Original A Chorus Line Dancers to Receive No Royalties for the Revival

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 5:24pm

Some excerpts from the Times:

"On a snowy Saturday night in January 1974, after their curtain calls, 19 of Broadway’s best dancers gathered at the Nickolaus Exercise Center on East 23rd Street. They all sat in a circle on the floor. A tape recorder was turned on.

For the next 12 hours they spoke about their lives, telling stories of divorce, child abuse and the plight of the professional dancer. These tales, shaped by the choreographer Michael Bennett, would become the foundation of “A Chorus Line,” one of the most successful musicals of all time.

The dancers who told their stories that night sold them to Mr. Bennett for $1 each. And though Mr. Bennett later arranged for them to receive royalties from the show — at times up to $10,000 a year — they have always questioned whether they have been fairly compensated and acknowledged.

Now a revival of “A Chorus Line,” which opens at the Schoenfeld Theater in Manhattan on Thursday night, has reopened some of these old wounds, particularly after the dancers realized they would receive no money from this latest production because of those agreements.

The revival is being produced by the executor of the Bennett estate, John Breglio, who is also one of Mr. Bennett’s heirs. A longtime theatrical lawyer, Mr. Breglio said he had no authority to renegotiate an agreement Mr. Bennett made with the dancers three decades ago.

“I only know what Michael intended by the words on that document, which are crystal clear,” he said. “I’m bound to uphold the terms that Michael agreed to.”

The legality of the arrangements is not an issue. “At one point, when we were young and stupid, we kind of signed our lives away, and they exploited that,” said Wayne Cilento, who played the role of Mike in the original production. But reflecting the feelings of some of the other dancers, he added, “We were the authors of the show, and we should have been paid accordingly.”

The question of authorship on any collaboration can be tricky. There is no doubt that the dancers provided most of the stories, and in some cases large chunks of their words show up verbatim in the show. There is also no doubt that it was primarily Mr. Bennett who took 20 hours of interviews and had the vision to shape them into a groundbreaking musical.

“There never would have been ‘A Chorus Line’ without Michael,” said Kelly Bishop, who told her story in the character of Sheila, “but there never would have been ‘A Chorus Line’ without us, either.”

_______________________________________________________________


"When the dancers heard there would be a revival, most assumed they would receive royalty payments, with several recalling that Mr. Bennett once told them that the A and B groups would have a piece of any “Chorus Line” production in the world.

But they were puzzled by a letter Mr. Breglio sent last autumn asking permission to use their real names on any future projects that would entail publication of the tapes themselves. E-mail messages and phone calls went back and forth among the dancers, some of whom had not been in contact for years.

“We’re basically advising one another to hold off,” said Ms. Bishop, who has recently been working as a featured character on the television show “Gilmore Girls.”

In the end, only three people gave their consent, including Mr. Boockvor and his wife, Denise Pence.

The original dancers began examining the release form and the agreement, some for the first time. When they consulted lawyers, they discovered that the royalty agreement covered the original production and that show’s subsidiary rights. According to the terms of that document, the 2006 revival fits neither category.

Mr. Breglio said the only way the arrangement could be changed would be if all of the interest holders in the Bennett estate agreed to have the interviewees’ royalties taken out of their shares.

The original dancers are continuing to meet with lawyers, but acknowledge that they are in a tough place."


For the entire article click here

Updated On: 9/30/06 at 05:24 PM

[FosterChild]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 5:38pm

Boo-hoo-hoo. Here we go again.

This is boring and tedious because:

1) They sold the rights to their stories.
2) They didn't write "A Chorus Line" Updated On: 9/30/06 at 05:38 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 5:57pm

I was wondering if those original tapes would ever resurface. Now we know where they are. Interesting that they might be released (perhaps as a transcript?).

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 6:05pm

Well, of course they're pissed off in hindsight. They didn't have the vision Bennett had.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 6:10pm

My guess is that excerpts might show up in the documentary about the revival, but I doubt that the public would get a full transcript (not to mention I doubt that there's much of a commercial market for a transcript of 20 hours worth of tapes -- it would be hundreds of pages long). That is, if all the participants sign off on allow the release and use of any of this material. I take it they've wised up and are using what little leverage they have to try to procure royalties from this revival (and the subsequent national tours and subsidiary ventures like the documentary). We'll see if Breglio, Avian, Bennett's brother Frank and the other beneficiaries of the Bennett estate are willing to give the original dancers a cut of what look to be some pretty substantial grosses from this revival in the future.

Updated On: 9/30/06 at 06:10 PM

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 6:41pm

wow, they sold their stories for $1 each?
incredible
and i know they didnt write the show, but i wish the original cast members could get some royalties for the revival- i dont know, it would just seem more fair, in my opinion

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 6:46pm

They basically signed-off their rights to everything back in 1975 (for one dollar). This information is touched-on heavily on every book written about "A Chorus Line" AND they acknowledged their naivete' to the whole situation as the stupidest mistake they ever made.

This revival is backed and supported by the Michael Bennett Estate -- it is not it's own unique monster, therefore EVERYTHING that was covered contractually per the Michael Bennett Estate applies to this revival.

Guess they all didn't learn anything since 1975...and I guess they thought the powers that be weren't aware of their $1.00 sign-off.

Hmmm.

It rips me to shreds with the reality of it all, but come on -- even I wasn't THAT clueless when I was 15 (and some were almost 30 years old!). The excuses they mention about 'not being aware' is unmeritable. Seriously.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 7:26pm

Well, as several of the dancers have said, they didn't exactly have a lot of choice in the matter. They were in the middle of rehearsal at the workshops one afternoon when some business people showed up with the releases for them to sign. While a few of them did take the time to read it and were upset by the terms, there was no opportunity to negotiate. The implicit message was "either sign or you will be cut from the show." None of them had contracts at that point and even if they had, they knew that they (and their stories) were easily replaceable. Every dancer on Broadway would have killed to be in a Michael Bennett show and he could have brought in a dozen comparably skilled dancers for each of their parts with one phone call. Even if several of them had left -- too many of them like Baayork and McKechnie were too loyal/attached to/afraid of Bennett for it to have ever happened that the whole cast would have ever stood up to him as a group and made any demands -- he could simply have held another tape session and gotten similar stories from another group of dancers, making sure that they all signed the releases BEFORE starting the recordings. They had no leverage either individually or together to have ever made Bennett negotiate the contract terms.

At that point, they all felt lucky to be part of what felt like a very special project and wouldn't have risked getting fired and not be able to stay with the show until it got to Broadway for any amount of money. While there's certainly a little bitterness now considering 20/20 hindsight over the last 30 years and the millions of dollars the show has brought in (for other people), I'm willing to bet if they had it to do over again, given the same circumstances, most if not all of them would still sign that release. They were NEVER going to get a full (perpetual) royalty share of the show from Bennett and the creative staff, no matter what they had done. At least they received several thousand dollars from the show over the years and more than that have the solace of forever being part of Broadway history, something none of their contemporaries who were ensemble dancers in the 70s can say.

Maybe it's not fair on some moral level and I do think it would be a nice gesture for Breglio and company to set up a contract giving them a small percentage of royalties in the show permanently, but, hey .............. that's show biz.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 7:29pm

Excellent points, Margo. I agree.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 8:11pm

Isn't it sad that one of the most lasting legacies of Mr. Bennett is that he seems to have basically screwed a group of the lowest people on the Broadway totem pole and that, to maintain his legacy, his estate is bound and determined to continue the screwing? (Well, to be totally honest, I suppose the lowest people on the totem pole are the ushers, but they always struck me as cagey old dears who probably wouldn't have signed the agreements)

I have always felt that "A Chorus Line" had such an unseemly shadow lurking in the background and here it has raised its' ugly head again.

It reminds me of the scumbag white "music producers" of the 1950's who would insist that all of the songs composed by their "colored artists" had their names on as co-writers. Funny how they ended up with all the royalties and the performers had to spend the rest of their lives trying to get a single penny.

It's nice that Bennett finally coughed up, what? $190,000.00 per year for his dancers from a multi-multi-million dollar gravy train.

You'd think that his estate would have quietly made this go away before the show opens. This type of story gets out and gets around, much more now with the internet and the 24-hour news cycle.

I hope to hear of a resolution soon.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 8:16pm

all, I ask you to reread the second paragraph of Margo's post.

Not everything is about money.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 8:46pm

Yeah, Jerry Seigle and Joe Shuster were given one million dollars each by Warner Brothers when the 1977 movie of "Superman" came out. They had foolishly sined away the rights to their creation in the 30's and watched millions and millions pour in.

And do you know why they got the money (well acutally because the fans howled and screamed and got Warner's, who by then owned Superman) when the movie came out? At the time, the head of the studio said "It's the right thing to do."

There is legal and there is right.

[Effie]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 9:13pm

And when Cameron Mackintosh re-mounted "Oliver" in the West End back in the 90's, he made sure Lionel Bart was taken care of, despite the fact that he, too, had signed away his rights.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 9:41pm

It's just the right thing to do.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 9:44pm

Fascinating thread.

Updated On: 9/30/06 at 09:44 PM

[alterego]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 10:33pm

It would at least be the 'right thing to do' - to give them at least some small weekly compensation. How many of the originals ( or those on the tapes) are still around? Would the royalties extend to the deceased survivors?

Have the people who participated in the recording sessions received royalties from all other productions over the years? Foreign, amateur etc?

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 11:01pm

“I only know what Michael intended by the words on that document, which are crystal clear,” he said. “I’m bound to uphold the terms that Michael agreed to.”

Well, at the time, does he seriously think Michael Bennett would have been considering that the show would be revived 40 years later...and that he wouldn't be around when it happened?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 11:17pm

The recording session participants received royalties from the original Broadway run and the national and, I believe, international tours which were controlled by the original producing team. They wouldn't have shared in the proceeds from amateur and stock productions and any mounting that wasn't put together by the original team.

All of the original cast are still alive except for Cameron Mason and Michael Stuart. Not sure about some of the other dancers who participated on the tapes, but weren't cast in the show. Nevertheless, IF some deal could be worked out, presumably the original Group A (people who attended the tape sessions and were in the workshops) and Group B (people who just attended the tape sessions) or their estates would recieve compensation. Group C (those who did the show, but didn't participate in the tape sessions) would likely be excluded (they stopped receiving payments as soon as the left the show many years ago).

[allofmylife]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 11:19pm

Margo, if you were running Broadway, I'd sleep safer.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 9/30/06 at 11:30pm

Sounds like a good movie.

Behind the Line.

©

[allofmylife]

Posted: 10/1/06 at 2:35am

If it was done with finger puppets, it would be better than the movie made of the musical.

Updated On: 10/1/06 at 02:35 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/1/06 at 4:42am

This really isn't any different than the many early R&B, Rock & Roll and Gospel artists of the '50s and '60s who were also "screwed" out of royalties, some of whom signed over the full rights to their original songs lock, stock and barrel.

None of them realized what they had done until it was too late.

[bta212]

Posted: 10/1/06 at 4:55am

I would draw a distinction between a recording artist who is duped out of royalties and the dancers on these tapes.

While I understand that everyone's story is "unique" and these kids sat down and shared their hearts out, I don't think it would be difficult to find another group of dancers with virtually the same--or equally compelling--stories.

The genius of ACL is the synthesis and alchemy of the raw stories into a musical theatre production: words, music, choreography--the organization of the stories into a coherent emotional journey.

Without the creative genius of Bennett, Kirkwood, Hamlisch and Kleban, you've just got a bunch of gypsies telling their stories.

I understand the emotional appeal of the NYT article, but I'm not convinced that the distribution of profit from the show has been so terribly unfair.

[alterego]

Posted: 10/1/06 at 7:58am

Neil Simon didn't recieve any compensation at all for the few gags he provided.

[OtherDaryl]

Posted: 10/1/06 at 11:40am

I'd love to see some $$ going everyone's way, especially since this is, basically, a recreation, thus, an extension, of the original production. Re-staging or re-conception would maybe change my feelings.

It wasn't fair or nice or right for those rights to be signed away in that fashion, but it was legal. And justice is blind. Let's just hope it's not paralyzed as well.