latimes.com: A Los Angeles revival of Ira Levin's “Deathtrap” has been canceled after the estate of the late author expressed objections to the use of nudity and some of the production's gay content. The engagement, which was supposed to have begun September at the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, was to be a remounting of the staging that ran at the center in the spring.
7 comments:
I do not agree at all with the Levine Estate's decision to prevent the production of Deathtrap due to nudity and gay content. Today, the world of theatre is transforming into an innovative, more creative world. This does not just include the technology in which we use the the designs in which we formulate, but also the decisions directors and actors alike are making in interpreting a play. The Estate limited the production and the director too much by banning nudity in the performance. It is unfair that this production had to be cancelled. However, this article also made me question how far we are able to go with innovation, especially when we are interpreting old plays in new and different ways. Although I believe innovation is great for the theatre industry, professionals must also be careful, especially when dealing with older plays that have not been interpreted different in the past.
While I may not agree with the estates decision they have the right to do what they want with the show and I am glad that they are at least involved with the rights enough to know how their father's script is being used. Their objection and interpretation of the show is their prerogative but if they get more publicity like this people will stop trying to do this play in new ways which will relegate it to a very small market. I feel if the show can be done in this fashion and make sense let the audience decide if the artistic choice works. If it flops then your objection is truly well founded.
I agree with both statements above about the entire issue. It is understandable why it would make sense to put the show on regardless of the harmless content. The content, which compared to other shows is fairly tame. I can also understand why it is none of our business and we should leave the family alone.
What is confusing about the entire article is the reputation of the author. He wrote all of these fantastic, albeit risque, stories and plays. I would think that his sons would be used to his type of writing and his reputation for thinking outside the "normal" realm of reality. This in comparison to something like Rosemary's baby is incredibly tame and the comparison shouldn't even have to be made. I think that the overall decision might have been made too hastily and I hope the family can reconsider.
This is always a difficult issue. Estates are commonly protective of their plays, but where is the line? When is it okay to do a different interpretation of a play, especially if the goal is to make it more modern and applicable, such as the example given about Waiting For Godot. I find it strange that others have interpreted "Deathtrap" as being about two men in a homosexual relationship, yet this production was shut down. Was it really just the brief nudity that caused this to happen? I wish estates would be more understanding with different adaptations of plays.
Of course the Levine Estate has every right to prevent the production, but every time I hear another story about an Estate limiting or canceling a production, I lose sympathy. I entirely understand trying to keep the integrity of the piece and uphold the play to the writer's intentions, but what about new interpretations? Personally, I'm more interested in how the same piece can be re-imagined in different, new, and surprising ways. Now what? We just have to wait until plays are in the public domain to change any little thing about the production? That's ridiculous. As was brought up earlier, this issue comes up all the time for Waiting for Godot. The Beckett estate is absurdly strict. It is one thing to protect a piece, and it is another to entirely hinder any innovation related to the piece. I would love to see estates work with a production instead of just passing their yea or nay if they are truly upset, but I am so over these restrictions. It seems dated.
I can see where both sides are coming from. But my only issue with the production is the question of which choices are made by the director/producer, and which choices are made in the text of the script written by the playwright. If the show was cancelled because no director could direct an alternative staging of the nude scene, then there's got to be something written in the script that prevents the director from doing anything else with it. So in that case, that would mean that the estate is basically stopping the production because the playwright wrote something they didn't like, not because it was staged and directed in a way they didn't approve of.
The idea of a playwright rejecting rights to a play based on interpretation is not a black and white topic, however I do not think that a playwright should do such a thing. As creators we need to be able to take a look at our work from a step back and say what did I make? (We even do this in design class.) If a person gets a completely different meaning out of the work then the artist then the artist should be the one changing the work on the people who are interpreting it. As directors, designers, and actors we are asked to create within the guidelines of works. Anything that fits within them are fair game, so to deny a artist this is like giving a toddler a piece of white paper and telling them to do what ever they want, but say no to anything that is not a origami swan. This playwright's estate should let the play continue based on their own interpretation.
Post a Comment