Adala blog

Performance Injury Sidelines 'Spider-Man' Actress T.V. Carpio

s Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark, will be out of the show until early April due to an injury sustained in a performance.

America Olivo is now playing the high-flying role at the Foxwoods Theatre, until Carpio's return. Spokesperson Rick Miramontez said in a March 22 statement, "T.V. Carpio sustained an injury on Wednesday, March 16 during an onstage battle scene with a fellow actor. On doctor's orders, she will be out of the show for the next two weeks."

An exact date for her return has not been announced.

Earlier this year, Carpio herself was named permanent replacement for actress Natalie Mendoza, the first Arache, who had suffered a concussion backstage in December 2010. Carpio's first official performance as Arachne was Jan. 4 at 8 PM. She had covered the role several times throughout the preview period following the injury of Mendoza.

Mendoza officially departed the production Dec. 30. Mendoza had suffered a concussion that occurred during the first preview of the musical when, standing offstage, she was hit on the head by a rope that was holding a piece of the production's equipment.

In a Jan. 3 statement, director Julie Taymor said, "T.V. is a superb singer and actress whom I've loved since we worked together on 'Across the Universe.' She brings a unique talent and take on the role of Arachne and is already mesmerizing audiences in the few previews in which she's performed. We are thrilled she is taking over the role."

Lead producer Michael Cohl added, "She is fantastic. When she was covering the role, we kept seeing the crowd leap to its feet as she took her bow. After about the sixth or seventh night, we realized we'd be fools not to give her the part."

Carpio had been a principal cast member in Spider-Man in the role of Miss Arrow. Alice Lee (Spring Awakening) joined the production to step into the role of Miss Arrow, for Carpio.

Carpio appeared in the Taymor-directed film "Across the Universe" as Prudence. She made her Broadway debut in Rent in 2006. . 

After more revisions, a brief shutdown and more rehearsals, the opening night for Spider-Man will be June 14, the producers previously announced.

Visit

"G.I. Joe" sequel narrowing in on director

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – Directors F. Gary Gray and Jon M. Chu are looking like the hot candidates to direct Paramount Pictures' "G.I. Joe" sequel.

The franchise follow-up is a high-priority project for the studio, which hopes to have production underway by June for a 2012 release.

Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura has met with a number of directors in recent days, including Gray, Chu and "Unknown" director Jaume Collet-Serra. Paramount execs will commence their talks this week.

Chu, of course, is no stranger on the studio lot, having directed "Justin Bieber: Never Say Never," which opened to $29.5 million last weekend. Before that, he directed two installments in Disney's "Step Up" dance franchise.

For that matter, neither is Gray, who directed "The Italian Job" for Paramount to $168 million worldwide in 2003. He was last in theaters with the 2009 action thriller "Law Abiding Citizen."

Released in August 2009, "G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra" grossed $150.2 million domestically and $152.3 million internationally for a total of $302.5 million worldwide.

"Cobra" was directed by Stephen Sommers, who previously announced he wouldn't be returning to the franchise.

(Editing by Zorianna Kit)

Reports: Sanofi to acquire Genzyme for $19 billion

WASHINGTON – Shares of Genzyme climbed Tuesday on reports that the biotech drugmaker has agreed to be acquired by French pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis for roughly $19 billion, after nearly nine months of back-and-forth between the two companies.

Genzyme investors would receive $74 per share plus the right to additional payments if the company meets certain sales goals, according to people familiar with the deal cited by Reuters.

The deal is expected to be announced Wednesday morning, when Genzyme reports its quarterly earnings. The expected announcement would come a day after Sanofi's $18.5 billion offer to acquire the company expires. Genzyme has repeatedly rejected that offer as too low.

Spokesmen for both companies declined to comment on reports of an agreement Tuesday.

Shares of Genzyme Corp. rose $2.53, or 3.5 percent, to $74.30. After hours, the stock gained another 40 cents to $74.40.

Paris-based Sanofi is the world's fourth-largest pharmaceutical company and has seen its sales decline as patents on some of its top drugs expire. The patent on its bloodthinner Plavix, the world's second best-selling medication, expires in May 2012. Sanofi co-markets the drug with Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Cambridge, Mass.-based Genzyme has built a multibillion-dollar business around high-priced treatments for rare diseases like Gaucher disease. But the company made a series of stumbles that left it vulnerable for a takeover, beginning with a viral contamination issue in June 2009. The problem forced Genzyme to close down its Allston, Mass-based plant for three months, slowing production of its two best-selling products. Five months later the company was cited by federal inspectors who found tiny bits of trash in some of its injectable drugs.

In August, Sanofi made its formal offer to acquire the company for $69 per share. Genzyme's board rejected the offer, saying it didn't take into account the company's recovery and its pipeline of potential medicines.

The companies have disagreed about both Genzyme's overall value and the value of Genzyme's alemtuzumab, a biologic drug approved for treating leukemia under the brand name Campath. It's now in late-stage testing for treating multiple sclerosis, and if approved would have the brand name Lemtrada.

According to people familiar with the deal, Genzyme investors will receive a conditional right to additional payments, tied to the performance of Lemtrada.

Pharmaceutical industry consultant Jim Prutow notes that so-called contingent value rights are becoming a more common tool to facilitate drug company mergers.

"It's becoming increasingly difficult to predict if a drug is going to get FDA approval, so with that in mind I think parties are more hesitant," said Prutow, a consultant with PRTM Management.

The agreements help protect buyers from overpaying for unsuccessful drugs, while offering shareholders the potential for future payments if drugs meet sales targets.

Genzyme's best-seller Cerezyme treats Gaucher disease, an enzyme disorder that can result in liver and neurological problems. Its second-best seller, Fabrazyme, treats an inherited disorder known as Fabry disease, which is caused by the buildup of a particular type of fat in the body's cells.

Christie plans D.C. rollout

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is bringing his blunt talk about fiscal responsibility to Washington this week in a speech sure to stoke speculation about his national prospects – which have intensified in recent weeks as some Republicans openly fret about the strength of their 2012 field.

Like Christie himself, the message he’ll deliver Wednesday at the conservative American Enterprise Institute is unorthodox and straightforward: he accuses both parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, of “timidity” in the face of the coming fiscal calamity.

“It’s hard, but it can be dealt with,” Christie said of his speech, previewed for POLITICO, which will focus on his battles with the state’s teachers unions. “I’m a little mystified as to why they’re not doing it, on either side. Because what we’ve shown in New Jersey is that the public is hungry for this.”

“I don’t think anybody’s ever accused me of being ambiguous. So I think when I get done, they’ll have a good idea of what I’m talking about,” he said.

Christie is candid about his willingness to consider national office in the future but insists he’ll be sitting out 2012, saying he is “challenged and content and excited to be the governor of New Jersey, and I got a lot of work to do here – we are far from being fixed.”

“I’m not running for president,” Christie, 48, said by phone from his desk in Trenton Monday. “And I don’t know anybody who would want somebody like me as their vice president.”

But that hasn’t stopped some Republicans from seeing Christie as the answer for a party that badly wants to beat President Barack Obama two years out. He drew 6 percent of the vote at last weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll – tied for third, even though he’s not running.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has emerged as a vocal backer, telling Fox and Friends Monday morning, “I would say he’s the only Republican who could win.”

And it’s not just Coulter. One overriding sentiment at CPAC last week was that there was still a spot in the race for a newcomer. Some have pushed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Others have turned to Christie, a former U.S. attorney who unseated incumbent Jon Corzine in 2009 and who is enjoying a wave of GOP national celebrity.

Earlier in the year Christie turned down an opportunity to offer the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union speech.

In a season of revolt against canned politics, his unapologetic swagger and decisiveness have registered with voters and activists.

“I am who I am,” he said. “To the extent that people are finding any type of attraction to what I’m doing, it’s mostly because it’s because I’m being straight with them. It’s not a bunch of prepared hooey, read off a teleprompter.”

AEI, which sometimes has to fill speeches with employees and interns, says the response to Christie has been so phenomenal that room reached its capacity of 300 less than a week after his speech was announced. Reporters and others are now being referred to a livestream on the Web.

Yet for all Christie’s demurrals on the presidential race, it’s clear his interests extend beyond Trenton. His staff revealed that he had hosted former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney last month for a large dinner at Drumthwacket, the governor’s mansion – and let it be known that it was Romney who had made the overture.

“Governor Romney asked if he could come see us, and I was more than happy to host him for dinner with some folks in my state who are political friends and allies of mine,” Christie said. “I’d do it with people I feel like I have a relationship with, and I have one with Governor Romney.”

And Christie clearly expects more such auditions.

“If there are other folks who I have developed a relationship with over time who are considering running for president … I’m happy to give them a forum,” he said. “As that happens, I’m not naïve enough to think that it won’t leak to all of you immediately.”

In an exclusive preview of his D.C. address, “It’s Time to Do the Big Things,” the governor reveled in his biggest controversy – his war with Garden State teachers’ unions.

It’s a fight where national Republicans are cheering him on and he knows it.

The speech, he said, is an effort to “let people around the country know about the experience we’re having in New Jersey, … and how I think it’s something that every governor is currently looking at, and that the federal government should be looking at.”

Christie explained his confrontational style, memorialized on various YouTube videos that have drawn hundreds of thousands of views.

“I was brand-new to the schoolyard last January,” he said. “And when I came on, I saw a whole bunch of people, laying on the ground – bloody. And one person standing up – that’s the bully. Some governors before me have decided they wanted to cozy up to the bully and make nice with him and hope that they don’t get punched.

“My attitude is: ‘You punch them, I punch you.’ That’s what I think I’ve been sent here to do, with regard to some of the public-sector unions. I don’t think you can allow public officials to be bullied around. If they want a fight, they’ll get one.”

Christie beat Corzine by less than 4 percent of the vote, but since then has marshaled public opinion to a surprising degree in a state that has gone Democratic in the past five presidential elections. In a Quinnipiac University poll taken early this month, 53 percent of respondents approved of his handling of the state budget, although those polled were evenly split on his handling of education.

The support for his tough medicine was unusually broad: 56 percent favored layoffs for state workers, 65 percent backed furloughs for state workers, 77 percent supported wage freezes for state workers, and 66 percent were for reducing pensions for new state workers.

“Whether that’s members of the state legislature, or people at my town-hall meetings, or folks who interview me on national television, I’m no different,” he said. “Some people are going to like it and some people aren’t, but they’re never gonna have to wonder what I think. They’re gonna know.”

The governor’s three big themes, foreshadowed in his “State of the State” address last month, will be “restoring fiscal sanity,” reforming entitlements and education reform.

Standard & Poor’s lowered New Jersey’s credit rating earlier this month because of what Christie said at the time was a “pension and benefit bomb.” Christie said that for his state, pension and health-benefit reform are the entitlement equivalents of the federal Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

“Nobody’s talking about it, so [Republicans and Democrats] both get incompletes,” Christie said. “Once again, the states are going to have to show leadership. I want to talk to people on a more national level about the fact that this is being done in New Jersey … as a way to show a pathway to it being done in other states and on the national level.”

Christie accused both parties of “timidity” on the big fiscal issues.

The Republican Party, he said, is “on probation” with the American people. “If we do this well, the country will reward us for being men and women of our word,” he said. “And if we don’t, then we’ll be punished they way people who break their word should be.”

“The way to get that message out to a lot of the states is to come to Washington, D.C., because you’ll get national coverage that they’ll read everywhere,” the governor added. “But also, if it leads to spurring courageous conversation in the United States Capitol, then that’ll be just another extra added benefit.”

Christie claims he already has “changed the way government is going to operate in New Jersey.”

“No longer is every program assumed to be funded, [or] that every funded program will get an increase,” he said. “We’ve actually turned that momentum around, not just for one year but now for two years in a row. That, I hope, will be the takeaway [from his budget address later this month]: ‘Wow, this isn’t just a flash in the pan. They’re actually going to continue to do this.”

Christie said his soulmates among governors include New York’s Andrew Cuomo (D), Wisconsin’s Scott Walker (R), Ohio’s John Kasich (R) and Susana Martinez (R), New Mexico’s first female governor.

“We are on the verge of real financial disaster,” Christie said. “It’s not papering it over anymore with help from Washington, D.C. It’s about us putting our own affairs in order, and Washington, D.C., giving us the flexibility [on Medicare and other issues] to do that.”

Asked about the GOP’s 2012 presidential field, Christie replied: “I, obviously, am very close to Governor [Haley] Barbour [of Mississippi], and we worked together closely at the [Republican Governors Association]. I’m also very friendly with [former Minnesota] Governor [Tim] Pawlenty, and have great respect for him. I have respect for [Indiana] Governor [Mitch] Daniels, and I’ve spent time with him.”

How about Sarah Palin? “I’ve never spent any time with her,” he said, referring to the Alaska governor who stepped down from office 4 months prior to his election.

Read More Stories from POLITICO

Egypt Q&A: Internal politics and key players

Egypt has long been one of America's strongest allies in the Middle East, but with popular protests on the verge of driving President Hosni Mubarak from office, Egypt's future relationship with the United States is in doubt. What is the current state of affairs in Egypt politically and who are the key players?

David Patel, a Cornell University professor of government who specializes in Middle East politics, Islamic institutions and political culture, talked about Egypt in a Q&A interview this week:

Q: A few days ago, you released a statement that the current regime was trying to foment chaos as an attempt to retain power. Can you talk about the seeming change in policy in light of Vice President Suleiman's more recent efforts to suppress the rioting through peaceful negotiation?

Patel: What we're seeing is a lot of movement within the party, pushing some people out. I think it's pretty clear that one faction within the [the ruling National Democratic Party] (NDP) is willing to sacrifice another faction within the NDP. A lot of the people associated with Gamal Mubarak [President Hosni Mubarak's son] have seen their assets frozen and their passports taken if they are not already out of the country. My sense is that a lot of the violence we saw a couple of day ago was orchestrated not from the cabinet, not from Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, or Mubarak, it was probably from mid-level NDP officials, other NDP officials, and people in the intelligence agencies.

There's a lot of competition within the party and they're pretty good at using thugs like this. There are networks of thugs that are used in elections and used to intimidate opponents. My sense isn't that the violence we saw a few days ago was from the top down, but from somebody else within the ruling party.

And you're right; the prime minister even apologized for it and said it was unacceptable. The military seems to be intervening more than they were before and that's why it stopped. The atmosphere in Tahrir is changed. It was a group of demonstrators under siege and now an almost festival-like atmosphere seems to be back with families and women in large numbers.

Q: Given the protesters' call for the immediate resignation of Mubarak and the current regime, who do you see as well-placed organizationally to take advantage of that and assume power in the short term?

Patel: The protesters are calling for a lot of things. Mubarak stepping down is the one that's easiest to chant. The real issue is: how is the transition going to be handled, and there are a couple different options? In Egypt the vice president is really the president-in-waiting. So picking Omar Suleiman is clearly designating him as the successor, and he is also someone who makes the Americans and the Israelis very comfortable. They know him very well from his time running the Egyptian Mukhabarat.

When you talk about a transition, what matters is really what's going to happen between now and September. Are they actually going to go ahead with presidential election in September? If so, how free will those elections be? Other people are talking about having parliamentary elections first, which could change things. Other people are talking about having some sort of triumvirate of one or two or three people leading some sort of transitional period which could be longer than September, delaying presidential elections and having some sort of constitutional review process first. Omar Suleiman would clearly play a prominent role, maybe even as a first among equals if that occurs.

Q: The constitution of Egypt clearly spells out the rules for succession, which would leave the NDP firmly in power if they were to follow those rules and Mubarak resigned. So it doesn't seem as though that's going to be an acceptable solution for most of the parties involved (other than the NDP).

Patel: It goes to the speaker of parliament. It also would limit the ability of a new president to call for new parliamentary elections. My understanding is that only an "elected president" can dissolve parliament and call for new elections. So, these are debates about the role of the constitution and how important that constitution and the words of that constitution should be for guiding this process.

It's pretty clear Mubarak isn't calling the shots anymore, right? Authority has moved away from him. Omar Suleiman is calling the shots. The people who were around and relied on access to Mubarak for their influence have found new patrons within the military and the party or are scrambling to find them. Mubarak is president in name only at this point.

He is hugely symbolically important, especially for the protesters, but even if he doesn't step down, his influence right now is minimal. He's not the one making statements anymore. It's Omar Suleiman who went on television the other day. It's Ahmed Shafik who's making statements. It's Tantawi, the defense minister, who's going down to Tahrir. So Mubarak's no longer the acting president. Even within the party, I don't think he's that important anymore.

Q: Of the other factions, there's the Muslim Brothers with whom the U.S. seems quite preoccupied. What is their actual influence in Egypt?

Patel: The Muslim Brothers are the largest and best organized of those opposition groups. We don't know how much support they have for several reasons. A lot of people supported the Muslim Brothers because they were seen as the only viable alternative to Mubarak. We know that a lot of the support for the Muslim Brothers comes from their ability to provide services that the Egyptian people need through clinics, schools and training centers. Well, if a new Egyptian government provides better for the Egyptian people and provides those services for the Egyptian people, maybe the influence of the Muslim Brothers in that avenue will decline.

There are a lot of people who like to say that they Egyptian Brothers have 15-20 percent of the Egyptian population behind them now. That's based not on how they did in the last election, but the previous election. There wasn't a free and fair election. There clearly wasn't a good expression of people's ultimate preferences, so you really can't estimate the support for the Muslim Brothers that way.

The Brothers have come out and said that they are not going to rule. They're not going to run somebody for president, and in fact, it looks like they are going to back a secular candidate for president. It seems like they've done everything they could to say that they will support a democratic process in terms of elections. They're working with secularists, and they'll be a part of the new order. They're not going to dominate it though. There's good reason, both empirically and theoretically, to think that they're not going to dominate Egypt in the short, medium, or long run.

The military is very well-trained, it's very large, it's very well-equipped. Order is not going to break down in Egypt. It's not like the Muslim Brothers are going to send their people out in the streets and seize power. The military isn't going to let that happen.

Q: One of the other groups that has become prominent is that of ElBaradei. Do you see him and his group, which, one might argue, has less in-country organization at this point, as playing a strong role?

Patel: He's been very prominent in the western media because he's a name and a face people recognize. He tried to position himself at the head of the protesters. You saw that there was a very dramatic scene of him going to Tahrir Square and giving a speech. My sense is that he doesn't have much of an organization in Egypt. Which could be both an advantage and a disadvantage, right?

He might be less threatening to various opposition groups as a figurehead, but he hasn't been able to consolidate all the opposition groups and voices behind him. There are a number of other groups that are negotiating not through him, but directly with the Egyptian government. The Muslim Brothers have said they would support him as a potential candidate for president. He's somebody who probably will emerge as one of the top two or three opposition leaders at least in the interim period. How much staying power he has in the long run, whether or not he can develop a political party and organization of his own is another matter entirely.

Q: Minister of Defense Tantawi is seen by many to be someone separate from Mubarak and Suleiman. While he may be following orders, the west is reporting that the military is taking more of a stand-offish role in support of the government. Do you see that as entirely false and only a western perspective?

Patel: You're trying to ask me if there's going to be a coup? The military is massive, at least 350,000 to 400,000. The Egyptian military currently runs between 15 and 24 factories around the country. They have massive economic and business interests throughout the country. Military officers and businesses and people connected to them are incredibly influential in the Egyptian economy. There's a lot of people in the Egyptian military interested in preserving their access to things, making sure that military contractors are involved in building all those new roads around Cairo, making sure that the military is the dominant player, especially in food industries.

They've gotten very good at dividing the kitty. They have become very good at balancing factions within the military. They've been a pretty stable military regime. You don't hear about coup attempts within the military in Egypt very often. I'd say the likelihood of a coup is very low. A lot of people have incentive to make sure the military comes out, as a whole, in a strong position, economically, perhaps even more importantly than politically.

Q: What do you see, in the near term, as a catalyst for ending the protests and getting back to ordinary life in Egypt?

Patel: Cairo and the surrounding areas are 18 million people, and the protests are concentrated in one area, Tahrir Square. Most of Cairo is, if not business as usual, seeing people going to work. People are going out and selling things, even in the middle of Tahrir.

The government is hoping that the protesters will get tired, that they'll, through attrition, go home. That doesn't seem to be happening. Those protesters there seem to be extremely resilient. If anything, the numbers have grown over time and they have tremendous staying power.

So the regime's strategy now seems to be to try to buy off some of the opposition. They've made what they see as some concessions to the protesters. They're hoping that the opposition groups will make some concessions. The Muslim Brothers sitting down to talk to Omar Suleiman the other day was a concession. They didn't agree to anything, as I understand it, but they did sit down with him.

A lot of different people try to represent the protesters and try to negotiate with the government, various groups of wisemen, ElBaradei, various political parties. The government's hoping that some of the opposition groups will pull their support away. They're hoping that some of the Egyptians who aren't involved in any way will say, "This has gone on too long. You've achieved enough; we can achieve more without being there in Tahrir." So they're hoping that public opinion in Egypt will turn against public protests. The protesters have said that they'll stay there indefinitely. It's been going on for two weeks now. The military has said they're not going to crack down so the protesters have a sense of safety now that they didn't have a couple days ago. I think you could see this continuing to go on for several more weeks, if you don't see some sort of agreement between various opposition groups and the government as to how a transition would occur... and for Mubarak to step down.

Q: The one thing that almost all the parties agree upon, is that they don't want outsiders to determine their future. They don't want people outside Egypt either corrupting the situation or exerting undue influence. That could be the United States, Iran, or whomever. What countries are well-poised, other than the United States, to continue or to begin to have a strong influence in Egypt?

Patel: In the short run, nobody. This is going to be resolved by Egypt one way or another. I don't think the United States can force Mubarak out of office. I don't think any other actors can put the pressure that will be decisive one way or another. Egyptians are determining the future of Egypt and that's a good thing. The Egyptian government continuously repeats the line that these are foreign agitators. Sometimes they blame Iranians. Sometimes they blame Israelis. Sometimes they blame Americans. They're all sorts of rumors flying around about outside agitation to weaken the homeland, to weaken the stability of Egypt. I haven't seen any evidence of foreign influence in the protests whatsoever. This is clearly an Egyptian, and a very diverse Egyptian, protest.