldn’t bully people from the “safety” of the internet. I believe that people make professional mistakes which shouldn’t define them. I believe that people who create amazing work can also create terrible work and visa versa. I clearly believe in a lot of ideas, do I practise all these beliefs, all the time? I doubt it. I find Riedel’s situation interesting because I can learn from it, what aspects of his journalism can I emulate, which aspects I can avoid. I want there to be room to explore all these conflicting ideas without being confined to one category; criticism, gossip or history. I want to be a gossipy history critic, is that a role?