Carrafa & Rando are the Plagiarist!?- Page 2

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 8:21pm

This whole situation is particularly interesting if we consider Carrafa and Rando's follow-up to URINETOWN, DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES, a show also a reworking of a previous production. The difference is that DOTV was so wildly different from the original Vienna version that it became something completely different, almost unrelated to the original. It is well-noted that Rando wasn't even in NYC for a month during rehearsals/previews because he was tending to his dying mother, and audio tapes of rehearsals reveal Carrafa choreographing long musical sequences by telling the dancers to "just groove", but that is not to say that sections of the choreography were breathtaking and noticeably exhaustively choreographed. Frankly, I think Rando and Carrafa both got lucky being attached to URINETOWN and have consistently failed in every attempt to equal the impact that that show had, and this is just the latest example of exacerbation of the problem - not being able to live down their first success and trying to change history and take more credit than they are due.

The emporers have no clothes.

A Good Nightmare Comes So Rarely,
P genre
Updated On: 12/7/06 at 08:21 PM

[D2]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 8:35pm

I saw the Fringe production, the off and on Broadway production, and just by chance the Mercury Theatre Production in Chicago.

There were several things in the Fringe production which did make it into the Broadway production, most notably some of the staging in the Act One Finale, some of Run Freedom Run and tiny bits of We're Not Sorry, among some other stuff. The main similarity was in the use of catwalks and levels - the space that the Fringe production played had a catwalk running across the back and sides of the auditorium, and this was retained. However, there was no Public Amenity/UGC Headquarter revolving set piece, just pieces of furniture wheeled on and off. There was also a very colorful backdrop that showed the UGC high on a hill. But what really differentiated both productions was a marked difference in tone - the Fringe production was ebullient, youthful and cartoony, while Rando's production was darker, more adult and far more sophisticated. Both productions worked beautifully.

The Mercury Theater production also had it's differences, mostly in small character details and a few staging moments, but the big iconic moments were exactly the same, as was the tone and general look of the show.

As I stated in a message on another thread, there are no stage directions in the published or licensed script, so anyone without more than a passing familiarity of the Broadway production would have to create their production on their own. And before anyone goes off on me, I want to say that I do not think Rando and Carrafa are right about this, but nor are they wrong. These details should have been negotiated when the show was being readied for licensing, not now. How it all ends up will be very interesting. I don't think it will cause Broadway ticket prices to rise, as the royalty arrangements are already set by union contracts. What will rise, though, are the costs of licensing the shows themselves, to cover the additional royalties that will have to be paid out.

What a mess.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 9:16pm

There are some things that happened in regards to that actors which were...how to say?...unfortunate. Decisions were made because of our belief, faith and love of the show that maybe should not have been made. And because of our status in the theatre world (nobodies), it would have been very difficult making a stink at the time. No one wanted to be blackballed.

It's fascinating that this is all coming up now.

And, truth be told, if only one person could have gone to Broadway with it, it was rightfully Spencer. She's a terrific actress and a terrific person and her performance downtown was simply stellar.

And D2...thanks for saying nice things about the Fringe production. It's one of my greatest theatrical memories...though tinged with some heartbreak. It's nice to know there are those that appreciated our work.

[singtopher]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 9:54pm

Karma's a B****, ain't it?

[SS2]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 10:38pm

I remember when this first came up, I posted on a thread that the Fringe director could make similar claims and some genius said, "They would have solved all that before the production went beyond fringe, believe me." Yeah, well, here you go.

I would not want to be Rando right now. The lawsuit he is bringing was against a production that never made money. But the lawsuit against him, on the same grounds, that one is about the money he was paid. He's in a great spot! He'll be making the same accusations against one director, and using that director's defence in the case brought against him. I wonder if his union will stand by him now that he needs TWO legal teams?

For what it's worth, I saw the Fringe production on two nights and it was really, really, really fantastic. The performances were top notch, absolutely fantastic. I knew when I saw that play that I was witnessing a one of a kind show, you could just feel it. Anyone who was involved in that production might not have made it to Broadway, but for those of us who saw it you will always be in our memories as part of a truly magnificent work.

I liked the productions after as well, and it is a shame that unscrupulous people would use this play as a test case to push intellectual property lawyering to utterly absurd lengths.

[teddyp2]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:35pm

I'm so confused...so Rando and Caraffa are suing the Ohio show and the Chicago show?

And the original director, Mcdonald is now suing Rando and Caraffa?

Is that correct?

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:55pm

This is EXACTLY what the justice system was created for.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 1:08pm

I am in the middle of finals, so have yet to dive into all these articles, but my understanding is that there is a distinction between these lawsuits.

Rando's lawsuit alleges that the Akron+ productions were substantially similar to his Broadway production; nearly 90%.

The Fringe director claims that "some aspects" of his Fringe production were used on Broadway.

Based on what I have read, if only "some aspects" of Rando/Carrafa's production had been in Akron's, there would be no lawsuit.

Updated On: 12/8/06 at 01:08 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 1:10pm

Judge Judy wouldn't put up with one ounce of this crap!

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 2:39pm

It doesn't sound like the second lawsuit is really about getting long-overdue money as much as it is an opportunity for the director to point out the hypocrisy in the Rando/Caraffa lawsuit. Legal fees are expensive, of course, so it's not like he's just playing devil's advocate out of the goodness of his heart, but if it hadn't been for the original suit, he would never have even put this to the test.

[Marlothom]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 3:05pm

But doesn't this happen with many workshops of shows, where the funding is not there yet, so you hire young directors, or even actors collaborate with their ideas, and then later when the show is passed its formative stages, funding can be obtained and a "named" directors is hired? I am sure this happens a lot.

I agree with your point about the 2d lawsuit attempting to prove a point, however, I do not think it does so completely.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 3:08pm

Neither would Judge Turpin!

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 5:16pm

Judge Turpin would just send John Rando to Australia before raping Caraffa. And to think he was upset about being taken advantage of over his choreography!

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 5:28pm

i think its hysterical that theyre being sued. Maybe someone can make a new show out of this drama.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 6:53pm

Oh...I don't think Joe would really go forward with any kind of major lawsuit. Believe me...if he had wanted to, he would have done it long before now. The Fringe production was '99 and the off-Broadway staging was in '01. He could have easily done something then. In fact, we were at the same performance off-Broadway and I remember a conversation taking place about how similar some aspects of the production were. Things that simply are not inherent in the script. I think he's trying to make a point about the initial lawsuit and how hypocritical it may well be.

And SS2...thanks. Even 7 years after the fact, it's nice to know our work was appreciated!

robbie
Mr McQueen

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 7:13pm

ok so I saw the comparison video on "The Site" and while it does look very damning, I do have one question. Is it possible that alot of what was lifted from the Fringe production came from cast members and not Rando and Carrafa? I know in various productions I've done, if something just isn't working there usually is one person who will chime in with "Well when I did this before, we did thus and such, and it really worked" Is it possible that some of the repeat cast members from Fringe gave some insight and ideas to various scenes and thats why it looks lifted? "Oh this was really funny at fringe when we did it this way" and the like....

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 7:33pm

If that's the case, Randi and Crappa shouldn't be sueing at all.

[secondcity]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 9:17pm

I'd say that you are correct. My feeling, and I'm an actor not a director, so take this with a grain of salt. But if you ask for input from your cast and crew on staging and choreography...and many directors do...you should not try and take credit for it. Its very clear that Urinetown had a lot of people contributing to make it successful.

[D2]

Posted: 4/3/07 at 11:21pm

There was only one repeat cast member from Fringe to Off and On Broadway, and that was Spencer Kayden. No one else from the original Fringe production went with the show. It is possible that a lot of the staging was suggested by the cast members during rehearsal, but by law their suggestions become the property of the authors, not the director and/or choreographer. It is known as the "Faith Dane" clause, based on a case with the original 1959 production of GYPSY. Faith Dane was the original Miss Mazeppa, and she claimed that she created so much of the business that became intrinsic to the part that she was owed a royalty. She lost the case, and it was decided that whatever is created by an actor in rehearsal and is used in the production becomes part of the author's work.

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 4/4/07 at 11:35pm

"i think its hysterical that theyre being sued. Maybe someone can make a new show out of this drama."

They could play the fringe fest.