Steven Soderbergh will direct a play about Casey called "Tot Mom"

[butwhatif?]

I have read mixed reviews......but one article mentioned that he video taped all the rehearsals as well as opening night. The point I am trying to offer is that while the big grand opening has passed.....the show is nearing it's run......and it has been stated that he has no plans to bring tot mom to the US.....I am curious if the hype, reactions, comments and reviews are all part of his next project. The entire marketing plan as I posted in the link, was developed to utilize audience reaction and public opinion as the marketing for the production itself. So if not for the benefit of a US run.....then my thought process says it will be used for another one. Otherwise.....why gather so much reaction when Australians themselves have stated that they just don't obsess about it like we do. I don't think there is any reason to try to invite Mr. Soderbergh here unless the invitation is extended by Tricia.

Okay, now I hear what you're saying. (took me a while....lol) Quite brilliant really, creating so much interest, by saying that americans wouldn't take favourably to the play, thereby making them more eager to see his work that follows.

Even though the whole topic has insulted many Americans, he knows that they will watch whatever else he has in the works, just like he watched Nancy .He's burning a fire beneath the American public so people can't not watch what he is offering.

Brilliant, and unashamedly manipulative.

If you're right I vow to never watch another production he is involved in.
ETA: Creating a divide between people in different countries is not art, and never will be.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Okay, now I hear what you're saying. (took me a while....lol) Quite brilliant really, creating so much interest, by saying that americans wouldn't take favourably to the play, thereby making them more eager to see his work that follows.

Even though the whole topic has insulted many Americans, he knows that they will watch whatever else he has in the works, just like he watched Nancy .He's burning a fire beneath the American public so people can't not watch what he is offering.

Brilliant, and unashamedly manipulative.

If you're right I vow to never watch another production he is involved in.

BBM


Exhibit 1.

Please visit link below as I can't post another persons photos without permission

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25063581@N08/4265838016/



See what I mean. Comments used to drive up interest. Comments on the Sydney Theatre Board blown up to poster size and plastered as the "ad" itself.

Brilliant yes. Maddening yes.......ethical.......undecided.

 

[RR0004]

I totally agree with you. I think this is more about NG than KC as evidenced by the title of the play. Perhaps this was in the works long before the KC case came to be, but once this story broke it played right into the script. It was inevitable one would at some point and the minute NG came up with Tot Mom all things were go for SS.

Do you know if he used "Sheba from Illinois"?

PS- sorry about your Chargers JBean...but happy (and shocked) about my J-E-T-S, JETS, JETS, JETS!!

 

[RR0004]

In addition to question of wondering how close to July 15, 2008 this was conceived, I would also like to know Who contacted Who (Whom)? I had often wondered why there were "Missing Children" sites searched on the A's computer before Caylee was reported missing...this makes me go Hmmmmm.

Myth...the sites were visited shortly after she was reported missing.

 

[sleutherontheside]

But how could he have known back then just how huge the case would still be today? Or maybe it was dumb luck?

I don't think he really studied anything. One of the reasons that some audience members gave a negative critique was because there was no creative element on his part. Every second of the play with dialogue comes directly from NG transcripts.
Now some of the actors on the other hand, deserve praise for their portrayal of the characters. But all SS had to do was gather the transcripts, and put the play together. Nothing creative about it..... Except for the decision to have the suburban scene- with no dialogue- play out in front of the stage, rather than just using news coverage on the screen . And this was the most inaccurate piece of the play, since we know that RK didn't accidently stumble over a skull while taking a pee, and which proves, imo, that he took very little time in studying the case.
This is why I mentioned previously that many of you would be disappointed if you did get to see it, because you've already seen it play out in real life on NG. (which is probably the real reason it isn't playing over there)


If Caylee were still alive today, I believe the play would have focused on Haleigh, or the Ducket case, or any other case that is covered by Nancy over a period of time.

While I enjoyed the play, it wasn't terribly different to watching a comedian doing impersonations. It didn't tell Caylee's story, it was just a reproduction of an NG episode.
JMO

BBM....But we don't know that for sure. We can't say that it isn't the case when we just don't have proof to confirm otherwise.

 

[butwhatif?]

BBM....But we don't know that for sure. We can't say that it isn't the case when we just don't have proof to confirm otherwise.

Didn't RK retract that statement pretty quickly though? Sorry for going OT, but he went into those woods at least three times. While his story has changed over time, it seems that he was looking specifically for Caylee, rather than using the place as a toilet stop.
But you're right. We have no proof of that either way. We only have his word to go by.
And I guess that the suburban scene was showing the audience what was broadcast in the news on the day she was found, and back then RK was saying he had just stumbled across the skull while peeing. So if nothing else, it is an accurate portrayal of what happened in those first few days of Caylees remains being found, media-wise.

Did anyone else see the article where they claim that when KC first heard of the play she threw a bit of a tanty, and demanded to see JB? She was probably pissed that she wouldn't get any money from it to keep her comm acc topped up.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Didn't RK retract that statement pretty quickly though? Sorry for going OT, but he went into those woods at least three times. While his story has changed over time, it seems that he was looking specifically for Caylee, rather than using the place as a toilet stop.
But you're right. We have no proof of that either way. We only have his word to go by.
And I guess that the suburban scene was showing the audience what was broadcast in the news on the day she was found, and back then RK was saying he had just stumbled across the skull while peeing. So if nothing else, it is an accurate portrayal of what happened in those first few days of Caylees remains being found, media-wise.

Did anyone else see the article where they claim that when KC first heard of the play she threw a bit of a tanty, and demanded to see JB? She was probably pissed that she wouldn't get any money from it to keep her comm acc topped up.

BBM
I have seen a few reports of that. I am really shocked that given JB's addiction (IMO) to face time.....he didn't spew some proclamation about how her rights were infringed upon. Of course several attorney's Tom J for one weighed in and said the media could cover it. And IIRC Jack. A. K. was involved in something here early on but I don't remember what his deal was. I think he referred to KC as a "steel magnolia". Interesting choice of words given SS's 6 picture film deal with Magnolia Pics. The "coincidences" never cease to amaze me.They are both BIG wig media attorney's.


Here is a quote from Tom Julin.....found on page 2 of the article at the link. There is also reference to KC's reaction to news of the play.
"Thomas Julin, a partner at Hunton & Williams and the chairman of the Florida bar's panel on media law, said all aspects of the trial could be covered by the media."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/us-legal-sensation-to-be-played-on-a-sydney-stage/2009/12/11/1260034362596.html?page=2

 

[Kentjbkent]

Didn't RK retract that statement pretty quickly though? Sorry for going OT, but he went into those woods at least three times. While his story has changed over time, it seems that he was looking specifically for Caylee, rather than using the place as a toilet stop.
But you're right. We have no proof of that either way. We only have his word to go by.
And I guess that the suburban scene was showing the audience what was broadcast in the news on the day she was found, and back then RK was saying he had just stumbled across the skull while peeing. So if nothing else, it is an accurate portrayal of what happened in those first few days of Caylees remains being found, media-wise.

Did anyone else see the article where they claim that when KC first heard of the play she threw a bit of a tanty, and demanded to see JB? She was probably pissed that she wouldn't get any money from it to keep her comm acc topped up.

Wasn't that a National Enquirer (or other tabloid) story? Don't recall legitimate press reporting this?:waitasec:

 

[Kentjbkent]

BBM
I have seen a few reports of that. I am really shocked that given JB's addiction (IMO) to face time.....he didn't spew some proclamation about how her rights were infringed upon. Of course several attorney's Tom J for one weighed in and said the media could cover it. And IIRC Jack. A. K. was involved in something here early on but I don't remember what his deal was. I think he referred to KC as a "steel magnolia". Interesting choice of words given SS's 6 picture film deal with Magnolia Pics. The "coincidences" never cease to amaze me.They are both BIG wig media attorney's.

wow....seems like "Magnolia" sure seems to be cropping up lately.....think I read another reference to that word last night....:waitasec:

 

[sleutherontheside]

This has been really bugging me. Based upon the links that I provided.......the use of the comments posted on the STC site about Tot Mom were planned for use as advertising material. While the names are excluded from the posters.....I can NOT find anything in their privacy policy that states a: THe information you post becomes the property of STC. or b: That your information may be used in third party marketing.

There is a clause that discusses using your info for DIRECT marketing, but nothing about third party marketing. Posters plastered on walls are not direct marketing as they reach an audience that includes people who have not participated in any contact with STC. THey give opt out instructions...yet do not have any disclosure or opt out info where you post your comments.

I don't think that this violates any privacy rights with regard to personal information....however....in the absence of a disclosure stating that your post may be used and becomes property of STC......there IMO is a real issue with their internet practices. We can document that it was the marketing plan to use comments. IMO....they should have disclosed that up front.

http://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/privacy


Thoughts????

 

[butwhatif?]

This has been really bugging me. Based upon the links that I provided.......the use of the comments posted on the STC site about Tot Mom were planned for use as advertising material. While the names are excluded from the posters.....I can NOT find anything in their privacy policy that states a: THe information you post becomes the property of STC. or b: That your information may be used in third party marketing.

There is a clause that discusses using your info for DIRECT marketing, but nothing about third party marketing. Posters plastered on walls are not direct marketing as they reach an audience that includes people who have not participated in any contact with STC. THey give opt out instructions...yet do not have any disclosure or opt out info where you post your comments.

I don't think that this violates any privacy rights with regard to personal information....however....in the absence of a disclosure stating that your post may be used and becomes property of STC......there IMO is a real issue with their internet practices. We can document that it was the marketing plan to use comments. IMO....they should have disclosed that up front.

http://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/privacy


Thoughts????

Privacy doesn't seem to be a big issue imo, since they posted their reviews online.

The big question is why would they need to collect all of the reviews unless they were planning to use those reviews for another project. Why market the tot mom play that has already come to an end that supposedly isn't going to be performed anywhere else ?
I think you're really onto something here, and I don't like it one bit.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Privacy doesn't seem to be a big issue imo, since they posted their reviews online.

The big question is why would they need to collect all of the reviews unless they were planning to use those reviews for another project. Why market the tot mom play that has already come to an end that supposedly isn't going to be performed anywhere else ?
I think you're really onto something here, and I don't like it one bit.

But.....the comments were not "reviews". They were comments that website visitors posted. Back when the "news broke" people flocked to the STC site and posted comments in their "comments section". NOW.....there is the entire page devoted to the "Tot Mom" feedback. My issue is this......if the posters/marketing materials created as advertisements used posts that did NOT disclose a "third party use"....then I think there is a serious issue.

These were not reviews.....these were comments that were posted prior to the play opening. Also......is it not extended until February 7th?

 

[BeckySharper11]

I have seen the play and am a good friend of someone in the Sydney Theatre production. Re: those who have posted that it seemed 'hinky' re: when Mr. Soderbergh committed to do this project and the 2008 date/ announcement I just want to clarify what I know to be true. Four years ago, Steven Soderbergh made a film called 'The Good German' that starred Cate Blanchett..at that time Ms. Blanchett discussed the theatre company and asked Mr. Soderbegh if he would ever be interested in directing a play..He told her he was and they discussed the subject off-and-on for the next few years. He committed the time to 'do something' --there was never a specific project in mind...hence the 'Steven Soderbergh Unititled Project' . It wasn't until last January (2009) that Steven travelled to Sydney and discussed his idea with Cate Blanchett and her husband, Andrew Upton. The initial thought was that Cate Blanchett would play Nancy Grace..but at that time, Cate had already committed to star in Street Car Named Desire and wouldn't be available for the play's dates in Dec/Jan..so it was at that time he met with other actresses to play Nancy...that's how he met (the brilliant) Essie Davis, who had been Blanchett's college roommate and is a very well known Australian actress. Hopefully this clears up the 'hinky' issue for people.

 

[Tulessa]

I have seen the play and am a good friend of someone in the Sydney Theatre production. Re: those who have posted that it seemed 'hinky' re: when Mr. Soderbergh committed to do this project and the 2008 date/ announcement I just want to clarify what I know to be true. Four years ago, Steven Soderbergh made a film called 'The Good German' that starred Cate Blanchett..at that time Ms. Blanchett discussed the theatre company and asked Mr. Soderbegh if he would ever be interested in directing a play..He told her he was and they discussed the subject off-and-on for the next few years. He committed the time to 'do something' --there was never a specific project in mind...hence the 'Steven Soderbergh Unititled Project' . It wasn't until last January (2009) that Steven travelled to Sydney and discussed his idea with Cate Blanchett and her husband, Andrew Upton. The initial thought was that Cate Blanchett would play Nancy Grace..but at that time, Cate had already committed to star in Street Car Named Desire and wouldn't be available for the play's dates in Dec/Jan..so it was at that time he met with other actresses to play Nancy...that's how he met (the brilliant) Essie Davis, who had been Blanchett's college roommate and is a very well known Australian actress. Hopefully this clears up the 'hinky' issue for people.

Thank you for this insight and welcome to WS.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I have seen the play and am a good friend of someone in the Sydney Theatre production. Re: those who have posted that it seemed 'hinky' re: when Mr. Soderbergh committed to do this project and the 2008 date/ announcement I just want to clarify what I know to be true. Four years ago, Steven Soderbergh made a film called 'The Good German' that starred Cate Blanchett..at that time Ms. Blanchett discussed the theatre company and asked Mr. Soderbegh if he would ever be interested in directing a play..He told her he was and they discussed the subject off-and-on for the next few years. He committed the time to 'do something' --there was never a specific project in mind...hence the 'Steven Soderbergh Unititled Project' . It wasn't until last January (2009) that Steven travelled to Sydney and discussed his idea with Cate Blanchett and her husband, Andrew Upton. The initial thought was that Cate Blanchett would play Nancy Grace..but at that time, Cate had already committed to star in Street Car Named Desire and wouldn't be available for the play's dates in Dec/Jan..so it was at that time he met with other actresses to play Nancy...that's how he met (the brilliant) Essie Davis, who had been Blanchett's college roommate and is a very well known Australian actress. Hopefully this clears up the 'hinky' issue for people.

Thank you for sharing some insight from behind the scenes. I don't doubt that he had a project slated far in advance. But as early as Sep 08...it was being announced as a "secret project"..and in interviews he admits that his concept sparked in August while watching Nancy Grace and the case unfold.

I don't fault him for jumping on this as a project. I just don't understand why the timeline for the play seems to be the pink elephant in the room.

 

[BeckySharper11]

Soderbergh, had committed 2 years ago to do a play in Dec 2009/Jan 2010 in Sydney. The time had been carved out because he has several films lined up to do and his scheduled is determined that far in advance.
Like many of us, he followed the Caylee Anthony story from the very beginning on the Nancy Grace show.
At that time, (August/Sept. of 08) he was actually negotiating to get the rights to an old film to be able to do that as the play in Sydney..he was unable to obtain the rights (after many months of trying.)
In December, after Caylee's remains were found--he continued to watch the case unfold on Nancy Grace and it was only then that he decided to proceed with adapting some sort of play out of the Nancy Grace show and the Caylee Anthony case.
It was in August/Sept of 09 that it was announced that the project was actually TOT MOM.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Soderbergh, had committed 2 years ago to do a play in Dec 2009/Jan 2010 in Sydney. The time had been carved out because he has several films lined up to do and his scheduled is determined that far in advance. Like many of us, he followed the Caylee Anthony story from the very beginning on the Nancy Grace show.

At that time, (August/Sept. of 08) he was actually negotiating to get the rights to an old film to be able to do that as the play in Sydney..he was unable to obtain the rights (after many months of trying.)

In December, after Caylee's remains were found--he continued to watch the case unfold on Nancy Grace and it was only then that he decided to proceed with adapting some sort of play out of the Nancy Grace show and the Caylee Anthony case.

It was in August/Sept of 09 that it was announced that the project was actually TOT MOM.

So if I am understanding this correctly, in mid 2008, Soderbergh was negotiating for the rights to an old film to possibly base a play for his commitment to the Sydney Theatre? He was unfortunately unsuccessful.

In Dec of 2009, he did an interview with Sydney Morning Herald about the Tot Mom play that was beginning shortly, and in this interview he stated:

"When I was negotiating for the rights and talking to the STC, I made it very clear we were doing the show for one run," he says. "We're not taking it anywhere else and certainly not taking it to the States. I feel that you wouldn't get a clean response to it in the States; the whole thing would be too coloured by events."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertai...the-dock/2009/12/16/1260639218006.html?page=3

So apparently at some point he negotiated for rights to Tot Mom.....do you know who he negotiated with, to make this negotiation attempt obviously successful, since the play has been performed???

 

[TinaD]

I don't know anything specific but I'd guess he'd be negotiating with Nancy Grace and her producers, and any other meda organisation whose content he used.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I really appreciate your comments and insight TinaD and BeckySharper11. Having some insight makes things more clear. I understand the "strike while the iron's hot" philosophy and I also understand how creating a sense of mystery and drama around the "secret" production creates more anticipation, drama, and honestly.......press.

Much like "tot mom", his secret film that he "knocked out" while there, is creating rumor, gossip, speculation, and better buzz than any direct advertising could afford. I don't fault unique and creative advertising approaches. In fact....in this economy...one must rely on newer and better marketing in order to garner the attention of an apathetic public audience.

I find it honorable that he plans to donate proceeds to a charitable organization. It does make up for a bit of the "sting" that Americans have been feeling. My goal in researching his timeline was to be informative and to stimulate conversation. Much like SS........I think I accomplished that goal.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Bump for review