Rita Wilson says Scott Rudin made her feel "worthless" after cancer diagnosis
Aux Features Scott Rudin
The dam appears to have well and truly broken on Scott Rudin. After years of being the subject of half-jokey profiles about being a “bosszilla,” the EGOT-winning film and Broadway producer is now being painted—per the THR report that initially broke the silence, and subsequent pieces in Vulture and The New York Times—more bluntly as a bully and abuser, one who terrorized colleagues, rivals, and especially underlings during the long tenure of his entertainment empire. And while the majority of the interviews on Rudin’s behavior have been with his hundreds of assistants over the years, who had to bear the brunt of verbal abuse, thrown objects, psychological torment, etc., there’s now been an increasing number of more known names that have made it clear that Rudin’s aggressions, well-known tantrums, and outbursts reached well beyond his own office.
Take an account from Rita Wilson, one of the few people to go on-record in the recent Times piece. The actress described her experiences on 2015's Fish In The Dark, which Rudin produced, and during the pre-production of which Wilson was diagnosed with breast cancer. When Wilson informed Rudin, she says, “he complained that she would need time off during Tony voting season and asked to see her medical records.” “I felt like he was trying to find a way to fire me legally,” Wilson said. “He is the kind of person who makes someone feel worthless, unvaluable, and replaceable.”
Rudin has issued a blanket apology for his decades of behavior, albeit one that discounts the specific details of almost every accusation levied against him. He’s also stepped back from both the Broadway League and all of his Broadway productions, stating that he doesn’t want his involvement with shows like The Book Of Mormon, To Kill A Mockingbird, and the upcoming Music Man revival with Hugh Jackman to color Broadway’s attempts to revive itself in the wake of COVID-19. It’s not clear at present whether he’ll still make money from the shows, or how much impact the reactions of their creators to the recent stories about him influenced that decision; Mormon’s Matt Stone apparently issued an ultimatum to Rudin, stating that “Your actions have made it impossible for us to keep working together.” Other partners, including FX Productions and A24, have stayed quiet.
As several people have pointed out online, there’s a danger here of treating Rudin as singular, rather than a symptom; the man is a remarkably successful example of the Hollywood/Broadway bully, but not a unique one. Still, though, it’s fascinating as ever to see the industry try to figure out what “consequences” look like for someone who’s gone exempt from them for so long. Is there any permanence to this self-imposed exile? Would all of this have gone even this far if Rudin’s Broadway shows hadn’t—per the Times piece—been slipping in their returns for investors? Is the lesson for other abusers in the industry “Treat people better?” or “Keep up the hits if you want to stay safe?” Time will tell.
37 Comments
A powerful entertainment mogul turns out to be an abusive asshole, who woulda thunk it?
I think the fact that he felt protected enough to go after Rita Wilson, and not just his struggling message takers and lunch getters, adds a an important detail about the power structure in the entertainment business.
There’s been some blaming of his employees for not standing up for themselves, but if he could get away with attacking her, they had a much greater level of fear than than some people want to give them credit for.
I had an inkling, just from all the movies portraying (and sometimes celebrating) entertainment moguls as ego-maniacal monsters who treat everybody like shit.I think pretty much every movie I’ve ever seen about Broadway was mostly about how plucky young actors/dancers are devalued and mistreated.It’s not like they were even trying to keep it secret.
Rita Wilson? But she’s consort of the god-man Hanks; and both of them had the rona back when cool people (and god men) were getting it. She must be right and Rudin must be bad. That’s all there is to it.
I don’t know what kind of weird sarcastic defense you’re attempting here but there’s also all the other testimony that Scott Rudin is a bullying asshole.
I’m so astounded by the idea that someone would pop out and defend RUDIN of all people that I don’t even feel compelled to mount an argument against them here; you just sort of want to sit back and marvel over the stupidity.
Well bless his little heart. He thinks he’s being clever and edgy.
Can I say I didn’t read his comment as a defense of Rudin, and not mocking the Hanks’? “God-man” is a comical expression of sincere liking. Same with “cool people.” And they’re cool because they got the virus early and survived it. The last two sentences read as sincere, not sarcastic. I may be wrong, but that was my impression; I was surprised you had that interpretation. Unless this poster has a history of bad opinions.
That poster has a history of very bad opinions.
You may be trying too hard. OP certainly was.
I read Michael Chabon’s Medium post, “Apology of a Rudin Apologist.”https://michaelchabon.medium.com/apology-of-a-rudin-apologist-85bec4879119Reading it, I thought if Rudin hadn’t gotten into producing, he would have become a serial killer. What caused all that anger? That’s not at all a well-adjusted, normal human being. Was there a childhood of abuse and trauma? I rather there be a good, authentic biographical reason instead of that he found early in his career that performative rage worked to get what he wanted, so he did it enough times that it became real and a part of his personality.
Part X of this long article gives one clue. Former assistant Chellie Campbell said Rudin had a mentor in abusing people in producer Edgar Scherick.https://www.vulture.com/amp/2021/04/scott-rudin-as-told-by-his-assistants.htmlI don’t think that explains the rage, but it shows how he learned how much he could get away with.
That was a helluva read, thanks for posting.
I’m starting to think that Hollywood should just be bombed from orbit and the ashes salted.I mean, fuck’s sake, no movie’s worth any of this shit.
“Your actions have made it impossible for us to keep working together.”Would these “actions” be the behavior that everyone seems to have known about for 30 years, and certainly when he was producing Book of Mormon…or the action of getting called out on it?
No shit. That was my first reaction, like this is brand new information?
Honestly, if “#MeToo, but for being a dick” is going to become a thing (which I’m ambivalent about, personally, but whatever), then it’ll be a little depressing to see it start the exact same way. A lot of apologies from people who “should have known more than they did.” A lot of sudden tie-cutting the minute it became convenient for them, but not a moment sooner. A lot of feigned surprise (even more egregious, in this case, than something like Weinstein, where I do think it’s possible a lot of people didn’t know the extent of his behavior).
I guess once BOM made 1/2 a billion dollars, then the blinders came off!
Man, who knew that Matt Stone would be such a total snowflake? Shouldn’t he toughen up? What’s with all this complaint culture stuff, Matt?Hey, they killed Kenny! What a gas!
I could believe Matt might not have known anything that did not come as a fanciful tale or rumor at an event.
Do people in USA find balding fat jewish guys really that intimidating? Ive read how he behaved in front of his employees, and believe me, in Colombia he would have been punched out decades ago. By multiple people. Male and female. I mean his face looks like it would be delicious to punch.
Do people in USA find balding fat jewish guys really that intimidating?
Speaking as a somewhat balding, sorta fat jewish guy… no.
But then again I’m just some anonymous schmo— Rudin has the crucial leverages of money and influence. (I’ve no idea where that came from in the first place, and no idea if he’s been an asshole the entire time or if he grew into it as his influence grew. Probably both, with a dollop of sociopathic ambition.)
Plenty of people wanted to punch out Scott Rudin.Plenty of people could have easily punched out Scott Rudin.Plenty of people would have had their careers ruined and been driven out of Hollywood forever for having done so.You can look like Wallace Shawn’s sickly older brother and be utterly untouchable as long as you’ve got the money, connections and status to be able to make people obscenely rich and famous or utterly torpedo their careers based on a whim.
Pretty much this. The ten minute afterglow you’d bask in from putting him in his place would slowly turn into despair at the realization that you’ve torpedoed your prospects. Remember what a bullying asshole Kurt Angle was? Remember when one of his victims snapped and humiliated him on live television? Some kind of MMA lock? Good stuff, satisfying, good for him. What was his name again? I can’t remember because his career ended the second he did that.
Yeah I mean did Weinstein look more physically intimidating? Or other people who have been called out? *confused*
What’s the point of this post? Who cares if he’s Jewish? Some Jews are intimidating some aren’t. Some fat people, short people, etc. are intimidating, some aren’t. Mostly, crazy people in positions of power are intimidating, and someone who throws shit at you, can ruin careers, and yells to assert dominance all the time sounds relatively intimidating to me. Plus the whole point is he could suck up to more powerful people or people he needed if he wanted to, and knew against whom he could successfully wield his power.
No, they find people with control over their careers intimidating, because being jobless in America (and having your prospects for future employment cut short) is tantamount to exile, or honestly, being cursed in a pre-Enlightenment hamlet.
Unless, of course, you’re rich. America is where assholes go to feel powerful, because it’s where they can be. Having unemployment and social services actually be easily accessible tends to take the power away from schmuck bosses, culturally.
Maybe cool it with the casual anti-Semitism.
It isn’t about that, its about the power dynamic. Same way Weinstein could have his way with so many women.Rudin is hugely successful and he makes whomever he s involved with lots of money. If he fires you or lets it be known that “you’re difficult”, it can effectively end your career, well until now, I guess.
It’s incredibly hypocritical (but very on-brand) for The New York Times to name names so arrogantly for a story that they did not break … and not even mention the Charles Isherwood situation. For anyone not aware, he was the second-string theatre critic for the newspaper until he was fired. We have never gotten the full story, but it was rumoured that Isherwood had unacceptable dealings with theatre professionals, including promises of good reviews to Rudin productions and threats of bad ones to competitors.As per A.O. Scott refusing to discuss his relationship with The Charlie Rose Show at the height of #metoo and instead doubling down on Woody Allen criticism, The Times is once again transparently throwing others under the bus.What are other writers’ associations with Rudin? There is no way that stopped with Isherwood. Scott and Dargis naming Denzel Washington the greatest actor of the 21st Century was utterly comical. What exactly are his legendary performances in this century? The paycheck gigs with Tony Scott or Antoine Fuqua? Or his smoldering ball of second-rate James Earl Jones in “Fences”? There had to be behind-the-scenes politicking behind that decision.I’d like to know of instances of any publications’ close relationship with Rudin. One of the powers of the likes of Rudin is their ability to brief friendly reporters about competitors or troublesome colleagues e.g. Fox News giving useful idiot Janet Maslin talking points for her review of Gabe Sherman’s “The Loudest Voice in the Room”.Of course, The New York Times would never have the guts to tell THAT story
Note: I am not suggesting that Allen is innocent, but I am saying that Scott would have been a lot more aware of Rose’s behaviour, given the frequency to which he appeared on The Charlie Rose Show (even as a guest host). Not engaging in an honest conversation about his relationship with Rose was cowardice.
Save some anger for Patrick Healy, who was the top Broadway reporter for the NY Times for years. He knew about Rudin, but never bothered to write an expose, even after Rudin took out an ad in the Times mocking Healy.About the closest Healy came was an interview with Colm Tobin, where he skated over the surface with questions like “Scott Rudin is one of the most successful and strong-minded producers on Broadway. What was working with him like?”Healy knew that insiders might pick up on the subtext, and anger at the interview is what drove Rudin to take out the ad. But Healy also knew the actual impact of his interview was zero, and Rudin used his widely known connections to Healy to help kill negative publicity. Rudin knew Healy would never seriously cover his abuses, and Healy never did.What makes this especially disturbing is that after Healy’s stint covering Broadway, he ended up as the top Politics editor at the NY Times all through the Trump era, and the same kind of insider access journalism continued under Healy’s leadership. Rudy Giuliani was treated much the same way Rudin — the Times reporters knew he was a walking horror show, but cultivated him as a source rather than expose him for what he was, even though he was a deeply unreliable and uninformed source. Healy owes Times readers a full apology and explanation for all of his failures on Rudin and Trump, but we will never get one.
So there’s no way their choice for best actor of the century could possibly be sincere?
Yeah, but Denzel Washington? Really? Really?
As several people have pointed out online, there’s a danger here of treating Rudin as singular, rather than a symptom; the man is a remarkably successful example of the Hollywood/Broadway bully, but not a unique one.I worked in one of these industries for a not insignificant chunk of time at a relatively high level. Pretty much every producer I met or worked for was a colossal dick – the men more so than the women, unsurprisingly. They were also capable of doing very nice things, but mostly… colossal dickdom.Sometimes this stuff is sexual (Weinstein), sometimes it’s rage (Rudin), but all of it is unpleasant and unacceptable. In these relatively small but hugely desirable industries, where enormous power is wielded by very few, this behaviour is systemic.
Wow, how invincible must you feel to be able to treat Tom Hanks’s wife like that?! Like Hanks doesn’t seem like the kind of person to go full-on ‘you’ll never work in this town again’, but he sure as hell could to all but a very small handful of people.