More stories

  • in

    Il Divo Tenor’s Ex-Wife Sues Him, Citing Sexual and Physical Abuse

    Sébastien Izambard exerted “coercive control” over Renée Izambard and subjected her to years of psychological abuse and torture, she said.A tenor in the classical crossover group Il Divo was sued Monday by his ex-wife, who accused him of domestic violence, sexual assault and battery and described his behavior toward her over the years as “a textbook example of coercive control.”In the suit, filed in state court in Los Angeles, Renée Izambard said that her ex-husband, the singer Sébastien Izambard, had subjected her to “years of dangerous psychological abuse and torture, and intense sexual, physical and emotional abuse, bringing her to the doorstep of death.”Ms. Izambard, 43, an Australian native who was a music publicist before she married Mr. Izambard, 48, charged in the lawsuit that over the years he had tracked her movements, withheld medical care, subjected her to sex acts without her consent, and threatened to stop supporting their three school-age children.“Really, she’s just fighting to be free of abuse,” Devin McRae, a lawyer for Ms. Izambard, said. He said that his client had been motivated to file the suit both to end what she saw as a campaign of terror that continued after she filed for divorce in 2018, and to shed light on how intractable coercive control is.Il Divo’s management and label have not responded to repeated requests for comment, nor did a lawyer who has represented Mr. Izambard in the past. A booking agent for the group had no comment. The group, which has sold some 30 million records, is due out with another one, celebrating the music of Motown, in July.In January, California enacted a law that defined coercive control, making it easier for behavior like isolating a partner to be introduced in family court as evidence of domestic violence. Pallavi Dhawan, director of domestic violence policy for the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, said her office has been tracking the results. “I have heard that family lawyers are getting more success in getting restraining orders using coercive control, because they have been able to argue that it’s codified,” she said.Some legal experts believe that the law could open the door to make examples of coercive control admissible in other cases, such as the civil claim that Ms. Izambard is filing, though they warn that proving emotional and psychological abuse remains challenging. Still, said Ms. Dhawan, whose office was involved in drafting the law, “we wanted to start the conversation and name the harm, so that survivors would have the language” to describe their experiences.The Izambards met in Australia in 2005, when Il Divo, the wildly popular international pop-opera crossover quartet formed by Simon Cowell, was on tour there; by the following year, they were a couple, and Ms. Izambard left her job to move to France with Mr. Izambard, a Paris native. They married in 2008, shortly after the birth of a twin son and daughter, in a pregnancy that was fraught with medical complications.Mr. Izambard’s controlling behavior began before they were married, according to the suit. On a 2005 vacation to Thailand, he brought her to a brothel and, over her protestations, asked her to watch while he “had a sex act performed on him by two Thai prostitutes,” according to the suit. It was the first of many sexual demands that Mr. Izambard made against Ms. Izambard’s wishes, including pressuring her to have sex in front of other people, urinating on her against her will, and ejaculating on her feet while she slept, the lawsuit said.Ms. Izambard, who had been Il Divo’s Australian publicist, gave up that career when she became involved with Mr. Izambard, and he at times kept her from working again, refusing to permit her to get a work visa when the couple lived in London from 2010-2013: “Sébastien told Renée her visa would affect his offshore tax scheme,” the suit says. He did not put her name on their bank accounts or property portfolio for many years after they married, the suit says.He also sought to isolate and control her in other ways, the suit claims: “Sébastien would fly into a jealous rage when Renée called her family or friends in Australia or even if Renée fell asleep or went to bed before Sébastien. When driving in the car together, Sébastien demanded Renée hold his hand at all times.” He watched her on the CCTV system inside their home and tracked her movements outside using the Tesla app, the suit says. He did not permit her to read books in his presence, the suit says.Ms. Izambard attempted to leave him several times throughout their relationship, the suit says; at first, he promised to change to win her back (he eventually joined a group for sex addicts, according to the suit).But his behavior continued, and she suffered a “severe emotional breakdown” in 2017, the suit said. Afterward, the suit claims, he denied her medical treatment, kept her in their home and pressured her to make “pornographic video content.”In an earlier, ongoing case, Ms. Izambard sued her ex-husband and the insurer State Farm for damages related to the 2018 Woolsey fire in California, which destroyed the couple’s Malibu home just days after she filed for divorce. In that suit she charged that Mr. Izambard improperly controlled access to the insurer and its payouts.The lawsuit filed Monday says that Ms. Izambard and her children “require intensive therapy to deal with the psychological and physical trauma” of Mr. Izambard’s behavior.Mr. McRae, her attorney, said Ms. Izambard was cleareyed about what her lawsuit might mean for her ex-husband’s career and ultimately for her. “His whole earning capacity might disappear,” Mr. McRae said. But he said that she had filed the suit anyway, out of a belief that such misconduct should be identified, so it can potentially be stopped. More

  • in

    Marilyn Manson Accused of Sexual Assault in Suit Filed by Esmé Bianco

    The lawsuit also accuses Manson’s former manager, Tony Ciulla, of violating trafficking laws.Esmé Bianco, an actress known for her work on “Game of Thrones,” filed a lawsuit Friday in which she accused the singer Marilyn Manson of sexual assault and sexual battery and described a series of violent incidents when they lived together in 2011.The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, said that Marilyn Manson, whose real name is Brian Warner, had used “fraudulent offers of movie and music video roles to convince Ms. Bianco to travel to Los Angeles, whereupon Mr. Warner then made threats of force and performed violent sexual acts on Ms. Bianco to which she did not consent.”The suit also named Mr. Manson’s longtime manager, Tony Ciulla, and his management company, accusing Mr. Manson and Mr. Ciulla of violating trafficking laws.Ms. Bianco flew to Los Angeles in 2009 for a video shoot that, the lawsuit said, turned into a multiday assault during which she was whipped and suffered electric shocks. The footage was never released, the suit said. She and Mr. Manson later began a consensual relationship, it said, and in 2011 he convinced Ms. Bianco, who is British, to live with him in Los Angeles “while he helped her secure a visa and launch her career in the United States.” During that time, the lawsuit said, she endured “constant abuse” at his hands, and he raped her.A lawyer for Mr. Manson, Howard King, called the claims against him “provably false” and said they were “based on conduct that simply never occurred.” In a statement, he accused Ms. Bianco and her lawyer of a shakedown attempt. “We will vigorously contest these allegations in court and are confident that we will prevail,” he said in the statement.The lawsuit comes almost three months after Mr. Manson was accused by another ex, the actress Evan Rachel Wood, of domestic abuse, rape and assault.After Ms. Wood, the Emmy-nominated star of “Westworld,” detailed her experiences on Instagram, and more people came forward with similar accusations against Mr. Manson — including Ms. Bianco — he was dropped by his record label and agents, cut from various TV guest roles and eventually jettisoned by Mr. Ciulla, who had represented him for 25 years.Mr. Ciulla is also known for representing acts including the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and First Aid Kit. In a statement, Edwin F. McPherson, a lawyer for Ciulla Management, said that naming the company in the lawsuit “is not only legally meritless but also offensive and absurd. We look forward to formally contesting these completely frivolous allegations.”The actress Esmé Bianco said in a lawsuit that she was sexually assaulted by Marilyn Manson after he lured her to live with him with “fraudulent offers of movie and music video roles.”Angela Weiss/Agence France-Presse, via Getty ImagesIn February, when Ms. Wood, a longtime advocate for survivors of sexual and domestic abuse, named Mr. Manson as her abuser, he denied her claims broadly in an Instagram post: “Obviously, my art and my life have long been magnets for controversy, but these recent claims about me are horrible distortions of reality,” he wrote. “My intimate relationships have always been entirely consensual with like-minded partners. Regardless of how — and why — others are now choosing to misrepresent the past, that is the truth.”The Special Victims Bureau of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office began investigating the domestic violence allegations against Mr. Manson in February, it said in a statement.Ms. Bianco, who played Ros on “Game of Thrones,” was promised a starring role in a film Mr. Manson said he was making when she moved from London to Los Angeles in 2011 to be with him, the suit said. Instead, the suit said, he began to control her movements, kept her awake for days at a time, forbade her from receiving visitors at his home and threatened to interfere with her visa process. She eventually escaped, the suit said, while he was sleeping.Mr. Ciulla and others around Mr. Manson knew of or witnessed his abuse of Ms. Bianco, according to the lawsuit, which called them “complicit” in the conduct: “Mr. Warner’s management had a vested interest in supporting his violent tendencies to encourage the creation of his ‘art’ and the promotion of the brand of Marilyn Manson.”Ms. Bianco said the relationship left her with post-traumatic stress disorder and panic attacks, and disrupted her career. Like Ms. Wood, she has become an advocate for survivors. Both women helped sponsor the Phoenix Act, California legislation which took effect last year. It lengthens the statute of limitations for domestic abuse felonies to five years, and expands training for officers working on domestic violence cases.In a statement, Ms. Bianco said that, even as she worked to amend the legal system on behalf of survivors, “I am also pursuing my right to demand my abuser be held to account, using every avenue available to me.”“For far too long my abuser has been left unchecked, enabled by money, fame and an industry that turned a blind eye,” Ms. Bianco said in the statement. Her hope, she added, is that by coming forward, “I will help to stop Brian Warner from shattering any more lives and empower other victims to seek their own small measure of justice.” More

  • in

    How Scott Rudin Wielded Power in Show Business

    Scott Rudin has long been one of the most celebrated and powerful producers in Hollywood and, especially, on Broadway — an EGOT who won an Emmy, a Grammy, an Oscar and 17 Tony Awards while developing a reputation as one of the vilest bosses in the industry.Respected for his taste and talent — with films like “The Social Network” and “No Country for Old Men” and shows including “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Book of Mormon” — he is also known within the entertainment world for terrorizing underlings, hurling staplers, cellphones, mugs and other improvised projectiles in moments of rage.But the abuse of assistants is just a small part of the way he has wielded his power.He has a reputation for being vengeful: After a dispute with an agent over airfare, he allegedly pressured some of the agent’s clients to leave him. He is litigious: He sued an insurance company seeking an enormous payout after he blamed the closing of a musical on the pregnancy of a star, Audra McDonald. And he can be callous: When Rita Wilson, who was starring in one of his plays, told him that she had breast cancer, she said, he lamented that she would need to take time off during Tony voting season.Mr. Rudin has won 17 Tony Awards for shows he has produced, including “Hello, Dolly!,” which won best musical revival in 2017.Sara Krulwich/The New York Times“He’s like a mafia boss,” said the playwright Adam Rapp, whose play “The Sound Inside” was unceremoniously dumped by Mr. Rudin when Mr. Rapp refused to part with the agent with whom Mr. Rudin was feuding. “If he breaks his leg, other people suffer.”Now, though, the 62-year-old producer is facing a reckoning. An article this month in The Hollywood Reporter detailing his long history of bullying assistants prompted an outcry, leading Mr. Rudin to announce that he would step back from “active participation” in his projects on Broadway, in Hollywood, and in London’s West End. And, in written responses to questions for this article, he said he was “profoundly sorry” for his behavior and revealed that he is resigning from the Broadway League, which is the trade association of producers and theater owners.“I know apologizing is not, by any means, enough,’’ he said. “In stepping back, I intend to work on my issues and do so fully aware that many will feel that this is too little and too late.”For decades Mr. Rudin had largely escaped consequences for his behavior. Established and emerging artists flocked to him, in part because of his appetite for artistically ambitious (and often award-winning) work. But he also benefited from his reputation for ruthlessness: Many of those harmed by his wrath have been afraid of retaliation if they speak out.The current backlash against his behavior — on Thursday he was denounced at a march for change on Broadway — has left Mr. Rudin an immobilized impresario just as Broadway is preparing to put tickets back on sale following a lengthy pandemic shutdown. Mr. Rudin, who had been set to play a key role in theater’s post-Covid comeback as one of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s advisers on reopening, finds himself sidelined.Demonstrators seeking change in the theater industry on Thursday chanted “Scott Rudin has got to go.” As they marched through town, they passed the theater where “The Music Man,” Mr. Rudin’s next big show, is scheduled to begin performances in December. Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesEven some of his biggest backers say he needs to change.“He’s had a bad temper,” said the billionaire David Geffen, who alongside his fellow mogul Barry Diller has been co-producing Mr. Rudin’s recent Broadway shows, “and he clearly needs to do anger management or something like that.”The New York Times interviewed dozens of actors, writers, agents, producers, investors and office assistants who have worked with Mr. Rudin, examined financial records of his stage shows and reviewed court papers from his many legal disputes. What emerged confirmed much of what was detailed by The Hollywood Reporter and provided a fuller picture of how he used and abused power, not only in his offices, but also as he alternately cultivated and castigated colleagues at all levels of the entertainment industry.“There’s always, with Scott, two sides to the coin, depending on what he wants,” said Robert Fox, a British producer who collaborated with Mr. Rudin for a decade until, as happens with many of Mr. Rudin’s relationships, the two had a contentious falling out. “He can treat people impeccably well, or disgracefully badly, and there’s not much in between.”After Mr. Rudin’s decades of dominance, his comeuppance — if that’s what it is — arrives as the entertainment industry is contemplating a post-pandemic future that many hope will look different from the past.‘It’s crazy that so many in the industry know about it.’The Rudin employee handbook, distributed to new staffers, outlines strict rules of conduct. “Rude, offensive or outrageous behavior” is verboten. Co-workers must treat one another with “patience, respect and consideration.” Be courteous and helpful. Don’t send angry or rude emails.But employees swiftly learned that there was one person to whom those rules did not apply: the boss.Mistakes, real and imagined, sent Mr. Rudin into a rage — an incorrect font (he insists on Garamond), a misspelled name, an unwiped conference table.Mr. Rudin routinely screamed and swore: “Why are you so stupid?” “You’re a hopeless idiot.” “A clown car is running this office.” “You’re a pathetic loser.”“It’s crazy that so many in the industry know about it and nothing has changed,” said Josh Arnon, 25, who worked in Mr. Rudin’s office.Vincent Tullo for The New York TimesFormer employees said he threw things at walls, at windows, at the ground, and, occasionally, toward subordinates.In 2018 he sent a glass bowl airborne, shattering it against a conference room wall, according to several people who were there; another time he smashed a computer on an employee’s hand, several ex-employees said. A former assistant, Jonathan Bogush, said he saw Mr. Rudin hurl a plateful of chicken salad into another assistant’s face when he worked there in 2003.Sometimes frightened assistants hid in the kitchen or a closet to escape his wrath.Some assistants kept spare phones to replace those that got destroyed when thrown by Mr. Rudin. There were also extra laptops — to replace those he broke — and his contact list was backed up to a master computer nicknamed the Dragon.His behavior prompted outrage after it was described earlier this month in The Hollywood Reporter. It had also been described, to less effect, in multiple other accounts over the years.Mr. Rudin offered both an apology and a bit of pushback to the stories being told about him as a boss. “While I believe some of the stories that have been made public recently are not accurate, I am aware of how inappropriate certain of my behaviors have been and the effects of those behaviors on other people,” he said. “I am not proud of these actions.”In the fall of 2018, Mr. Rudin’s employees gathered for harassment prevention training. The producer had a simple but revealing question for the trainer.“He said, ‘You can get up in their face, right?’” said Caroline Rugo, then working as the office manager’s assistant, reading from notes she said she took at the meeting. “‘And you can yell, right, just as long as you don’t make physical contact?’” (Mr. Rudin disputed that description, saying, “I asked for a series of specific definitions of harassment for the much younger people on the staff.”)Caroline Rugo, a former assistant to Mr. Rudin, said the producer treated women in his office less well than men.Rozette Rago for The New York TimesAt Mr. Rudin’s prepandemic Times Square offices — which he moved out of last summer — he often holed up in a conference room. Two assistants described a sign on the door: “Turn around. Do not come in. There is nothing here for you.”For some, this was Tinsel Town boot camp, a place to gain irreplaceable insight into the entertainment world. Many former assistants have risen in the Hollywood ranks, and credit Scott Rudin Productions with versing them in the ways of the industry. They laud Mr. Rudin’s perfectionism, his acumen, instincts — “a golden gut,” said one — and his relentless work ethic. Some former assistants defended him, saying that employees were always warned that the job was high stress, and suggesting that he was becoming a fall guy for widespread bad behavior in show business.But more than two dozen ex-employees shared memories of colleagues being excoriated: An intern receptionist was fired for moving too slowly to alert maintenance about a flickering ceiling light. A publicist sat quaking as Mr. Rudin punched the wall. An employee was fired for falling asleep while working late. Another was kicked out of a car on a highway after mispronouncing a name (the vehicle first pulled to the shoulder). An office manager was taken away by ambulance after having a panic attack.Mr. Rudin was especially hard on female assistants, according to nearly a dozen former employees, chastising and firing them with greater frequency. Ms. Rugo said Mr. Rudin was more likely to chat with male interns, and more likely to demand that female interns clean the conference room.Many wondered how artists who consider themselves politically enlightened could be so eager to work with Mr. Rudin, knowing how badly he treated his employees.“People are acting like the industry is changing, but the fact that someone like Scott is still in power makes me doubtful of that,” said Josh Arnon, 25, who worked at Mr. Rudin’s office from October 2018 to August 2019. “It’s crazy that so many in the industry know about it and nothing has changed.”‘He’s a very volatile man. Very, very volatile.’Over a decades-long career, Mr. Rudin built a reputation as a tastemaker admired for his skill at harnessing the talent and the money to present adventurous work too risky for most other commercial producers, often to critical acclaim. Actors, writers, directors and designers have happily worked with him again and again, saying he can be charming, insightful and supportive.In Hollywood, as the industry gravitated toward franchises and reboots, he moved toward indie fare; among his most notable recent films have been “Lady Bird,” “Isle of Dogs” and “Uncut Gems.” On Broadway, he has been the most prolific producer: Over the last 15 years, he has been a lead producer on 36 shows, mostly starry productions of serious plays, but also the megahit “Book of Mormon,” which has grossed a whopping $659 million on Broadway over its decade-long run.“The Book of Mormon” is the longest-running hit produced by Mr. Rudin; it opened in 2011.Richard Perry/The New York TimesHe has had a knack for bridging the worlds of theater and film, luring movie stars to Broadway and finding film jobs for stage actors, directors and writers. His productions have starred a who’s who of entertainment, including Denzel Washington, Larry David, Chris Rock, Michelle Williams and Laurie Metcalf.But he has also racked up a long list of people who have had enough.“He’s super-bright, he’s incredibly motivated, he has really good taste, and he can be incredibly good company,” said Mr. Fox, who co-produced films (“The Hours”) and plays (“Skylight”) with Mr. Rudin. “But he’s also very controlling — and became more so as the years wore on — and I don’t believe anyone could put their hand up and say they weren’t aware that he treated his staff really badly.”“He’s a very volatile man,” Mr. Fox added. “Very, very volatile.”Mr. Rudin expresses that volatility not only verbally, but also in writing — he’s known for sending vitriolic emails, and often copying others. Amanda Lundberg, chief executive of the publicity firm 42West, recalled being copied on an email in which he described another woman using a vulgar synonym for vagina. “He wanted an audience to his cruel berating,” she said.“I feel embarrassment for the many that not only did have the power to stand up to him and walk away, but chose to gleefully and dutifully protect him instead,” she added. “Everyone knows who they are.”A few actors and writers who worked with Mr. Rudin have begun to share stories about his bad behavior.Rita Wilson, who learned that she had breast cancer while appearing in Larry David’s play “Fish in the Dark,” said that when she told Mr. Rudin, the producer, he made her feel “replaceable.” Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesIn 2015, Ms. Wilson learned she had breast cancer while starring in a Rudin production of Larry David’s play “Fish in the Dark.” When she told Mr. Rudin the news, she said, he complained that she would need time off during Tony voting season and asked to see her medical records, while Anna Shapiro, the director, grew upset about having to find a replacement.A few days later, as she was about to go onstage, Ms. Wilson received a call from her agent, saying her surgeon needed to call the insurance adjuster immediately, per Mr. Rudin’s demands. The memory still pains her.“I felt like he was trying to find a way to fire me legally,” Ms. Wilson said. “He is the kind of person who makes someone feel worthless, unvaluable and replaceable.”Ms. Shapiro said she had been trying to be helpful and had immediately apologized when it became clear that she had unintentionally upset Ms. Wilson; Rick Miramontez, a spokesman for Mr. Rudin, said that Mr. Rudin’s recollection was that Ms. Wilson had wanted to open the show and then leave, but that he and the director had not wanted her to delay treatment. Ms. Wilson stayed in the play — another actor performed her part during her time off — and today is cancer free.‘She just got whipsawed, and it was wrong.’It was early 2019, and “West Side Story” still didn’t have its Maria or its Anita.The production scheduled an audition in New York — not unusual, except that the show’s Belgian director and choreographer were both in Europe.Mr. Rudin demanded that the agent they both used, Mark Subias, pick up their airfare, and when the agent refused, Mr. Rudin began to threaten — to fire the director, to cancel the production, to damage the agent’s career, according to five people told of the incident. (Mr. Subias declined to comment.)In the end, Mr. Rudin stuck with the show, which opened to sharply divided reviews and packed houses.Mr. Rudin is the lead producer of an avant-garde revival of “West Side Story” that opened on Broadway last year. At the opening night party he spoke with Jordan Roth, right, the president of Jujamcyn Theaters. Krista Schlueter for The New York TimesBut Mr. Rudin said he wouldn’t work with Mr. Subias’s clients, and then dropped planned projects with some of them.Among those affected, according to several people familiar with the incident: the playwright Sarah Ruhl. Mr. Rudin had planned to bring her next play, “Becky Nurse of Salem,” to Broadway, with Sam Gold as the director and Kathy Bates as the star. Mr. Rudin reportedly told Ms. Ruhl to drop her agent; when she refused, he dropped her play.Ms. Bates and Mr. Gold both left the project, and instead of going to Broadway the play wound up at Berkeley Repertory Theater in California; its next stop is supposed to be at one of Lincoln Center Theater’s Off Broadway venues in 2022. Both theaters are prestigious, but they are less visible and pay less well than Broadway. (Ms. Ruhl declined to comment.)“It was so sad that Sarah Ruhl became the victim of this battle,” said Susie Medak, the managing director of Berkeley Rep, who confirmed the change to the show’s team. “There are so few women presented on Broadway, and here was an opportunity to have a Broadway show that was so lovely, and had such a starring role for this actress, and to have that fall apart over this totally unnecessary battle between these two guys was a truly unfortunate episode. She just got whipsawed, and it was wrong.”Mark Subias, a prominent agent who represents many theater artists, was targeted for punishment by Mr. Rudin after the two men had a financial dispute. He is shown here with Joni Evans, a former book publishing executive.Krista Schlueter for The New York TimesAlso affected: Mr. Rapp, the playwright. Mr. Rudin had pledged to bring his play, “The Sound Inside,” to Broadway, he said. When Mr. Rapp refused to drop Mr. Subias as his agent, Mr. Rudin dropped the production, he added. The producer Jeffrey Richards stepped in to present it on Broadway last season, and now it is a Tony nominee for best play.Mr. Rudin acknowledged the rift with Mr. Subias, which he attributed to a “very, very costly situation” involving a disagreement over dates, and said: “I felt I had no choice but to stop doing business with him. We have since moved past the issue.”Investors are frustrated. Enter the billionaires.The lavishly nostalgic 2017 Broadway production of “Hello, Dolly!” was a can’t-miss event: a beloved Bette Midler chewing the scenery in a musical with lots of it.Tickets sold fast — especially for the weeks when Ms. Midler was performing — and fetched eye-popping prices, topping out at $998 during a holiday week.Investors in the show were gleeful, as huge advance sales, boffo grosses and top-tier prices suggested a monster hit. But, in the end, they made only a tiny profit, and many are now grumbling.“I’ve invested in a bunch of Rudin shows,” said Gabby Hanna, a Cape Cod real estate agent who said she put $50,000 into “Dolly” and made only a $5,000 profit, “and after ‘Dolly’ I said I would never do it again.”Over the last 15 years, Mr. Rudin has raised about $200 million from a variety of investors to finance his stage shows, according to a review of Securities and Exchange Commission filings for each show. But some investors have grown frustrated with his big-spending, low-return track record: Over the last five years, about three-quarters of his Broadway shows have lost money, according to a review of recoupment and closing announcements and discussions with industry leaders.Mr. Rudin has been a master of the art of star casting. Bette Midler’s performance made a revival of “Hello, Dolly!” a must-see event, but some investors were disappointed with the show’s low rate of return.Sara Krulwich/The New York Times“Dolly” investors said in interviews that they had no way of really understanding why their returns were low — very little financial data was shared with them — but some said they believed Mr. Rudin had compensated Ms. Midler so generously, spent so heavily on marketing, and kept so much for himself that there was little left to share with them.Mr. Rudin said suggestions that he spent too much on himself were “not true.”“I have repeatedly (on nearly every show) at various points given up hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees owed to myself to keep shows running,” he said, “and I have spent on top of that millions of my own money keeping shows running.”“Dolly” cost $16 million to put together and ran for 76 weeks, selling 811,203 tickets for a total of $128 million, according to financial filings and the Broadway League. The show’s weekly expenses were high — as much as $1.2 million — and opening night, which included a star-studded party at the New York Public Library, cost $842,000, according to documents filed with the New York state attorney general’s office.Several “Dolly” investors said their disappointment was compounded because they had felt pressured to also put money into Mr. Rudin’s plays that spring — a revival of “The Glass Menagerie” and a new play called “A Doll’s House, Part 2,” both of which closed early after performing poorly at the box office.Some of the investors are now closely watching litigation between Mr. Rudin and SpotCo, a marketing firm that claims in a pending lawsuit that he owes the company $6.3 million. (Mr. Rudin’s lawyer said the case had no merit when it was filed last summer.)Recently, Mr. Rudin found a way to avoid dealing with smaller investors: He turned to a pair of billionaires, Mr. Diller and Mr. Geffen, to finance his stage shows. Mr. Diller, the chairman of IAC/InterActiveCorp, was once Mr. Rudin’s boss at 20th Century Fox, while Mr. Geffen is a longtime record industry and film executive and a patron of the arts.In interviews last week, both men said that Mr. Rudin’s behavior was a problem but held out hope that he would change.“I don’t condone, nor am I an apologist for, actions relating to his work in his personal office,” Mr. Diller said, adding that he thought that “separate and special consideration” should be given “to his work outside of that office.”Mr. Geffen said that Mr. Rudin has “a psychological problem that he needs to deal with if he’s going to work in the future.”And would Mr. Geffen work with him again?“If his behavior didn’t change it would be an easy no,” Mr. Geffen said, but, he added, “I don’t think a death sentence is called for if he gets the help he needs and his behavior changes.”“I don’t condone, nor am I an apologist for, actions relating to his work in his personal office.” — Barry DillerAmy Lombard for The New York Times“He’s had a bad temper and he clearly needs to do anger management or something like that.” — David GeffenPaul Bruinooge/Patrick McMullan, via Getty ImagesIn an era of outspokenness, many artists remain silent.Mr. Rudin has made strenuous efforts to prevent people from talking about him, not just through intimidation, but also as a prolific user of nondisclosure agreements.Confidentiality agreements reviewed by The Times bar employees from cooperating with interviews about him, and prohibit disclosing “any aspect of any activity occurring at, in, or about any home, office, or other property owned, occupied, or used by Scott Rudin or any of his family members.” And a provision in the operating agreement for some of his shows bars investors from making “negative remarks.”In essays this week, two artists who have worked with Mr. Rudin, Tavi Gevinson and Michael Chabon, have reflected on not pushing back against what they knew about his behavior.But many of his powerful collaborators have declined to respond to inquiries about him. Among them: actors including Mr. Washington, Ms. Metcalf and Jennifer Lawrence; the directors Wes Anderson, the Coen brothers, Noah Baumbach, Greta Gerwig and Alex Garland; the writers Aaron Sorkin and Lucas Hnath; and the former studio executive Amy Pascal, as well as the studios that Mr. Rudin has recently been working with, A24 and FX Productions.Mr. Rudin won an Academy Award in 2008 when the Coen brothers film “No Country for Old Men,” which he produced, won best picture.Monica Almeida/The New York TimesSome of Mr. Rudin’s battles have become public through the legal system — he has been sued by Stephen Sondheim (over the rights to a musical) and the estates of Harper Lee (over the fidelity of the “Mockingbird” adaptation) and Tennessee Williams (over unpaid royalties).He battled an insurance company over losses from a musical after attributing its closing to the unexpected pregnancy of one of its stars, Ms. McDonald, which led to lengthy wrangling over who knew what about her reproductive health. That case was settled last year. (Ms. McDonald declined to comment.)Mr. Rudin’s 2018 production of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” in a new adaptation by Aaron Sorkin, began with litigation against the estate of Harper Lee and threats to small theaters staging their own productions, but also became a successful show. Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesHe demanded that theaters around the country cancel productions of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” saying they might compete with the Broadway version. (After a backlash, he offered a face-saving compromise.)And his pique has manifested in other ways as well. In the summer of 2017, a representative of “1984,” a play produced by Mr. Rudin, barred a Tony nominator, Jose Antonio Vargas, from watching the show. Mr. Vargas said he was already inside the theater, holding a valid ticket, when a member of the show’s staff ordered him out. (Mr. Rudin did not dispute the episode, but said he “had a very unfortunate incident with him years before” when Mr. Vargas was working as a journalist.)‘Your actions have made it impossible for us to keep working together.’Now Mr. Rudin’s standing is damaged and his future is in doubt. At stake are a dizzying array of prestige projects, including one of the most highly anticipated productions planned for Broadway’s first post-pandemic season: a gold-plated revival of “The Music Man” starring Hugh Jackman and Sutton Foster that is supposed to start previews in December.Some collaborators are distancing themselves from him. Matt Stone, a “South Park” creator who is one of the writers of “The Book of Mormon,” said in an interview that he and the producer Anne Garefino had given Mr. Rudin an ultimatum before the producer announced his plan to step back. “I said, ‘Your actions have made it impossible for us to keep working together,’” Mr. Stone said.Mr. Jackman and Ms. Foster have each said, in the wake of Mr. Rudin’s announcement, that they were committed to a healthy workplace at “The Music Man” and were pleased that Mr. Rudin had stepped away. (Both declined interview requests.)Mr. Rudin, asked about the role others had played in his decision, said, “I resigned from the shows so that nobody would have to defend me or defend working with me — the decisions were mine and were based on my desire to see the shows go forward.”The writer Matt Stone and the producer Anne Garefino told Mr. Rudin he needed to cease any active role with “The Book of Mormon,” shown here with Andrew Rannells, left, and Josh Gad in the original cast, because of his behavior toward his assistants.Sara Krulwich/The New York TimesMr. Rudin had many other projects planned before his behavior started to catch up with him. He was developing Broadway revivals of “Our Town” starring Dustin Hoffman, “The Piano Lesson” starring Samuel L. Jackson, and “Death of a Salesman” starring Nathan Lane. He was also planning a dance-focused new show with the acclaimed choreographer Justin Peck; a new Adam Guettel musical; and “The Black Clown,” Michael Schachter and Davóne Tines’s musical adaptation of the Langston Hughes poem.The fate of those projects, and of several films Mr. Rudin had planned to produce, is now unclear, and there are many unanswered questions. What will “stepping back” look like for Mr. Rudin, who is famous for micromanaging?Mr. Rudin did not address those specifics, including about whether he would continue to benefit financially from his shows, but said that he hoped that his shows that were running before the pandemic — “The Book of Mormon,” “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “West Side Story” — would reopen. “Other producers will replace me on these shows, and they will have decision making responsibilities that were heretofore mine,” he said.Mr. Rudin, shown here in 2005 with Al Hirschfeld caricatures of shows he produced, has been the most prolific producer on Broadway in recent years. His absence from the scene could open opportunities for others.James Estrin/The New York TimesOn Broadway, his absence could create opportunities for other producers, who have often been stymied by his propensity to lock up stories, stars, and even theater space.“You couldn’t get a theater because you were always being played off against what he might have going in,” Mr. Fox said, “and that was really difficult for people who didn’t produce the mass of product he did.”And then there are the rights Mr. Rudin had obtained to stage play revivals, new work and adaptations from books and films. He would sometimes secure rights “literally so other people can’t produce them, because he would only want his touch on them,” said Max Hoffman, 24, who worked for Mr. Rudin for nine months last year.He left, he said, because he feared the job would cause him to have “a mental breakdown.”And Mr. Rudin’s next steps? “I am doing the work to become a better person and address my issues,” he said in the statement to The Times. “Beyond that commitment, anything else would be far too early to contemplate.” More

  • in

    Past Students Say Professor of Rock ’n’ Roll Sexually Harassed Them

    Six former University of Michigan students have filed legal papers accusing a former lecturer of sexually harassing them and the school of not doing enough to protect them.During 16 years teaching at the University of Michigan, Bruce Conforth stocked his lectures with tales from a life filled with boldfaced names: He had rubbed elbows with Bob Dylan, played music alongside B.B. King, apprenticed for the abstract expressionist Willem de Kooning and befriended the poet Allen Ginsberg.Students clamored to enroll in his courses on blues music and the American counterculture, later raving about how he had changed their lives.A musician, scholar and founding curator of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, Mr. Conforth was a riveting lecturer who, in his trademark black vest and jeans, could discuss everything from Buddhism to psychedelics, and who, in 2012, was chosen teacher of the year by students.“There was almost a celebrity-like aura around him,” said Amelia Brown, who took a Conforth class called “Beatniks, Hippies and Punks” in 2016. “It wasn’t a normal class. He would go on these long tangents about life and spirituality.”But there was a dark side to Mr. Conforth, according to Ms. Brown and other women who said the teacher used his charisma and, sometimes, Svengali-like manipulation to sexually harass his students.Six of the former Michigan students have filed court papers saying they plan to sue the school, asserting it failed to protect them from sexual harassment.  Erin Kirkland for The New York TimesIn 2008, one recent graduate complained to the university that Mr. Conforth, a lecturer in the American Culture Department, had propositioned her when she was a student. The university put him on formal notice but quietly resolved the complaint. Two more women came forward, though, in 2016, to report that Mr. Conforth had worked to engage them in sexual relationships when they were his students, and, in the midst of the university’s investigation, he agreed to quietly leave his faculty position.Now six former Michigan undergraduates — the three women who previously complained and three others — have filed court papers announcing their intention to sue him and the university, asserting he engaged in a litany of sexual misconduct and the school failed to protect them.“He should have been fired,” said Isabelle Brourman, one of the women. “But they allowed him to thrive. They allowed him to win awards.”Ms. Brourman says, according to the court papers, that Mr. Conforth pressured her into a series of sexual encounters, some of them in his campus office, and later, after she had graduated, raped her in his Ann Arbor apartment.A second former student, Ms. Brown, said she was pressured into a sexual encounter with Mr. Conforth after he told her he had feelings for her and pursued her for several weeks. A third woman said he aggressively kissed her. The other plaintiffs say Mr. Conforth propositioned them to have sexual relationships, at times sending them sexually-charged messages or emails and persisting even after they said no. One woman said he gave her a raccoon penis, suggesting it was a talisman.Mr. Conforth declined to discuss the accusations. “I’ve tried to move on with my life,” he said in a brief phone conversation. “This is a past issue.”The university said it handled the 2008 complaint against Mr. Conforth appropriately and set firm restrictions on his behavior. When the subsequent complaints came in, it said it took swift action to investigate and that Mr. Conforth would have faced dismissal proceedings if he hadn’t agreed to retire in early 2017.“You will note in the separation agreement that the university took immediate and lasting action to assure that Mr. Conforth would not be in any further contact with U-M students, even after his employment ended,” a university spokesman said.Sexual misconduct allegations at universities across the country have sparked calls for policies that hold faculty and student offenders accountable. Last year, Michigan fired David Daniels, an opera star and voice professor, after he and his husband were charged with sexually assaulting a singer.Also last year, the university reached a $9.25 million settlement with women who accused Martin Philbert, then the school’s provost, of sexual harassment.The university said it is constantly working to improve its sexual misconduct policies in a statement that cited a number of changes it has made in recent years.Mr. Conforth arrived at Michigan in 2001 with a doctorate in ethnomusicology from Indiana University and a résumé that included his work as the founding curator with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, which he left in 1993.Since leaving Michigan, Mr. Conforth, 70, has co-written an award-winning biography of the blues singer and guitarist Robert Johnson and helped narrate a Netflix documentary about the musician.While at Michigan, Mr. Conforth was so popular that students chose him as the winner of the “Golden Apple” teaching award in 2012.But four years earlier, Katherine McMahan, a recent university graduate, had told the school about a disturbing incident the previous fall. Ms. McMahan, then 22, said she had attended a blues concert connected to Mr. Conforth’s course and, at a bar after the concert, she said he cornered her outside the bathroom, put his hand around her waist, pulled her closer to him and asked her to come home with him to sleep over. She said she declined but that he persisted until she pushed him away. (Ms. McMahan is a New York Times employee who works outside the newsroom.)Katherine McMahan, left, and Isabelle Brourman, both accuse their former teacher, Bruce Conforth, of sexual misconduct.Kholood Eid for The New York TimesMs. McMahan later received an email from a Michigan official that said the university was taking steps that “it feels are likely to deter future behavior of this nature towards students.” University records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show that after McMahan’s complaint, the school had Mr. Conforth sign a “Last Chance” agreement, which stipulated requirements he would need to fulfill to avoid termination.Other former students recount similar experiences, though they did not report them to the university. Cassie McQuater said that in 2007, when she was 20, Mr. Conforth, who was not her teacher and whom she had met only briefly, began sending her emails, declaring his love. In one, she said, he included an erotic drawing of a man and a woman with her name at the bottom. When she eventually agreed to get dinner with him, he asked her to return home with him; she declined.Lauren Lambert, who said she plans to join the intended lawsuit, said that starting in 2011, while she was his student and afterward, Mr. Conforth sent her sexually charged messages, saying he had fantasies about her.Two women said that as part of the effort to engage with them sexually, Mr. Conforth had employed the ruse of suggesting he was a member of the so-called “Order of the Illuminati,” a secret society whose mysteries were popularized in Dan Brown’s novel “Angels & Demons.” The women, Ms. Brourman and her friend, Maya Crosman, said they believed he was responsible for emails they received, purportedly from Illuminati leadership, that recommended they engage in relationships with Mr. Conforth, whom the emails called the “Chosen One.”Ms. Crosman kept a copy of one of the emails — sent from an email address designed to be anonymous — in which a person who identified themselves as Grandmaster Setis recommends she return the “intensely profound love” that Mr. Conforth had for her.The women said they thought Mr. Conforth had the potential to be a kind of spiritual and artistic mentor, but then things grew strange. In legal papers filed in a Michigan court, Ms. Brourman said Mr. Conforth invited them to an arboretum on campus where he engaged in a mysterious ritual that involved cutting off pieces of their hair and giving Ms. Brourman a series of objects, including the raccoon penis, seeds and some kind of medallion. She was warned to keep them with her, or there would be “repercussions,” the court papers said.Both women said they received what appeared to be homemade horoscopes in which it was predicted they were romantically compatible with Mr. Conforth.Ms. Crosman said Mr. Conforth inundated her with messages online, declaring his love. One included a Pablo Neruda poem that said, “I crave your mouth, your voice, your hair.” At the end of the semester, she said he forcibly kissed her and stuck his tongue in her mouth during a visit to his office.The two women said they feared reporting their encounters to the university at the time.“We were trying to protect ourselves in ways where we didn’t have to insult him, we didn’t have to fight him,” Ms. Crosman said.Maya Crosman, left, and Cassie McQuater, said that Mr. Conforth inundated them with messages, declaring his love. Ms. Crosman said he aggressively kissed her.Joyce Kim for The New York TimesThe court papers say Brourman felt intimidated by the strange emails she received, including ones that directed her to “service” Mr. Conforth. In 2014, she said they had a sexual encounter in his office on campus. After that encounter, Ms. Brourman and Mr. Conforth met regularly for “spiritual lessons” that required sex beforehand, the papers said. Ms. Brourman said in an interview that at the time, she was confused and thought she might have feelings for Mr. Conforth, but in retrospect, she said she recognizes that she was being manipulated.In fall 2017, after she had graduated, Ms. Brourman said in court papers that Mr. Conforth raped her at his apartment in Ann Arbor. She did not report it, she said, because she feared retaliation, but in February filed a complaint with the police.The two women whose complaints played a role in Mr. Conforth’s departure from Michigan approached the university after learning about each other’s accounts. Shaina Mahler had been 22 in 2014 when she said Mr. Conforth, her favorite teacher, began sending her messages on Facebook. She was flattered at first, but then the messages escalated into expressions of how attracted he was to her.When Ms. Mahler told him that she was starting to feel “confused and anxious” about his messages, Mr. Conforth apologized and said they could be friends, writing, “Please please don’t ruin my life here.” But a few days later, Mr. Conforth sent her more sexually charged messages, saying he wanted to “kiss” and “touch” her, according to court papers.Ms. Mahler let it slide until two years later, when she spoke with Ms. Brown, who recounted a nearly identical experience of being pursued by Mr. Conforth. Ms. Brown, then 21, told him several times his advances were “inappropriate,” according to notes taken by a Title IX coordinator who interviewed her. But one day in his office, when he insisted they hug, they ended up kissing too, she said.That semester, their interactions escalated into a sexual encounter in his office, and Ms. Brown told the coordinator that, at first, she believed it was consensual. She acknowledged having feelings for Mr. Conforth but told the coordinator that she quickly became anxious and conflicted after their sexual encounter. She soon recognized, she said, that she had been manipulated, especially after learning from a friend — another student in his class at the time — that Mr. Conforth had left a note for her saying that he found her attractive.Ms. Brown and Ms. Mahler reported their interactions with Mr. Conforth to the university at the end of 2016 and he retired shortly thereafter.The university said its policy is to share the school’s investigative findings with complainants and that it could not comment on individual cases. But both of the women said that the university did not alert them to the outcome of its review until last year, when Ms. Mahler said she checked in after hearing complaints from other women.“I let it go for a while,” she said, “but I always wondered.”Sheelagh McNeill contributed research. More

  • in

    Fyre Festival Ticket Holders Win $7,220 Each in Class-Action Settlement

    Nearly four years after the infamous festival stranded thousands of attendees in the Bahamas, 277 ticket holders learned they will receive payouts, pending approval.Nearly four years after an infamous festival that was billed as an ultraluxurious musical getaway in the Bahamas left attendees scrounging for makeshift shelter on a dark beach, a court has decided how much the nightmare was worth: approximately $7,220 apiece.The $2 million class-action settlement, reached Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York between organizers and 277 ticket holders from the 2017 event, is still subject to final approval, and the amount could ultimately be lower depending on the outcome of Fyre’s bankruptcy case with other creditors.But Ben Meiselas, a partner at Geragos & Geragos and the lead lawyer representing the ticket holders, said on Thursday that he was happy a resolution had at last been reached.“Billy went to jail, ticket holders can get some money back, and some very entertaining documentaries were made,” Meiselas said in an email mentioning Billy McFarland, the event’s mastermind. “Now that’s justice.”Lawyers representing the trustee charged with Fyre’s assets did not immediately respond to a request for comment.McFarland and the festival’s co-founder, the rapper Ja Rule, have faced more than a dozen lawsuits against their company, Fyre Media, in the event’s aftermath. The plaintiffs have sought millions and alleged fraud, breach of contract and more.McFarland, 29, is serving a six-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to wire fraud charges. In 2018, a court ordered him to pay $5 million to two North Carolina residents who spent about $13,000 apiece on VIP packages for the Fyre Festival.“I cannot emphasize enough how sorry I am that we fell short of our goal,” McFarland said in a 2017 statement, though he declined to address specific allegations. “I’m committed to, and working actively to, find a way to make this right, not just for investors but for those who planned to attend.”The festival, billed as “the cultural experience of the decade,” had been scheduled for two weekends beginning in late April 2017. Ticket buyers, who paid between $1,000 and $12,000 to attend, were promised an exotic island adventure with luxury accommodations, gourmet food, the hottest musical acts and celebrity attendees. Influencers including the models Kendall Jenner and Bella Hadid promoted it.But when concertgoers arrived, they were met with what the court filing describes as “total disorganization and chaos.” The “luxury accommodations” were in fact FEMA disaster relief tents, the “gourmet food” a cheese sandwich served in a Styrofoam container and the “hottest musical acts” nonexistent.The festival, which sold a total of approximately 8,000 tickets for both weekends, was canceled on the morning it was scheduled to begin, after many attendees had arrived. (The debacle spawned two documentaries, on Hulu and Netflix.)Fyre has attributed its cancellation to a combination of factors, including the weather. But some Fyre employees later said that higher-ups had invented extravagant accommodations like a $400,000 Artist’s Palace ticket package, which included four beds, eight V.I.P. tickets and dinner with a festival performer, just to see if people would buy them. (There was no such palace.) Production crew members stopped being paid as the festival date neared.Mark Geragos, another lawyer at the firm that represented ticket buyers in Tuesday’s settlement, filed the initial $100 million class-action lawsuit days after the event, which stated that Ja Rule and McFarland had known for months that their festival “was dangerously underequipped and posed a serious danger to anyone in attendance.” McFarland faced a second class-action lawsuit two days later.A hearing to approve Tuesday’s settlement is set for May 13. More

  • in

    Filmmaker’s Suit Says A&E Networks Suppressed ‘Watergate’ Series

    The director, Charles Ferguson, said in a lawsuit that an executive was concerned about the “negative reaction it would provoke among Trump supporters and the Trump administration.”“Watergate,” a four-hour documentary examining the scandal that ended Richard Nixon’s presidency, had its world premiere in 2018 at the Telluride Film Festival, an event known to foretell future Oscar nominations. It went on to be shown at the New York Film Festival and several others, collecting positive reviews that highlighted allusions the series made to the Trump presidency.It aired on the History Channel over three days in early November, just before the 2018 midterm elections. To the filmmaker’s surprise, it was never broadcast on American television again.The writer and director of the documentary, the award-winning filmmaker Charles Ferguson, is now suing the company that owns the History Channel, A&E Networks, asserting it suppressed the dissemination of his mini-series because it was worried about potential backlash to allusions the documentary makes to the Trump White House.In the lawsuit filed Friday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr. Ferguson accuses the company of attempting to delay the documentary until after the 2018 midterm elections because a History Channel executive feared it would offend the White House and Trump supporters.“He was concerned about the impact of ‘Watergate’ upon ratings in ‘red states,’” the lawsuit said of the executive, Eli Lehrer, “as well as the negative reaction it would provoke among Trump supporters and the Trump administration.”Mr. Ferguson resisted that plan, and the mini-series ultimately aired shortly before Election Day. But the filmmaker contends the documentary was given short shrift, despite acclaim in the film industry and previous assurances that it would receive “extremely prominent treatment.”The lawsuit describes the treatment of the documentary as part of a “pattern and practice of censorship and suppression of documentary content” at A&E Networks, and cites several others that it says were subject to attempted manipulation for political or economic reasons.A&E called the lawsuit meritless and the assertion that the documentary was suppressed “absurd,” saying its decision to not rebroadcast it additional times was based on lower than expected ratings.In a statement, the company said it has routinely given a platform to storytellers “to present their unvarnished vision without regard for partisan politics.” It pointed to its partnership with former President Bill Clinton, formed during the Trump administration, to produce a documentary series about the American presidency and the fact that a subsidiary, Propagate, had produced the four-part docu-series “Hillary,” on the life of Hillary Clinton.“A&E invested millions of dollars in this project and promoted it extensively,” the company said of “Watergate” in its statement. “Among other efforts, we hired multiple outside PR agencies, provided advance screeners to the press, and submitted it to film festivals and for awards consideration.”Charles Ferguson, whose film “Inside Job” won an Oscar in 2011, says that A&E Networks did not fulfill a promise to fully promote his documentary on the Watergate scandal.Associated PressMr. Ferguson’s “Watergate” is a deep dive into events set off by the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the cover up by the Nixon administration. It includes interviews with people who were involved in the events — such as John Dean, President Nixon’s White House counsel — as well as reporters who covered them, including Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Lesley Stahl. The New York Times’s co-chief film critic, A.O. Scott, wrote that the documentary tells a story that is “part political thriller and part courtroom drama, with moments of Shakespearean grandeur and swerves into stumblebum comedy,” though other reviews panned the film’s re-creations by actors.Mr. Ferguson, who is best known for his Oscar-winning 2010 documentary “Inside Job,” said that when he started pitching the project in 2015, he imagined it as a straightforward “historical detective story.” But, the suit says, a drumbeat of events involving the Trump administration made him realize the documentary’s renewed political relevance. In 2017, he watched as Mr. Trump fired his F.B.I. director, as the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials, and as the potential for impeachment loomed.The series — which Mr. Ferguson said cost about $4.5 million to produce — does not mention Mr. Trump’s name, but the documentary’s subtitle, “How We Learned to Stop an Out of Control President,” was a nod toward his administration.The lawsuit hinges on a conversation between Mr. Ferguson and A&E executives in June 2018, before the film was released. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Lehrer, executive vice president and head of programming at the History Channel, said at that meeting that he would seek to delay the premiere of “Watergate” and “sharply lower” its publicity profile, expressing concern about its relevance to the politics of the moment and the reaction it would provoke from the Trump administration and Trump supporters.Mr. Ferguson has worked to collect pieces of evidence to support his contentions, among them an email he provided to The New York Times in which Mr. Lehrer acknowledged discussing the bipartisan nature of the network’s audience. In the email, Mr. Lehrer also denied the network was trying to suppress the documentary, writing that the rationale for exploring different airdates was to avoid the series getting swallowed up by heavy sports programming and election coverage.Mr. Ferguson’s contract did not specify how many times the network would show the documentary or whether it would receive theatrical distribution, though successful ones are typically broadcast multiple times.Nielsen ratings from the time show that “Watergate” earned only 529,000 viewers when it aired, including seven days of delayed viewing, compared to History Channel’s other multi-episode documentaries like “Grant” which bowed in May to 4.4 million viewers, or “Washington,” which drew an audience of 3.3 million in February 2020.Had the ratings been stronger, A&E says, it would have broadcast the series multiple times and it would have had a greater chance of securing additional licenses either with a streaming service or with international distributors.“The fact is that Watergate, which premiered in prime time on Mr. Ferguson’s desired date, drastically underachieved in the ratings, which was disappointing to all of us,” the company said in its statement.Mr. Ferguson’s documentary chronicles the aftermath of the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, which started the downfall of the Nixon presidency.  Associated PressBut the lawsuit says A&E Networks damaged Mr. Ferguson financially by, among other things, failing to make any “meaningful” distribution deals or arrange for advertising outside of the network. It says Mr. Ferguson traded a lower-than-normal director’s fee in his contract for a higher cut of the royalties, believing that if the documentary was successful, the majority of the viewership revenue would stem from sales to streaming services, foreign cable channels and other customers.One of the A&E executives named as a defendant, Michael Stiller — the vice president of programming and development at the History Channel — had told Mr. Ferguson that there would be rebroadcasts and required him to make slightly shorter versions of the episodes for daytime slots, but those never occurred, according to the lawsuit.The company noted the documentary is available on several services, which include iTunes, Amazon Prime Video and Google Play, including its own video-on-demand platform, History Vault.Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit argues that the company executives interfered with his contract, and defamed him by telling industry executives he was difficult to work with, thereby costing him work. In addition to Mr. Lehrer and Mr. Stiller, the other named defendants include Robert Sharenow, the network’s president of programming, and Molly Thompson, its former head of documentary films. Ms. Thompson declined to comment. Mr. Lehrer, Mr. Stiller and Mr. Sharenow did not respond to requests for comment.The lawsuit cites several examples where Mr. Ferguson said he learned about conflicts between A&E executives and documentary filmmakers, including a dispute concerning “Gretchen Carlson: Breaking the Silence,” a 2019 documentary on Lifetime about sexual harassment in working-class industries. The suit says A&E executives questioned including information about McDonald’s, an advertiser. The information was ultimately included after the producers fought for it, but the episode was only aired once, on a Saturday at 10 p.m., the lawsuit said. A spokeswoman for Ms. Carlson declined to comment.The lawsuit also says Mr. Ferguson learned about a dispute regarding a 2019 A&E documentary called “Biography: The Trump Dynasty” that examines Mr. Trump’s life and family history. According to the lawsuit, A&E executives wanted the production company behind the documentary, Left/Right Productions, to add in the voice of a “Trump apologist” who could “justify” aspects of Mr. Trump’s background, a request that the suit says generated “significant tensions” between the network executives and the production company executives.Left/Right, which works with The New York Times on some documentary productions, did not respond to requests for comment. The Times did not have a role in any of the programming cited in Mr. Ferguson’s suit.Jack Begg contributed research. More

  • in

    A Timeline of James Levine's Final Years

    The conductor’s last years at the Metropolitan Opera included a comeback, health woes and the sexual misconduct allegations that ended his career.In the final years of his life, the conductor James Levine, who had shaped the Metropolitan Opera for more than four decades and who died on March 9, returned to his podium after a career-threatening injury; was eased out as music director after health woes made it difficult for him to fulfill his duties; and was fired from his new position as music director emeritus after multiple allegations of sexual misconduct with young men and teenagers surfaced.2013: The ComebackAfter injuring his spine in a fall and being sidelined for more than two years, Levine returned in triumph to his podium at the Met. The company welcomed him back with fanfare, making the orchestra pit wheelchair accessible and installing new lifts and ramps and a rising mechanical podium called the “maestro lift.” He allowed a reporter to watch his rehearsals.2016: Worsening Health and an Emeritus RoleAfter declining health related to Parkinson’s disease made it difficult for musicians and singers to follow his conducting, the Met tried to get him to step down as music director, but he resisted. By the end of the season, the company announced that Levine would step down and take an emeritus role that would allow him to conduct regularly.2017: Accusations of Sexual Misconduct SurfaceLevine was conducting regularly as music director emeritus, and being given high-profile assignments by the company, when several men came forward to say that Levine had sexually abused them when they were teenagers. The Met suspended him and started an investigation.2018: Levine Is Fired by the MetThe Met fired Levine, saying that an investigation it commissioned “uncovered credible evidence that Mr. Levine engaged in sexually abusive and harassing conduct toward vulnerable artists in the early stages of their careers, over whom Mr. Levine had authority.”2018-2020: Dueling Lawsuits and a SettlementLevine sued the Met for breach for contract and defamation; the Met countersued, detailing some of the abuse its investigation uncovered. Almost all of Levine’s defamation charges were dismissed, but the contractual case continued. The Met and its insurer eventually agreed to pay Levine $3.5 million; his contract as music director emeritus lacked a morals clause.2021: Levine Dies at 77 More

  • in

    Another Possible Aretha Franklin Will Surfaces in Estate Dispute

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAnother Possible Aretha Franklin Will Surfaces in Estate DisputeLawyers for two of the singer’s sons say the document was in the files of a law firm she had engaged to help her with estate planning.Aretha Franklin was initially thought to have died without a will, but now still another document that may  represent her last wishes has been found.Credit…Paul Natkin/Getty ImagesMarch 11, 2021Updated 6:08 p.m. ETThe estate of Aretha Franklin just got a bit more complicated.When the legendary singer died at 76 in 2018, her family assumed she had no will. Then, nine months later, a few handwritten documents, which may represent two or even three wills, were found in Franklin’s home, leading to a dispute among her four sons over how her estate should be run and its assets divided.Now, a detailed document has emerged that lawyers for two of Franklin’s sons say is a draft of yet another will, from Ms. Franklin’s final years. The papers, filed in a Michigan court this week, include an eight-page document, titled “The Will of Aretha Franklin” and apparently drawn up in 2018, along with another 23 pages that lay out the terms of a trust.Both are stamped “draft,” and neither document has her signature.According to the lawyers in their filing, Ms. Franklin had retained a Detroit lawyer, Henry M. Grix, to help with her estate planning. The filing includes correspondence from Mr. Grix, dated December 2017, in which he summarizes an estate plan for Ms. Franklin, asks her some questions and refers to earlier discussions between them. The filing includes further handwritten notes, said to be from Ms. Franklin, in which she lists family members and other lawyers, along with her properties.The filing, by lawyers for her sons Ted White Jr. and Clarence Franklin, says the documents show that Ms. Franklin had been in discussions with Mr. Grix “for over two years,” and that the correspondence included her initials. After Ms. Franklin “fell very ill,” they said, another lawyer informed Mr. Grix that she was unable to sign.It is not clear how the document would affect ongoing negotiations over the estate, which has an estimated worth of as much as $80 million. The discovery of the handwritten wills upset the peace among Ms. Franklin’s sons and led to the resignation of her niece, Sabrina Owens, as executor.The new draft will would establish a trust to benefit Clarence, who has a mental illness, and would otherwise largely split Ms. Franklin’s assets among her three other sons, Mr. White and Kecalf and Edward Franklin, along with specific bequests to other relatives. That would not differ much from the likely outcome in the event Ms. Franklin had no will at all; in that case, under Michigan law, her estate would simply be divided among her four children.But the new draft will does call into question the handwritten documents found previously. The latest of those, dated 2014, would give a greater share to Kecalf, Ms. Franklin’s youngest son, and less to Clarence. A trial to determine whether any of the handwritten documents should be formally declared a will, and thus govern the estate, is set for August.The filing this week says little about how the draft documents were found. But in response to questions from The New York Times, Joseph P. Buttiglieri, a lawyer who represents the guardian for Clarence Franklin, said the documents had been turned over late last year in response to a subpoena.The filing actually says the documents were discovered in 2019, but Mr. Buttiglieri said that was a mistake.“The file was received by my office in response to a subpoena on or about Dec. 18, 2020,” Mr. Buttiglieri added. He declined to elaborate further.Mr. Grix declined to comment.Although the document was not signed by Ms. Franklin, under Michigan law it could be accepted as a valid will, said David P. Lucas, a lawyer in Battle Creek, Mich., who is the chair of the probate and estate planning section of the State Bar of Michigan, and is not involved with Ms. Franklin’s case.“If the person who wants this to be Aretha Franklin’s will can prove in court by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Franklin wanted this to be her will,” Mr. Lucas said, “then yes, the court may decide that this is her will.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More