WSJ.com: Two weeks ago, I was getting ready to go to Sarasota to see a revival by Florida's Asolo Repertory Theatre of Brian Friel's "Philadelphia, Here I Come!" Then I got an email from the company's marketing director telling me that the performance had been canceled. No explanation was proffered, but I assumed that one of the stars was sick, and went elsewhere to see another show.
5 comments:
I believe that producers, directors, and dramaturgs should always hold onto the idea that the original text of a developed piece of theatre has been edited, reviewed, and pondered by a playwright and the original production team endlessly. Although sometimes changes can be beneficial and serve the show well, I do believe that they can also often be made too freely. Legally, it is unfortunate that the theater thought it could get away with changing the script without permission.
I wholeheartedly agree with what Michael has to say. It is unfortunate that some feel they have the jurisdiction and leeway to perform such renditions to a person's honest work without their consent. Theatre is just like any other invention, product, or creation. It is someone's intellectual work and property and must be protected as so. The fact that some individuals feel the need to change something to how they think it should be, is not a problem, but doing so without permission is another thing entirely.
I guess this brings up a good question when considering how faithful to the script one should be. On one hand, I can see how a script should be appraised as one cohesive unit that should not be ripped apart. People could argue that this might weaken the narrative. Yet, on the other hand, cutting boring or unimportant segments could markedly improve the pacing of the show. I suppose it really is a fine line that should be looked at on a case by case basis. Ultimately, I think the best response is also the most predictable one: it depends.
I think that this specific issue is one that can hardly be solved. Of course, if a director changes the script and takes liberties with a play without the playwright's authorization, it's a clear copyright infringement. But, as the article points out, there can be many different versions of one play even if the text is followed to the letter. Because of the nature of theater, no two performances will ever be the same. I don't think that there is a way around that, and I think that most theater artists know that putting a production together is always subject to different influences based on who are the people working on the show.
This article was interesting to read after reading the "Directing, Creative Freedom, and Vandalism." That article was fairly focused on the facts and pretty clean and simple about what is and is not within the rights of the playwright. This article's approach was more open and brought up the question in a more explorative way. After reading both, I feel that if a playwright decides that his or her play can only be performed as done, it is their right and should be respected. However, I think that it is exciting for people to do new things with someone else's work. I think that is a beneficial way for artists to create and that if playwrights are open to more flexible interpretations of their work, that can be an excellent approach as well.
Post a Comment