backstage.com: The L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center’s fall production of “Deathtrap” won’t go on, now that a creative dispute with playwright Ira Levin’s estate has derailed the popular show. “It was the best-selling show we’ve had in 14 years,” producer Jon Imparato told Backstage. The production had been set to resume a six-week run in the 50-seat Davidson/Valentini Theatre in September. The five-actor original cast had all signed on, and some had turned down work to continue doing the play, Imparato said.
8 comments:
After reading more of this article, I'm not really sure that I know enough to make a judgement on who should be making a change here. The estate has all the right to tell the producing theatre that they cannot do the play. That is not censorship, it is protecting the work of the playwright. There are intellectual property and copyright laws for a reason. Although the estate might be overreacting, prudes, or homophobic, there is nothing the producing company can do. I am glad the producing company is not completely overreacting from this From what I can tell, I hope that the producing company will be able to perform the play eventually with a twist on how the play can be interpreted. At some point Im sure both individuals will come to some terms with the artistic vision.
I am in complete agreement with AJ C. This article was a little to ambiguous about the circumstances to make a judgement as to who should make the change. However this does raise a very interesting point in the world of modern theater: as the world become for and more evolved and disconnected with the past, how does the production and author's estates balance the new world interpretations of old world themes? And who has the right to say if one or the other is wrong? Like previously stated, the right to intellectual property is extremely important, but there is going to come a day where the content of a play is no longer relavent in modern society unless a drastic ironic take is taken with the performance.
I'm not sure if I agree with the previous comments. It's called show BUSINESS. When a playwright denies rights to a production, isn't he potentially losing money? I think more than anything it was just a dumb business move. The theatre company involved wasn't trying to get away with infringing on any intellectual property laws as far as I can tell. And I don't necessarily believe in censorship. I guess the article is a little vague, and more information would certainly be more helpful before drawing my own conclusions. But I think that the estate of the playwright is in the wrong. In order to make a piece timeless, it should be applied to the cultural context of what's relevant in society.
I understand Levin's concern with their "added material" for the play, but it's not as if they are adding anything new. The kiss was in the film and their romantic relationship is heavily implied in the text. It seems to me like the director and production team are merely doing a great Foundations I treatment of the text: finding elements about the characters and structure and illuminating them through physical action. Perhaps Mr. Levin is merely trying to attract publicity and regenerate interest in his work on a more national level? I cannot understand why else he would object to developing these characters according to the way that he wrote them and the way they were seen in the movie. I would definitely see his point if the production was taking a more avant-garde, non-traditional approach to the play, but their interpretation seems pretty standard.
I'm not quite sure what is happening in this article. It seems like the playwright wrote a play involving gay themes and once it actually started being produced he didn't agree with how it was turning out and scratched the production. That seems ridiculous.
I'm not quite sure what is happening in this article. It seems like the playwright wrote a play involving gay themes and once it actually started being produced he didn't agree with how it was turning out and scratched the production. That seems ridiculous.
I agree with AJ C. The estate does have the right to deny the ability to perform, but I also believe they are over reacting. There are ways to recreate the emotion provoked by a nude body: costume change, light change, etc. I don't like the fact that the estate is limiting every performance to a specific direction. Where is there room for a director's /designer's interpretation? Different performances of a play get boring if they are all the same.
The estate has every right to keep the theater from producing the play, and this part is perfectly fine. The reasons that the playwright is bringing forward for the ban, however, seem to me pretty homophobic. The director should have a right to bring to light a character interaction that was only implied by the playwright, and like Lindsay said, such a ban could also limit a designer's view and creation.
Post a Comment