On Tuesday night, that musical, “Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812,” now a $14 million show starring the best-selling recording artist Josh Groban, had its first preview performance at the Imperial Theater — a major moment for Ars Nova, which has never before seen a project it birthed transfer to Broadway.
But the leadership of Ars Nova was not allowed to be there.
10 comments:
This is a big, sexy, and extremely important conflict going on right now in the New York theater industry. This is even more relevant to use because of our new faculty member who formerly worked at Ars Nova. Personally, I think this story is ridiculous and am completely on Ars Nova's side. This organization, being so young, has obviously proven itself to the professional theater world because of all the amazing productions they helped fund, build, and perform. Now, to think that a show that was supported so much by the organization is refusing to give them any credit or congratulations to their success, is so disrespectful, shocking, and rude. To go to even more extreme lengths and exclude them from the galas and even threatening to kick them out if they showed up is such a bad business model and Ars Nova is definitely going to kick back after being punched in the face like that. If the organization doesn't manage to resolve this and decide to take legal action, they have a really strong case on their hands. They have all the legal documentation that points many fingers at what the show's producers are doing completely illegally by breaking the contract.
It's always odd when something we read on the greenpage directly corresponds to our school, as the ars nova artistic director was going to make an appearance on our campus but was unable to thanks to this wild conflict unfolding on Broadway. I agree with Mark that the fact that we even have to discuss this is kind of insane, as the credit should have been given right away, and I can't see any good reason why credit wouldn't have been provided. When a show is this high profile and has such big stars in it, it makes sense that credit is important, but no one in their right mind wouldn't side with ars nova on the matter. Especially when something is outlined so specifically in a contract, I wonder how whoever made this decision thought there wouldn't be consequences to their actions. The extra steps they went to to try to push ars nova out of the opening and all of the following events is a wild display of arrogance that will be responded to with strict legal action that will without a doubt swing in the favor of ars nova. By giving credits to the production the theatre doesn't do themselves any harm, and any Broadway fan will know exactly where the production came from. This is a ridiculous dispute that I look forward to being resolved in a swift and just manner.
This is why the guest cancelled coming to visit. I didn't know that this was happening until now, and was confused but the email saying her appearance was canceled, given the ongoing situation, which I wasn't aware of at the time. My mother loves Josh Groban and when it was announced that he was writing music for 'Great Comet' she got tickets as soon as she could, so my mother and older sister are going to see it over Thanksgiving, and now with this debate over the production, I wish I could see it even more with them. I think it's very important to give credit where credit is due, and I understand that sometimes it may seem a little ridiculous to fulfill demands about certain wording and font and placement in a program, but if it is in the contract you have already agreed to it. Going out of the way just to push someones credit down or off the program is just mean, I wish their was more in the article about how that decision was made and who directly was involved. I hope this is settled soon and everyone gets credit for what they did, and I can't wait to hear the album when it is released.
You would think that three words wouldn't cause such a problem. However, in this instance a production might be sued over it. Having read this article and the only from the NY post on this , it seems that the producers are just being very stubborn. Ars Nova deserves to be credited for this production.Also since it was in their contract they should be up holding to it. What the producers are doing to the company is horrible. Also the cast should not just look to Josh for help. If they ban together to fight a cause that is worthy, hopefully they will succeed. If I were Ars Nova I would sue very soon.
What seems strange about this conflict to me is how two groups that were so interconnected got so vicious so fast. It doesn’t really feel like a dispute between Broadway producers and Ars Nova, it feels more like a dispute between board members of Ars Nova that just so happens to be taking place as a debate between producers and the board of the company that created the show originally. I’m also curious to know why both sides are so unwilling to back down. I can see why Ars Nova won’t but the producers’ reasons are less clear. Does it actually cost them anything to go back to the old playbill (other than some embarrassment about having to give in at this point)? Given that and how close the two groups were until recently this dispute happening doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I’m curious to know if internal issues about Ars Nova’s board will start coming out soon. This really feels like a clash of board members that’s been brewing for a while and this is just what set it off.
In addition to giving proper credit, I think that it is cool to see where the production began obviously in the script, not just grouping it in with other producers and investors. It certainly doesn’t take anything away from the production. I think that crediting Ars Nova just acknowledges the process of creating a Broadway show. Besides, the beginning of a script generally has the rules for font sizes and sometimes phrasing of the title of the show, the writer’s name, and any other information that they want on all playbills and posters. It’s not unreasonable or unprecedented to want a particular word choice and placement. This production is big for Ars Nova, which makes the extra attention of the ‘production of’ placement all the more important for them. I really can’t imagine why it would be changed at this point.
I'm on the side of the Ars Nova people here, I don't really understand why they aren't being credited if it was in their contract. Maybe I am just misunderstanding the situation, but it seems pretty obvious to me that adding those three words would placate the whole situation - but I have only read articles that were kind of biased towards the underdog of this situation - Ars Nova.
Crediting always seems to be a huge dispute in the arts, because especially in a field like theatre, which is so collaborative. So many times are people left out of awards or programs that this sort of situation escalating to this height seems rare. I hope the artists get credit for their work!
Here's where we as theater artists are reminded of the consequences that might happen if you don't follow written contracts. We talk about breaking contracts in ways that don't (really) affect the work (staying an extra fifteen minutes, forgoing a break to finish a project). But here, you have a piece of theater that creative has been worked on by both the Broadway and Ars Nova team. It was really shady of the Broadway team to not include "the Ars Nova production of" in their playbill. Did they think that those 5 little words would affect the overall marketing of the show? Unfortunately, this has become a fight between the people at the top of the theatrical food chain rather than a fight over the people who actually created the show (with the money that the Kagans invested). I think Ars Nova is suing them- I saw another article that came out last night about it.
At first glance this article seems like a simple dispute over a few words, but it seems like so much more than that. We hear so much about 'not burning our bridges' in the theater community because everyone knows everyone. Well, here is an example of burning your bridges on a major scale. What seems like a simple fix, is being exasperated into a huge issue. The article does not detail why the producer is unwilling to change the wording of the playbill being offered to patrons. What I'm sure is a big deal to both the Ars Nova team, and the Broadway producer seems awfully petty. I understand aesthetics in a program and why one would like the writing to appear a certain way, but to cause a gigantic lawsuit and burn a bridge seems unnecessary. The contract that was put in place before the show transferred to Broadway was for this exact reason. I am looking forward to read about the resolution of this suit.
I have heard about this issue in and out of class lately – we even had a canceled event with Managing Director of Ars Nova, Renee Blinkwolt, because of this dramatic disagreement (no pun intended). I think it’s easy for us to say that it’s “so crazy” for all this commotion to be caused by three simple words (and often-used words, at that), but giving proper credit is extremely important in artistic work. I think that while people may not think this is a big deal, saying a show is a certain production of company versus presented by a company (in part) are very different things. As theatre makers, we know that no two productions are alike, and if the Broadway production is a remount of that by Ars Nova, I think that they deserve that credit. While it seems petty to gripe over the wording, I honestly think that for the producers to omit “production of” is actually pettier, since I don’t think it would really cost them anything to have it worded that way. Seeing as Great Comet is Ars Nova’s first production to reach Broadway, I can understand why they would want to make sure they get credit. I wonder if the issue could have been better resolved if a lawsuit had not been filed right sway.
Post a Comment