Hunter Foster Responds to Urinetown Mess!- Page 2

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:55pm

I too wondered if there was any veracity to the thread starter. At first I thought that Second City was Hunter foster, but then I realized he/she wasn't. It was a little unclear.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:57pm

I too read Hunter's posting on All That Chat very late last night. It is really him, no worries.

[hippiedance]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 1:58pm

as i said in the other thread--i saw broadway AND chicago---we are talking EXACT,CARBON copy.
I agree with with whomever said Hunter is a) biased b) doesn't GET it and c) why the hell can't his wife write her own rebuttle!!

It's not about money--it's about art. It's like someone finding a painting and giving it to an art gallery and saying i painted it. Or someone else taking a screenplay taking off the persons name who wrote it and putting their own. You CAN"T do that! So what makes copying someone elses original choreography, step by step, and saying they made them up!!!
These are small productions--no ones going to make money--but the SSDC union is making THEIR point!!! And I think it's an importnat one to be made.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:04pm

I am with Jon and not with Hunter. To begin with URINETOWN was a show WAY before Hunter got involved. So it's not as if he was an intimate member of the creative team.

The creators of a new original show did indeed include homages to other shows in their work, but that's not plagarism. Nor would it be plagarism if that's what the other Utowns did, but they made the SAME CHOICES in design and staging and that's the problem--using the IDEA is fine, using the steps and designs are not--unless they want to call the show "John Rando's URINETOWN" like Fosse, Robbins, or Bennett would be credited.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:09pm

EXACTLY!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:10pm

I wonder if we should refer to the writer of the orignal letter as "Hunter," not Hunter.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:23pm

The revival od A CHORUS LINE got "rave accolades"?
Did you read the New york Times?

A slippery slope indeed!

Both sides have their points.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 2:26pm

I don't see any valid point by way of Foster.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:20pm

You know, it's odd this is coming up--the bf and I were in Amsterdam last month and they have pay toiklets there too--with lady attendants like Miss Pennywise...they were mucgh cleaner granted, but I even talked to Greg about how seeing those changed my idea of what URINETOWN could look like--they had one that all metallic like a bus or airplane lav and they also had big huge sparkling white ones.

I think it serves directing and design teams to use their skills and creativity and find some new ideas within the context if the show--that's what they're SUPPOSED to do anyway, right? You can capture the spirit of any show and be original at the same time you know.

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:50pm

Why didn't they include choreography in the stage direction for Urinetown? That way they would get credit and get paid. Otherwise, why didn't the license agreement forbid them from recreating whatever aspects of the show they wanted to protect?

It seems to me that there are ways to protect choreography and other intellectual property and if they did that and the group staging the production violated those rules they should have known better and pay the price. If those selling the license made no provisions for this, then I would think most people would assume that the original staging would be part of the license they bought and would be free to recreate it.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 3:54pm

Odd thing is, Jen Cody's name is never mentioned in the NY Times Article (link in other thread).

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 4:27pm

You have a point, Erin, and I think that's fine as long as the original artists are credited--like in the CHICAGO revival--Fosse is given credit though Ann is the actual choreographer.

And stealing a costume/set design is pretty cut and dried--what kind of designer just copies the original anyway? There's really no excuse for that.

[areyoukiddingme]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 4:31pm

just to weigh in here.

1) As someone who has directed before, certain shows can be difficult to reinvent in every way and many times you find that you are doing a diservice to the production by changing the original staging.

2) I would argue that most people who want to direct or choreograph do so because they want to express themselves in some way and they believe they might have a certain talent for it. Nobody in their right mind goes in thinking, "I'm going to steal the original choreography and take credit for it. Being a choreographer or a director is too hard to pursue to want to do it solely for the credit. It's not a job that makes you famous. You do it because you want to do it. That being said, one could imagine a situation where one found that they were in over one's head. Not enough time. Not enough experience. And so they were forced to borrow from what he/she knew. Some of this may have been inadvertent and some not.

3) The fact is, it's a grey area and I believe it is too difficult to determine what imprint the director as left on a production. If I see a production of Hamlet and the director had the Hamlet cry in act one scene 2 and I had never seen it done that way before.... then I direct a production and have my Hamlet do that, is that really theft? I think, not. As for staging, there are only so many ways to block something. And really only a few ways to do it effectively. Choreography is a bit different as it is a sequence of steps and there is usually a bit more variation and looseness to what might be done. And if I saw a producition with an entire dance number taken from some other production, I would hope that they would give credit in the playbill to that person (though not necessarily compensation). That being said, there are many numbers in musicals that were written for a specific style of dance and it can be very difficult to veer away from what was done. Take the score to Pippin for instance. Those numbers and dance arrangements were written for Fosse. It is very difficult to stray too far from what was originally intended and I do not believe one should change something just for the sake of changing. Take War is A Science -- try doing it without the knee slapping business in some form. now maybe there's a way to do this if you're incredibly imaginative, but I have seen numerous productions where they tried to something else and, frankly, it did not work as well.

When you purchse the right to sing a song in a wedding band let's say, you can use whatever arrangement you like. There's nothing that says you can have the melody and the lyric but you MUST use your own arrangement and it must be different fromt he original. These things are inextricably linked and, though not always, they can be inextricably linked in a musical. I dare anyone to come up with a better staging of Les Miserables.

The heart of the matter is this -- The original director and choreographer should perhaps be getting a royalty from any productions of their shows (and maybe they do, I don't know). But any production should feel free to take what they please from whatever they have seen. Everything is derivative and it is IMPOSSIBLE to define what is okay and what isn't. The royalty houses should take this into account and distribute compensation accordingly.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 4:46pm

okay areyou, good points, but if a director is in over his/her head, does that give them the right to steal intellectual porperty? No. If it's in the same SPIRIT of the original piece, then it's fine--nobody is saying every production of every show has to have a different concept, but when it's out and out theft--same steps, costume pieces, set, what have you, then the people doing this new production are simply lazy and don't want to do any actual design work--what other reason would they have? You can do a WSS set without using the original design and people won't be lost.

We're not saying to have to re-invent, but you do have to do some work--I've directed too but never had a desire to copy anything from the original show, though the IDEAS we used were certainly the same.

When you work on a new show, the director usually has a very strong hand in both the staging and conception of a play--directors often demand rewrites, new arrangements, etc that have a great deal to do with the final script/show. So his/her job isn't limited to blocking when working on an original piece.

I don't think Rando and the rest of his team need to be plagarized because somebody isn't ready to be a director yet.

WAR IS A SCIENCE could easily be done in the same style as Fosse, just not the same steps--for when someone apes him outright, they aren't choreographing but reconstructing.

And I'm quite sure that there's somebody out there who could come up with a better way to stage Les Miz--there's ALWAYS someone better out there.

Productions aren't allowed to pick and choose what they want to do either--how many times have shows been shut down for cutting and changing scripts? It's illegal and unethical.
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 04:46 PM

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 4:52pm

I saw the Akron, OH production...at the largest professional dinner theatre, not small.

http://www.carouseldinnertheatre.com

I got to meet Jen, as well. The situation is a shame.

[GimmeBroadway]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 5:30pm

A theater company in my town was recently denied the rights to Urinetown based on the fact that they take "too many liberties" with their productions...how is it that they are now causing commotions about using some of their original ideas. Which is it, guys?!

This is all ridiculous. I completely agree with Hunter and Jennifer and stand behind them 100%. At the same time, it's not about them at all. This entire business is based on using original ideas to keep a show alive. Why now? Why THIS show of all the productions out there? After this, it's going to be impossible for any theater to do the Urinetown.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 5:39pm

Considering Urinetown is done so often these days, it might be a nice break.

[bertandrew2]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 5:42pm

Hunter has it right. This has been the topic at work all day today. There are hundreds of examples of shows that are ALWAYS staged a certain way. And no, Bayork was no more 'approved' than all the Mitzi Hamiltons and that lot that have been going around staging Chorus Lines throughout the country. Also on this point, there is a professional summer theatre in New Jersey that clearly states in the director's contract that 'the staging of the show shall be as close to the original production as possible."

[Jon]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 6:04pm

"Taking too many liberties" probabvly meens RE-WRITING - changing the words, cutting sections, adding new stuff. That it totally illegal. That is the only reason MTI would deny someone rights.

[GimmeBroadway]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 6:28pm

Actually they meant taking a show in a different direction or vision (like setting it in the future or having men play women's roles)...taking it away from the original concept, which is now what they would prefer?

It's strange that Hunter thought he had to say anything as this isn't about Jen at all...it's really about the director of the Chicago production who won the awards. The Ohio production was then dragged in because of Jen's original association with the show, and the fact that it was the latest professional mounting of Urinetown.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 6:29pm

The FACT is that none of us know the full story and details. It could be something as simple as, whoever printed the programs screwed up and didn't list the original creative team.

I thinks it's silly that they are making a big deal over this.

When you go to see Oklahoma!, you expext to see fields of corn and maybe a surry with fringe on it. When you go to see Carousel, there is always some sort of carousel on stage.

The only way the director is going to win his court case is to prove that these other creative teams copied EVERY aspect of the show and KNOWINGLY did not credit the original team, which is going to be impossible to prove.

[GimmeBroadway]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 6:29pm

I agree.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 8:43am

Here's what nobody seems to be getting--having a carousel onstage isn't the same as having a COPY of the Hytner production's carousel on stage. Yes, you can have fields of corn for OK!, but there's no reason why someone else's work should be copied.

I know that most of you are saying "what does it hurt?" and the truth is, nobody. But "designers" and "directors" are passing off someone's else's ideas as their own. If you want to have a URINETOWN that looks and feels like the original, just say so and give the folks credit.

If you use Bennett's choreo for ACL, then you are not a choreographer but a dance director. This is a matter of gviing credit where it's due.

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 9:38am

Are they really talking "credit" or are they talking $$$? I wonder if a little line the program would have made them happy. If it's about paying for the use of design and choreography elements, is there a standard for how that's handled? I don't know anything about if there is a precident for how the use of choreography or design is handled from a compensation standpoint, but I have a feeling this is 100% about money.

EDIT: And if that's what they are concerned about, package and rent the choreography and set designs as part of the rental agreement. Then if theatres want to use it, they pay for it, there are rules on how "credit" is handled and the originators of the ideas can be compensated.

Updated On: 11/17/06 at 09:38 AM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 9:52am

That's a valid question, Hanna...but I'd think if they were looking for BIG bucks they wouldn't be looking at the AKRON production, you know?

I'm not sure about how the money is given to the creative team, though I can speak from what little experience I have: with Grease, the director and choreog. were paid royalties for the ENTIRE run of the tour (3 years), despite the fact that changes had been made by the producers.

Now it may be up to the writers to secure those royalties when they sign with a licensing agent, but it IS their work, make no mistake.

I just DO NOT for the life of me understand why a self-described director or designer would WANT to outright copy the original--and in the case of URINETOWN, how many people even know the show? There's no film with which to compare, like WSS or ACL or any of the other shows mentioned--so it's not as if the audience has any preconceived ideas about what the show looks like.