Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Met Opera director and designers order names stripped from 'Carmen'
AP News: In a dispute of operatic proportions, the production team of Bizet’s “Carmen” at the Metropolitan Opera ordered their names stripped from programs over a restaging decision, and the company intends to bring back sets of a retired 2009 version.
3 comments:
NeonGreen
said...
Reading the first few lines, I need to know what went down behind the scenes to cause such an uproar among the designers. From what I hear about the industry, any disruption you make in the design process makes its way to practically everyone you have worked with and will work with. Because of this, I can only imagine that the designers must have been so extremely disrespected to cause them to make a public display against Carmen. After reading further, I can completely see the designers’ upset. A difference of $300,000 should have been considered long before the opening night, and especially before things had been built. It is also my understanding that when such drastic changes are needed for financial reasons, it is the production’s responsibility to work with the designers to find compromises. However, it also sounds like the Opera is experiencing financial stress as shown by the layoffs. It definitely seems like murky waters.
This is a pretty insane headline. $300,000 is a crazy figure to save by cutting certain scenic elements and forcing the designers to withdraw. What’s even more wild is that this production has already been running for a while without issue, and the Metropolitan Opera has simply run out of money. And they aren’t even cancelling the Opera, Carmen, they are restaging it in the 2009 version. I just can’t understand how these decisions were made in this sequence, and why the Met couldn’t simply plan better? Like what in the actual hell is going on? The withdrawal by the designers is understandable, as it isn’t really their work anymore. Also, what kind of cut are the 2009 designers getting from this? Surely the Met also has to pay them for reusing their work. I have so many questions, and it seems that the Met has very few answers.
At first I was confused when I read the headline, “why would their names be taken from their production.” But I totally understand why they would. It’s just wrong to cut design elements after a show opens all because it’s too expensive. At that point you close the show. The set designer made a pretty fair point when he said he wanted his name taken off. Why would someone want to be credited if their work is being cut for financial reasons while the show is running. I feel like this should have been resolved before the show opened, as it probably was clear having the vehicles on stage would cost a lot of money to keep running. After reading more, it appears that the Met has had issues like this before when it comes to their productions. It is good the general manager wants to regain a good relationship with the set designer that left, the Met seems to need to do better on their part with budgeting for a production.
3 comments:
Reading the first few lines, I need to know what went down behind the scenes to cause such an uproar among the designers. From what I hear about the industry, any disruption you make in the design process makes its way to practically everyone you have worked with and will work with. Because of this, I can only imagine that the designers must have been so extremely disrespected to cause them to make a public display against Carmen. After reading further, I can completely see the designers’ upset. A difference of $300,000 should have been considered long before the opening night, and especially before things had been built. It is also my understanding that when such drastic changes are needed for financial reasons, it is the production’s responsibility to work with the designers to find compromises. However, it also sounds like the Opera is experiencing financial stress as shown by the layoffs. It definitely seems like murky waters.
This is a pretty insane headline. $300,000 is a crazy figure to save by cutting certain scenic elements and forcing the designers to withdraw. What’s even more wild is that this production has already been running for a while without issue, and the Metropolitan Opera has simply run out of money. And they aren’t even cancelling the Opera, Carmen, they are restaging it in the 2009 version. I just can’t understand how these decisions were made in this sequence, and why the Met couldn’t simply plan better? Like what in the actual hell is going on? The withdrawal by the designers is understandable, as it isn’t really their work anymore. Also, what kind of cut are the 2009 designers getting from this? Surely the Met also has to pay them for reusing their work. I have so many questions, and it seems that the Met has very few answers.
At first I was confused when I read the headline, “why would their names be taken from their production.” But I totally understand why they would. It’s just wrong to cut design elements after a show opens all because it’s too expensive. At that point you close the show. The set designer made a pretty fair point when he said he wanted his name taken off. Why would someone want to be credited if their work is being cut for financial reasons while the show is running. I feel like this should have been resolved before the show opened, as it probably was clear having the vehicles on stage would cost a lot of money to keep running. After reading more, it appears that the Met has had issues like this before when it comes to their productions. It is good the general manager wants to regain a good relationship with the set designer that left, the Met seems to need to do better on their part with budgeting for a production.
Post a Comment