Monday, February 11, 2008

What do Ariel Levy and Simon Cowell have in Common?

Neither one has any idea who Clay Aiken is. One of them couldn't recognize a star if he tripped over it and the other needs to get out of her fascination with what goes on in everyone's pants long enough to take a breath of fresh air.

The following is an example of how to conduct an interview, Ariel. Ask questions relevant to the artist's work and report the answers without the smartass mocking of a highly talented and decent man that you stooped to in your piece. I understand that Clay Aiken is everything that you are not, but you're supposed to be a journalist, Ariel. Surely the fact that he is talented, polite, straight and male shouldn't be an impediment to your ability to report honestly and in the present. Surely you noticed that you had the man right there in front of you. He was there to be interviewed for gawdsakes. What made you think that taking select quotes from a book that was written years ago and using them, out of context, to paint a skewed and unflattering image of Clay Aiken was a good idea? It smacks of a desperate need to promote an agenda that does not reflect the real man, but rather a caricature that you were determined to create, with or without his input.

Kathy Henderson, Senior Editor at Broadway.com wrote the kind of article and interview that Ariel Levy of New York Magazine should aspire to write some day.



Clay Aiken
by Kathy Henderson

Everybody knows that Clay Aiken can sing, but—surprise!—he can also hold his own on a Broadway stage. To be more precise, he can hula, ogle scantily clad girls, discuss flying coconuts in a British accent, pretend to poop in his tunic, do a Cossack-style line dance and perform a lightning-fast patter song ("You won't succeed on Broadway if you don't have any Jews") without dropping a syllable.

As Sir Robin in Spamalot, the 29-year-old American Idol runner-up appears perfectly at ease in the world of Monty Python, which, he recently claimed, he thought was a person until he saw the show. The "fish out of water" angle of Clay Aiken starring in Spamalot has already led to a couple of snarky magazine articles, including one in New York in which the writer recorded Aiken's quotes in an exaggerated imitation of his North Carolina accent. No wonder his personal publicist now keeps a sharp ear (and a stopwatch) on Aiken's interviews.

The truth is, Clay is a smart guy who knows what works for him, and he was shrewd enough to realize that Spamalot, in its own nutty way, would be a good match for his talents and his sunny sensibility. "If somebody said to me, 'Who in this cast has never done theater?' he is the last person I would have chosen," says Hannah Waddingham, the Olivier Award-nominated British musical star who joined the Tony-winning musical as the Lady of the Lake the same night Aiken debuted. Three weeks into his run, Broadway's new Sir Robin shared his impressions of life in Spamalot.



A few of my favorite questions and answers.


How did you feel after your first Broadway performance?

I thought, "Well, thank god that's over!" [Laughs.] A lot of people had asked me if I was nervous, and I didn't know the appropriate response. I really wasn't. I don't know if that's bad—to not be nervous. Yeah, it was the first time I was doing this, but the audience thing doesn't freak me out that much. I figured I was going to screw up at some point, so there's no reason to be nervous about wondering when [laughs]. It was actually somewhat relaxing, because the rehearsals are sooo grueling. It's not just the schedule, it's all the information and learning "this that, this that, this that, this that." Having the opportunity to go out and do everything you learned was kind of refreshing and kind of nice.

So, who talked you into coming to Broadway?
I wasn't talked into it. My manager is not a pushy person at all; he brings opportunities to me and says, "Think about it. If you want to do it, that's great. If you don't, you don't." We had had...I wouldn't say offers, I would say interest from a number of shows in the past.

Which ones?
I'm not telling who I didn't pick! We'd had interest, but it was never something I ever thought I'd do. Nothing really struck me as exciting, but my manager said, "You know what? If you're going to do one, I think [Spamalot] is the one to do." And I was like, "Really?" So I saw the show and then I called him and said, "How do you figure this is the one to do?" He said, "Because of that reaction—because no one is going to expect it. It's not a show where you get to sing huge ballads and moving, soaring numbers. It's something completely different, and if you're going to do something like this, you should do it not as 'I'm bored,' but as 'This is an opportunity for me to grow and learn something new and branch out a little bit.'" And that's the reason I wanted to do it.


You didn't have to audition, or try out a British accent?

Well, almost all the people I work with are British; it's been that way for five years, so I just mimic them. I did meet with [Spamalot director] Mike Nichols and we discussed some things and I did a few lines with him. They didn't ask me to sing or dance; they probably should have asked me to dance. We sat down and very casually walked through a few things that they had already asked me to do before we committed to it on either side. I think they wanted to see how they felt about it and I wanted to see how I felt about it too, so we kind of auditioned each other. I didn't audition Mike Nichols—don't say that! But I wanted to get a feel for what this would be like, because I knew it was going to be very different from what I'm used to.


That meeting obviously went well.
There was a big concern for me—and I'll speak to you about this because your outlet speaks directly to [theater] people—about what they call "stunt casting." Based on some research I did, I know that a lot of diehard Broadway fans can't stand it, so there was automatic concern that people within the industry were going to be upset that I was doing this because I took [the role] away from somebody else or I didn't earn my way; I didn't audition the way everybody else does. I was concerned about that, not just in terms of Broadway fans but people in the cast who might have wanted to see somebody else get it. And I could not have been more wrong when it comes to the people who work in the industry. There's always going to be some 13-year-old sitting at his computer in Topeka who's bitter. But every person I've worked with has been unbelievably phenomenal and welcoming.

Mike Nichols isn't known for stunt casting. And in any case, you are a natural at this. What's been the biggest challenge for you?
It's so physically demanding, which is interesting because [original Sir Robin] David Hyde Pierce is an amazing actor, but he's not a dancer and neither am I. The fact that they would ask us to do this part cracks me up. David Hibbard, who plays Patsy in the show and whose dressing room is next to mine, has become one of my favorite people because he's been so warm and inviting. He was telling me that when he first got to the show, for whatever reason they had him play Robin for two weeks, and he said he was never able to breathe because it's such a hard part. And he was in Cats for years. I said, "How interesting, because I can't breathe either!" Every single night, it just kicks my rear end! It's exhausting. So I'm not to the point where I think I've got everything right. They say that eventually your body gets used to it and it doesn't wear you out as much. I'm hoping that when that day happens, I'll be able to reflect a little bit more as I'm doing it. When I do a concert, I know the songs frontways and backways; I can sing a song and be thinking about something completely different while I'm doing it.

Is it fun to sing the show's politically incorrect song about Broadway shows needing Jews to be a success?
You know, I'm kind of politically incorrect myself. I do worry sometimes, because it's a very fine line between humor and anti-Semitism, so I'm very careful as to how I say it. It's interesting, though—the first time I saw the show, I remember that being the song I laughed the hardest at. Every time I've seen it, it always gets the biggest laugh. I don't know that I'm doing it justice because I can't really get the audience's reaction. I'll watch other people's scenes and listen to the audience laughing and enjoying themselves, but in mine, I can't hear the audience for the amount of breathing that's going on in my ear [laughs].

What are you enjoying most about being on Broadway?
I love the people I work with. I really enjoy getting there [to the theater] and talking to them and listening to what goes on backstage. It's kind of nice to have a big group of people to work with as opposed to being by yourself [doing concerts]. I've only been doing this for three weeks, so it's still new.


What's been the biggest surprise?

I think I've been surprised at how much of a family the backstage is. David [Hibbard] put together this little quiz about knowing your fellow cast and crew members and whatnot. He got tiny secrets about each person, things that no one would expect about you, and he put about 100 of them into this quiz. You would not believe how much that has occupied everybody in the building. Everybody is running around trying to figure out everybody else's thing. It's really like a family.


How does eight Broadway shows a week compare in difficulty to ten weeks of competition on American Idol?
Sixteen weeks! Without question, Idol was harder because there was the rehearsal period, kind of like I was telling you about for this, and the performance period all put together. There were so many different things involved, with eight-hour days, 10-hour days, 13, 14, every day of the week on Idol. Here, it is eight shows a week, but only two and a half hours a night. The weekends are unbelievably exhausting because we do five shows, but Idol does beat it as far as the amount of work. I don't think people understand how much work is involved for the contestants on that show. It's not just showing up on Tuesday and Wednesday night. At the same time, it's different than a touring schedule. On tour, I do five shows a week, and they're not as physically exhausting because I'm not dancing. But I'm sleeping on a bus and traveling to a different city every night, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.


Are you surprised that so many American Idol alums have turned up on Broadway?

Not really. My situation is slightly different because I went into a show that was kind of unexpected; it's not a singing show. The other people who have done stage work from Idol have done shows where singing is important, and Idol finds people who are vocally talented. Fantasia was unbelievable in The Color Purple, but we always knew she could sing; we knew she had the ability to perform on stage. And we knew, because she was on Idol, that she had the ability to work hard. The same, I think, is true for everybody who has done [Broadway]. Diana DeGarmo was there with Fantasia, Frenchie Davis, Ruben [Studdard] is about to head out [on tour in Ain't Misbehavin'], so it doesn't surprise me that much. If you can handle three weeks of Idol, you've got the stamina [to do Broadway] because it's very stressful. I will say this, though: If I ever hear Simon Cowell insult someone on the show by using "You belong on Broadway" as a put-down, he can kiss my butt for that!

Story continues below


There you go!

People on Broadway are, without question, the most talented people in the country because they're doing seven things at once! They're dancing and they're singing and they're acting and they're speaking in tongues and they're playing piano and tapping. I mean, if Simon uses that as an insult again, he can kiss it! If you think about the people who are most well known for being phenomenal at their craft—Glenn Close as a prime example—the reason they're so good is because they started on stage. If you can do this Broadway thing, you can do anything. I'm considering running for President! [Laughs.]

How do you see your career progressing? Will you continue to do covers or record new music?
We did the cover thing last time; it's not a goal to do that again right now. Our next album is going to be all new stuff. That's kind of what I wanted to do last time and we took a detour. We're in the process of working on it. There's not horribly much to say about the next album, but we're hoping it's out in May.

Where are you on the spectrum of, say, a singer like Michael Buble vs. the kind of pop music they play on a top-40 station?
I'm not going to compare myself to anybody. I don't know that I want to be on the spectrum. I don't plan to be on the radio. I'm not cool enough to be on radio. I'm still dorky and not relevant enough to some people to be on radio, and it's not a goal of mine. We've got this amazing producer who's going to do the entire album, and one of the challenges for him has been not worrying about radio, because he's been so attuned to trying to make hits. We're like, "Uhhh, nooo," because once you try to cater to the radio stations, you stop catering to (a) the listener and (b) me. I was discussing this very thing with my executive producers the other day and we said, if you try to make the music fit what you think radio is going to want, you're going to miss the mark. But if we just go out and do what we do well, then it's going to be natural and maybe radio will like it. It's not something that I'm averse to; I would absolutely love it if it happens, but it's not something to work toward at the expense of doing what we want to do.

Read the rest of the interview at Broadway.com

28 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:02 AM

    Indeed! Kathy's interview was fantastic, with no agenda. Loved it!

    ProudPearl

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:17 AM

    You have got to be kidding! You honestly want bullshit fluff over real writing? I have nothing against Aiken or frothy Broadway hype, and I'll give you that art is in the eye of the beholder but comparing that interview to Levy's piece is truly pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:16 AM

    I'd rather hear what he really said than the crap that Levy made up out of her own twisted head any day.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5:41 AM

    That snotty Ms Levy's interview was quoted in the Globe tabloid magazine. She must be sooo proud.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous6:50 AM

    Kathy did a great job with that interview. Very nice, unbiased interview. That's what I like to see.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:14 AM

    Yes, comparing Kathy's interview to Ariel's interview is like night and day. Kathy's interview is questions and answers of facts of today. Ariel's article is full of fluff, opinions, and impressions made up from LTS of 4 years ago, Clay's answers, and her own spin. I'd much rather read an article of truth than one full of misleading and condescending remarks. Great interview by Kathy who asks the questions related to the topic without an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:41 AM

    GREAT interview!! REAL journalism is soooooooo much more informative and interesting!! Kudos to Kathy for a job well done.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:46 AM

    A good interviewer gets their subject ot open up and talk...whether it be fluff or hard biting substance.

    Ms. Levy failed miserably in actually getting an interview in my opinion and proceeded to craft her own. Not only inept but also un professional as well as unethical.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:51 AM

    Fantastic interview from Kathy. She actually asked questions that were relevant to what her subject was actually doing. She is what a journalist should be. Ask questions and LISTEN. Write what was actually said in the interview and not have to run back to a 3 year old book and make up answers.

    Kathy even made reference to Levy's "article" (if you want to call it that) and then proceeded to conduct a very real and very true interview. She interviewed a very smart, articulate man and didn't see any of the things that Levy seemed to. I wonder why? Maybe because Mr. Aiken is very smart and can smell an agenda a mile away too.

    Ms. Levy was left with egg on her face in more ways than one. She was played a fool in her interview and then called out by a real reporter in yesterday's interview.

    It's funny how Levy's quotes end up in a tabloid crap paper. But oh so fitting. Crap attracts crap.

    Congratulations Kathy on a very well written article.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9:51 AM

    You are absolutely correct that Kathy Henderson's interview is responsible journalism: informative and fascinating; while Ariel Levy's piece is an agenda-driven sideshow. I'd rather know the truth than Ms. Levy's skewed perception of it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9:52 AM

    Great piece of writing by Kathy. No fluff or crap, just factual information from Clays mouth, not disjointed info put together to make an interview...

    You're right - no comparison needed. Ariel, an interviewer..hmmm...yeah.right

    ReplyDelete
  12. Medusa9:58 AM

    Excellent interview. Thanks for reposting it, Chexxxy!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous10:25 AM

    Awesome blog! That article by Levy was nothing more than a sick agenda piece. It made her look like a true moron.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous10:36 AM

    an interview by a real journalist. how refreshing!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reading Levy's article was like banging your head against the wall. Reading Kathy's was the good feeling you get when you stop!!

    Nice blog, Chexxxy!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. broadwayrhythm11:19 AM

    Well, anonymous at 4:17 got one thing right: this was an interview, while Levy's was a 'piece'. Problem was...it was masquerading as an interview.

    So yes, I would certainly rather read an interview when I am reading an interview, than a 'piece'.

    Strongly disagree that an opinion piece is 'real writing' (especially that one, oh my) whereas an interview is 'bullshit fluff' (especially this one, which actually mined some new answers from Aiken and explored a couple of new aspects of his Broadway experience, from other recent interviews). Wouldn't necessarily call either of them 'art' - but are interviews supposed to be an art form?

    Anyway - good interview, and thanks for highlighting it here!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ask intelligent and nonintrusive questions and you can get a sincere and meaningful interview.
    Great job, Kathy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Micki1:19 PM

    Wow, a real journalist! Imagine that! Questions asked, questions answered.....no agenda. Bravo, Ms. Henderson! Shame on you, Ms. Levy!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous1:25 PM

    Loved the interview. I think we should show it some love. Rather than posting it here, I'd prefer if you only posted a tiny bit of it and had a link so that the writer will see the hits that are in response to a well-written piece.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous1:38 PM

    Ms. Levy wanted to show Clay to be a certain way that she decided he is. Ms. Henderson just let him show who he really is. Guess who is the better journalist?

    Chexxxy is completely right about the title of her blog. Great blog!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous1:42 PM

    Great interview by Kathy Henderson, and great blog, Chexxxy! Thank you for highlighting this excellent piece of journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous1:53 PM

    Very good interview, and no agenda in sight!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous2:08 PM

    The lovely Levy is in the Globe. That must have been her goal for all the twisting and turning she did in her prefabricated "interview".

    Clay Aiken fans know Clay and the stuff she presented was just so convoluted as to not make much sense at all. She used quotes from a book that was written when Clay was 24 years old. Why? He was sitting right in front of her, why wouldn't she use what he said the day of the interview. It would appear that his responses weren't what she was looking for.

    What does the woman see when she looks in the mirror each day?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous3:30 PM

    Great blog. Finally a journalist who acts like a professional instead of a mindreading psychic with an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous4:05 PM

    Loved the interview. I think we should show it some love. Rather than posting it here, I'd prefer if you only posted a tiny bit of it and had a link so that the writer will see the hits that are in response to a well-written piece.

    1:25 PM
    Delete

    *scratches head* There are 2 links to the article to read the remainder of the interview. One in the title and one at the bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I've been a little tired lately. Thanks so much, Chexxxy, for finding a great way to express my sentiments about Ariel Levy. Just phew!

    Kathy really did do a nice job, didn't she? You go on with your bad self, Kathy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous8:30 PM

    Great blog, great interview. Thanks to Henderson for clearing the air with some facts after Levy's obviously fractured fairy tale and strung-together twisted innuendo. Levy's 'interview' gave a truer picture of the interviewer than the subject. It was unprofessional, reflecting more poorly on the 'journalist' than the object of the smear campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  28. claytango10:50 PM

    Kathy's interview makes me realize that there still are some journalists out there who take their job seriously and try to present actual facts.

    Ariel, on the other hand, got cracked like an egg from someone who had her number from the get-go.

    ReplyDelete