Tag: entertainment industry

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Broadway Community Vs. Scott Rudin

By: Wyatt Wagoner

I grew up in love with musical theatre. I was in love with the way actors moved and the way they took words on a page and created something heart wrenching and beautiful. I wanted to act one day. I dreamed of being on a broadway stage. I wanted the anticipation of being in the wings, before stepping onstage and becoming someone completely new.

And although I always knew Broadway wasn’t all fun and games, I never could have imagined the truth of what has been going on in the wings.

Scott Rudin has been a producer since 1984, when his first film with Scott Rudin Productions, Mrs. Soffel, was released. He has gathered 148 film and broadway credits since he joined the entertainment industry, meaning he has created a significant impact on the industry as a whole. But he has not made a positive impact anyone he has ever worked with.

On April 7, 2021, Hollywood Reporter came out with an article titled, “‘Everyone Just Knows He’s an Absolute Monster’: Scott Rudin’s Ex-Staffers Speak Out on Abusive Behavior”. This article is filled to the brim with stories of abuse and misconduct in the office of Scott Rudin productions. There are multiple stories of Scott Rudin throwing items at his employees in fits of rage, causing panic attacks, leaving workers with severe mental health issues such as anxiety disorders, and creating what some of his employees called a “cult-like atmosphere”. 

The moment many of his employees realized Rudin was abusing his power was when he attempted to destroy the career of one of his former assistants. Multiple sources reported to the Hollywood Reporter that when a former employee resigned from her position at Scott Rudin Productions to work for Harvey Weinstein, Rudin emailed Weinstein saying the assistant had stolen from him and Weinstein should not allow her to work for him. One of the assistant’s colleagues said, “It literally changed everyone who was there at the time’s interest in having anything to do with him ever again. All of the employees realized that this is what we had to look forward to, after slaving away, being attacked so much, being maligned in really bizarre ways. There was a casual disregard for human rights”.

Scott Rudin continuously used his power to get his way in the Broadway and film industry. The most recent example of this was when he evicted the musical Beetlejuice from its Broadway home at the Wintergarden theatre in order for his own production, a revival of The Music Man starring Hugh Jackman and Sutton Foster. It was utterly obvious that this was an abuse of power on Rudin’s part, because Beetlejuice was breaking box office records. So not only did Rudin put hundreds of people who were employed by the show out of work, but made the Shubert organization, which owns a large chunk of New York’s theatres, give up one of the best earning shows they had had in a while.

But his abuse was not just manipulating the system to get what he wants, it was also physical abuse of his employees. A non-comprehensive list of these actions includes pushing an employee out of a moving car, smashing a computer monitor on an employee’s hand, and throwing phones at his assistants so often that they memorized the length of his phone cord so that they could be at a safe distance.

Some of his abuse was undeniably ableist, racist, and sexist. He was reported to have used the r-slur against a theater assistant who later completely abandoned the industry. Caroline Rugo, who was an executive coordinator at Scott Rudin productions for many years, was fired because she would not let go of her required disability accommodations for her type 1 diabetes, which took nothing more than 30 minutes a day of her work away from Rudin. This wasn’t the only time he fired an assistant for being disabled, he was also reported to fire one of his assistants for their blindness. He’s been said to have made incredibly rude comments about female actors who he felt had slighted him, such as Whoopi Goldberg. According to Hollywood Reporter, “…he lambasted her because she wanted to play a part in To Kill a Mockingbird instead of another Rudin-produced project, the film adaptation of Aleshea Harris’ acclaimed play Is God Is. He called her an idiot, said she’d never work again in anything important and wished her luck on The View”. He was also reported to have made racist comments about Barack Obama when he was president.

While many people are still afraid to speak out about Rudin’s abuse, others are unexpectedly outspoken. These include hundreds of Broadway actors, who are calling on larger Broadway actors to speak out against Rudin’s behavior.

One of the first people who did this was Karen Olivo, who, before the pandemic, was starring as Satine in Moulin Rouge! on Broadway. She recently announced that they will not be returning to the show once it opens again in protest of the abuse that has been happening in the industry. She went on Instagram live  saying, “Building a better industry is more important than putting money in my pockets”. She also asked her fellow actors, “Those of you who say you’re scared, what are you afraid of? Shouldn’t you be more afraid of not saying something and more people getting hurt?”

Moulin Rouge’s instagram page posted the producer’s response to this, saying, “Moulin Rouge! The Musical is forever indebted to @karenolivo76’s artistry, passion, and craft in creating the role of Satine on stage. We applaud Karen’s advocacy work to create a safe, diverse, and equitable theater industry for all”. This post’s comment section was flooded with people asking the producers of Moulin Rouge! to speak out on why Olivo actually left, and make an action plan to make their show a safer space.

As well as Karen Olivo, Brandon Uranowitz, who is most well known for his role in the 2016 revival of Falsettos, is speaking up about Scott Rudin’s abuse. He has been actively posting on his instagram story. One of his first posts said, “Maybe collectively telling Scott Rudin to f*** off is a vital, necessary part of building the kind of equitable community we’ve been blueprinting for a whole damn year”. Uranowitz also called on Sutton Foster and Hugh Jackman to speak out against Rudin’s abuse, since they were directly being benefited by Rudin’s power, which he has accumulated through his monstrous behavior. Since then they have both made statements on the subject, neither of which took any accountability.

Sutton Foster’s statement was done via instagram live, where she said “It’s an unbelievably unfortunate situation and the only positive outcome is the one that happened”. Many people were angry with this because it takes blame away from Rudin and places it on what she calls an “unfortunate situation”. Many people also feel as though she shamed those who were more outspoken about the situation, saying, “I apologize if it seemed like I wasn’t actively trumpeting my feelings but I felt like with the noise I couldn’t get a clear mind”. There was a lot of backlash related to these words, because other people who spoke out were not, “trumpeting their feelings,” they were calling for justice and accountability, which cannot be done quietly.

Hugh Jackman’s statement was equally as upsetting. The main giveaway that Jackman truly doesn’t understand the high stakes of this situation was when he said, “The most important voice we needed to hear from was Scott Rudin”. This is, for one thing, untrue, and also takes away power from his victims and puts Rudin back on the pedestal the community is trying so desperately to knock him down from.

Now in all of this, some justice has been served. Scott Rudin announced on Saturday, April 17, that he would be “stepping back” from all his Broadway productions. Then on Tuesday, April 20, he announced he would be doing the same with his film projects. While this was a step in the right direction, many people active in the movement pointed out that his “stepping back” meant nothing, due to Scott Rudin Productions still being active. But we still seem to be heading in the right direction, because on Saturday April 24, Rudin resigned from the Broadway League. This is huge, because the Broadway League controls almost every aspect of the industry. They are the trade association of Broadway with over 700 members, and Rudin should have never been on it in the first place, because it gives him one more outlet to abuse his power.

While we are going in the right direction, there are still members of the movement pushing for a safer, more equitable Broadway. The sad thing is that I always thought Broadway was safe and equitable. I thought abuses of power were rare and that the industry was loving and provided hope to those who are oppressed in the outside world. But the truth is Broadway is just as corrupt as every other industry, and without change, Broadway can never be what a lot of us hoped it was: an outlet for change in the larger world. 

But maybe one day we can find that hope again, and maybe one day we can create a safe space for everyone, not just those who benefit the higher powers.
https://www.vulture.com/2021/04/21-notorious-scott-rudin-stories.html

Posted on by — Leave a comment

In Defense of Bella Swan

By: Nanditha Pillai

“Oh no, this bad,” I typed in my group chat. “This is REALLY bad.” My friend had sent me a personality test that matched you to a fictional character that was most similar to your personality. At the top of my list, with an alarming ninety-seven percent similarity, was none other than Bella Swan of the notorious Twilight universe.

Bella Swan–the object of countless jokes, derided as a disgrace to feminism, scorned as weak, passive and whiny. Everyone loves to hate her. Countless book reviews, movie reviews, and Youtube videos have pulled not just her, but her creator, Stephenie Meyer, and her actor Kristen Stewart, ruthlessly apart, as they read the books aloud in mock-agony because the writing and female representation was simply so excruciatingly terrible. One such Youtuber was Alex Day, in whose videos he reads Twilight, dismayed that the author could have possibly received a literature degree and yet produced such a, to loosely paraphrase him, “worthless piece of garbage.” It is difficult to find the exact quote because his Youtube videos have since been taken down after allegations of inappropriate behavior with women. Alex, under the guise of feminism, is just one of many people that partook in viciously putting down all the principal women associated with a successful franchise, undermining their qualifications, merit and skill.

In their incessant hatred for Bella Swan and her creator, men such as Alex in their enthusiastic “feminism,” as they instruct and remind Stepenie Meyer how to write women characters and tell other women why they should not be like Bella, forget the sheer popularity of the franchise. According to Forbes, at its peak, the franchise earned Meyer more than $40 million (Pomerantz 2010). People decried Meyer’s mind-numbingly horrible writing (their words) and engaged her in often unwarrantedly violent competition with other female writers (I remember one comment about how if she were placed in a ring with Suzanne Collins and JK Rowling, she would “get beaten to a pulp”). The hostility did not stop with Meyer, however. The lead of the movie adaptations, Kristen Stewart, was similarly ripped apart for her terrible acting, which, according to one writer, was “frustratingly emo” and “emotionally hollow” (Kim 2016). But despite the rabid, vindictive, violent antagonism towards the franchise, no one can deny its success. Its success speaks to the fact that as people were busy criticizing and disdaining it, the franchise, for whatever reason, appealed to millions of teenage girls across the country. Girls who felt drawn to the story, to Bella, who may have seen themselves reflected in her. But the people around them were too immersed in denouncing a fictional character as weak and insulting to pay attention to the actual resonances the character had with these female teen viewers. 

Scorn is not a new feeling for women as a group, historically. Whether it was by scorning women who were interested in science, in politics, by demeaning their literature as “chick lit,” their interests as vain and frivolous, women are used to not being taken seriously—for wearing makeup, for not wearing makeup, for paying attention to their appearance, for not. The young members of the Twilight fandom got an early taste of their feelings being scorned and dismissed by those who felt morally and intellectually superior to them.

 Even before the fateful personality test, the term “strong female character” had rubbed me the wrong way. Something about it bothered me and now I know why. In an effort to encourage and empower women, society is doing what it always has–setting an ideal for women to aspire to, telling them what qualities they should strive to embody, that one set of traits is more desirable than others, and in the process, undercutting, deriding, and dismissing all of the women that do not fit in to this prescribed profile. 

I understand how the term came along and its possible motivations, but I am bothered by the word choice. Back when it was almost entirely male writers and directors creating the female characters we saw on screen, any woman that displayed basic human emotions such as anger, or basic human subjectivity through opinions, was lauded as “strong.” A historical example of this was how a 1688 murder testimonial was notable in the way that it presented its female defendant as a “self-conscious, speaking subject” (Dolan 35). This was seen as a subversive risk. For that time, she was a “strong” female representation, merely because the author of the testimonial made the decision to include her feelings. In this way we see how “strong” characters are different from strong people. The character’s strength rests entirely in the fact that she was more accurately depicted than other women of her time and not necessarily her own qualities. Therefore, this representation was “strong” for a female character at the time simply because it was human. But to continue to call female characters “strong” today seems patronizing as though women have a different or lower standard of strength, as though having opinions or expressing anger, something all women do, is something remarkable. 

The “strength” is, therefore, seems to be an evaluation of the depiction and the responsibility lies with the male creator. So a more accurate term instead of “strong” female character, would be a more “realistic” female character.  But does that responsibility still exist when female-identifying authors create female characters? What if she is drawn from personal experience, thereby automatically making her more “realistic?” I think a “realistic” female character can be any that is created by or in some way resonates with women. 

Thus, by virtue of the fact that there are women out there that do like or relate to Bella, she is a realistic female character. And to tell women that they are weak for that connection is counterproductive and dismissive of their realities. 

As someone who personally can relate to Bella, to her awkwardness, her quietness and her clumsiness, this judgement of strength in women is not limited to fiction. A family friend was once visibly upset by my shyness, saying my lack of assertiveness was frustrating to her as a feminist. I’ve been told that I need to “smile more,” “be more argumentative,” that I look sad all the time by friends as jokes. The irony of it all is what was funny to me. If a woman’s demeanor, natural personality or inclinations, if the choices she makes about how to present herself is offensive to one’s feminist sensibilities, then that is not feminist. If a woman feels pressure to prove her “strength” by changing her behavior, not out of her own volition, but to meet the approval of society, then that is not feminism. I myself work on being more confident everyday. But the decision to change myself should be my own, whenever and if ever I see a need for it myself, and not because my previous version of existing—notably one that was still kind and respectful of other people—was seen as unacceptable, purely because it did not fit society’s new definition of how a woman should behave. When I see shy girls, I also want them to feel safer to be themselves, more proud of who they are. But the way to do that is not by calling them weak as they are now. It’s by allowing them the space, time and patience to evolve as they choose, whether that means making the choice to change or stay the same because they accept themselves the way they are. 

The idea of the “strong” female character also makes me think we should reevaluate our definition of “strength” as a society. Our conceptions of strength are heavily cultural and to create a sweeping, single definition of it which we use to evaluate all the world by is ethnocentric, racist, sexist, and exclusive. Back when gender was viewed as binary and gender roles were associated with certain qualities, traditionally “masculine” qualities of loudness, political leadership and stoicism were primarily associated with strength. I wonder if that same ideal for strength is what still exists today, just now for everyone. We see it play out today in quintessential “strong” female protagonists of dystopian stories, the Katniss Everdeens and Tris Priors, the glamorous martyrs, the faces of revolutions, the athletic risk-takers. But this narrow view of strength excludes strength expressed by everybody in different ways–by quiet people, by people who cry a lot, by people who are not leaders but are discerning, critical and thoughtful in who they choose to follow. Yet these qualities often are not associated with “strength,” even though emotional vulnerability and expression takes courage, silence can be powerful, and it is from followers that leaders derive their status. All people display resilience in their lives, all people navigate complex situations and make difficult decisions. All people are strong.

What we need is for female-identifying individuals to have the space to share their stories, create their characters, and for their audiences to have the freedom to identify with them or not identify with them as they wish, without judgement from society telling them because a female character does not fit into society’s idea of “strength,” she and all those for whom she resonates with are weak and unacceptable. 

You can dislike Bella. You can disagree with her. Maybe you, personally, find her annoying. Maybe, you, personally, would not lead your life in the way that she did or make the same choices. Maybe you see her as heavily flawed, because she, like everybody, is flawed. But flawed should not mean unacceptable. Being flawed does not mean deserving of hate. In fact, I want to see more provocative female characters like Bella that evoke strong negative reactions, that spark discussion, that are full of behaviors that are looked down on by society but are seen as relatable by millions of women. Because the simple fact that they relate to her, even though millions of others might not, make her real, and therefore strong. 

When I received the results of my personality test, I was not really all that surprised, because I had noticed the similarities myself. But for a moment it did make me wonder if I should be concerned. That reaction in itself made me realize the need to make a case in defense of Bella Swan, and by extension, myself, and all of the other flawed, unlikeable, clumsy, awkward, resting-sad-faced women out there. Because she is not weak, and neither are we.

 So let’s leave Bella alone. And maybe reductive, exclusive, counterproductive labels, too, while we’re at it. 

Citations:

Dolan, Frances Elizabeth. Dangerous Familiars: Representations of Domestic Crime in England, 1550-1700. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994.

Kim, Kristen Yoonsoo. “The Moment Kristen Stewart Stopped Being Hollywood’s Most Hated Actress.” Complex. Complex, April 20, 2020. https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/06/kristen-stewart-hated-then-beloved-now. 

Pomerantz, Dorothy. “Inside The ‘Twilight’ Empire.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, July 11, 2012.https://www.forbes.com/2010/06/22/twilight-kristen-stewart-robert-pattinson-business-entertainment-celeb-100-10-twilight.html?sh=564b88e15761.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Threat of Working Women in South Korea

By: Christina Lee

Under YouTube videos of her interviews with high-profile Korean celebrities, hundreds of comments referring to the red-haired interviewer as a “femi,” or the Korean abbreviation for the term “feminist,” paint the interviewer in a malicious light. Some comments claim that she hates all Korean men to exist, and some accuse her of aiding in the suicide of a male photographer from a 2018 sexual harassment case.

A self-proclaimed “semi-celebrity,” Lee Eunjae, or better known as JaeJae, made a name for herself in South Korea’s mainstream media with her superb interviewing skills and popular YouTube series “MMTG,” where she meets the biggest stars of the Korean entertainment industry. Her high-energy personality and witty sense of humor has attracted millions of views to her videos and launched her to star regularly on talk shows as an interviewee herself. Offscreen, she works a typical day job as a producer at one of South Korea’s largest broadcasting stations, SBS.

In a recent YouTube video titled, “How Single JaeJae Gets Her Money Back From Weddings,” JaeJae opened up about her decision not to marry. “I never thought of marriage as a requirement in my life,” she says. JaeJae mentions how generations ago, marriage was seen as a woman’s “final destination” in life.

To young South Korean women like JaeJae, marriage seems like the last thing one would ever want to do in a newly industrialized country where women finally have the opportunity to join the workforce and gain financial independence. This pattern is evident even behind the scenes of JaeJae’s YouTube series. Her production team from “MMTG” is predominantly women, something Girls’ Generation member Tiffany Young pointed out during her interview: “So many boss ladies. Working women on set. I respect you.” 

For a veteran of the South Korean entertainment industry like Tiffany Young to point out and praise the presence of working women on set speaks volumes about the traditionally male-dominated workspaces, and figures like JaeJae are undoubtedly beginning to threaten this status quo.

As a result, JaeJae has become a victim to relentless misogynistic criticism that attacks her every move. Despite having received a bachelor’s degree from one of South Korea’s most prestigious schools, Ewha Womans University, JaeJae opened up about her struggles to find employment after graduation.

The internet’s response to her story was brutal. Commenters, mostly Korean men, criticized her short hair, her looks (“Physiognomy is science,” reads one Facebook comment, referring to the hackneyed Korean saying that justifies attacks toward one’s facial appearance), and her educational background from a “femi” school. “I guess I’m sorry to women, but a short haircut usually leads to disqualification,” another commenter posted in an unintentional acknowledgement of the gender biases that do indeed exist within the workplace.

The South Korean perception of a “femi” and its negative connotations arise from various factors; it is difficult to pinpoint a single reason, but much of the Korean male anxieties about working, outspoken women like JaeJae who are honest about their experiences may be reflected in the status of marriage and fertility rates in South Korea.

Currently, South Korea is facing notably low marriage rates, with a 10% decline in the number of couples getting married just last year. The country is also known for having the lowest fertility rate in the world, raising concerns about how South Koreans will be able to stabilize their population as the country’s number of deaths outweigh its number of births.

Working women ultimately become a scapegoat in this situation, as they bear much of the pressure and responsibility to maintain the South Korean population—a difficult feat especially when women are favoring professional careers over motherhood.

These challenges to traditional family dynamics that have been historically and culturally enforced by Confucian values undoubtedly destabilize an entire country. But to have one public figure—who merely uses her newfound popularity and platform to voice her opinions—take the blame for the country’s uncertainties may seem more as a demonstration of male anxiety over their potential loss of power in a traditionally patriarchal society. Meanwhile, Lee Eunjae has been grappling with what it means to be true to oneself amid misogyny.

Hate toward JaeJae was only amplified by a video from 2018 that resurfaced in which JaeJae worked as an editor and reporter for an SBS news segment. Taking place back when JaeJae did not sport bright red hair, the news clip documented an investigation of a sexual harassment case involving YouTuber Yang Yewon, who claimed that she was sexually abused while modeling for lingerie.

The controversy made national headlines during the time, and netizens who are now coming across this older video are incriminating JaeJae for her role in supporting Yang Yewon. Calling the semi-celebrity and her supporters “biased feminists,” the netizens who most likely approach this issue with the same attitude as the commenters who spout “Physiognomy is science” to any woman with an opinion began likening JaeJae to a murderer, after one of the men involved in the sexual harassment case took his life amid the investigation.

Despite the criticism, JaeJae continues to host her popular “MMTG” series, appear on talk shows, and has gained fans throughout the country. She is one of the many female public figures who face scrutiny by misogynistic netizens, and her rising fame and fanbase is a testament to the ever-evolving social expectations in South Korea. To her female fans, JaeJae is the voice for women who choose a professional life over marriage, who live alone and don’t dream of having children. The idea that women now get to make their own choices in life threatens the country’s entire power structure, but the presence of unapologetic women like JaeJae in the media is something that South Korea desperately needs.