A community theater FOLLIES.... — Page 7

A director at my college made some line changes and cut a number from "Company", and it was reported to MTI. There was no legal action- it was a student-directed black box theatre production, which I guess doesn't count high on MTI's list of priorities (even though it was NYU, so it is slightly more reputable than community theatre)

Was this the all-male student production two or three years ago?

---

Personally, I don't like them cracking down on what they don't like and giving a pass (tacit or otherwise) to stuff they do like, or don't disapprove of. Especially since the alleged ending change never surfaced. If the Loveland speech bothered him that much, I invite him to go after the 1995 Seattle production with Judy Kaye and the 1977 production with Dorothy Collins. Both professional productions. Both companies should have ostensibly known better.

Seriously, either you care that the copyright was violated or you don't. By suggesting there are different degrees of violation is confusing and doesn't seem to be compliant with any sort of law.

Just my thoughts, as they say.

I getcha. But it still seems mucky to me. I would think divining what's willful and what's not is the tricky part. I always see "No copyright infringement intended" posted with a lot of YouTube stuff and to me that's as willful as you can be. You KNOW there's an issue if you're saying that and just saying you don't intend it doesn't make it right. And - and I DO realize there is a difference, but it's still food for thought, in my opinion - since virtually every major revival (and non-major revival) of virtually every show goes through drastic changes, it's hard for me to feel too much concern for the sanctity of material a lot of the time. The difference is yes, generally, it's all being done with the approval of the powers that be, but I think it blurs the indignation behind causes like having Sondheim shaming people into writing apology letters to MTI.

I'm not trying to be argumentative (well, at least not spitefully so), because I do get what you mean. But the willful infringement here (at least as far as I understand it) is all hearsay, is it not?

>>> Dear So-and-so, In the future, please reconsider before taking artistic license with the work of an author. If we had meant for the show to be done that way, it would have been written that way. Sincerely, Stephen Sondheim"


Damn! I wish that could be sent to every "director" who does the same thing.

That's it? It's like the ending of a bad comedy. Rewrite, rewrite I say!!!!!!

Seriously. Let it go.

I also saw Follies. Yes this show was terrible in almost every aspect except some female leads (sometimes). Everyone is criticizing this production as it is a great community theater. Let me enlighten you. It is a church basement theater group where they put on shows for fun and to raise money for the church. This is not a professional organization and the quality should not be taken seriously at all. You sit on folding chairs in an auditorium with sub par lighting and sound systems (like a school assembly) and the local PTA sells brownies and candy at intermission. Aside from the licensing issues (which is not our place to deal with), let them be and do their shows as its nothing to give second thoughts about.

PS: I also saw RENT at a more professional Community theater on the island and the casting was terrible, 100% miscast, they did nothing but sing, there was no acting in songs just "hey look I can belt" and the staging was sooo amateur. There is a reason its community theater so don't expect much going into these things its hit or miss with theaters out there.

Updated On: 8/31/11 at 11:16 AM