Changing the ending of Rent- Page 5

Posted: 4/27/11 at 3:57pm

I find it odd that a director of 11 years at this University, a published writer and a member of Actors Equity for 17 years, several years as a director in California...etc etc etc, 20 plus years directing all over the place..


has not once understood that when you get a contract from any of the very few licensing companies (MTI, Tams Witmark, Dramatists Play Service, etc) that the FINE PRINT in all of these contracts say you cannot change a thing.
Heck, most even tell you not to change gender casting.

It is BIzarre to me,...that's all. I can expect that from a novice director.
She may not have read this contract for RENT- but I would hope she has read a contract in the last 20 plus years of her directorial experience.

ALso---this 'artistic creativity' is nothing new or artistic.
Rumor and speculation of killing Mimi also arose during the last national tour of RENT with adam and anthony. it was buzzword for awhile--so maybe she read an article that 'inspired' her to do it.

but it's nothing new


Updated On: 4/27/11 at 03:57 PM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 3:59pm

"In speaking with the director it was a mistake to change it because she didn't know it would have been that bad. If she would have know that it would go this far it would have been out of the question to change the ending in this way."

So the lesson to the students is that if you think you won't get caught it is ok to do something illegal?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 4:04pm

First off, as Namo as already pointed out, Mrs. Smith-Salty was not slandered when I changed her name to Satan.

I think, if true, it's a little disheartening that a college professor doesn't understand how a show is licensed, even if she didn't see the contract itself.

In speaking with the director it was a mistake to change it because she didn't know it would have been that bad

I don't understand what that means. It was a mistake because she did something she wasn't within her rights to do.

Why didn't she make these points in what she wrote to the paper?

And if Mr. Larson was around this then he would have seen this death all around himself because of that disease.

He was around then. That's when he wrote it. He was alive when he wrote the show.

And I'm not saying that he didn't purposefully want her to live. But it is a musical and they have to have happy endings.

That doesn't make sense.

I don't think that Larson is every character in ReNT, so just because one sings "anarchy" means he would advocate no constraints whatsoever on the work that he (and his silent collaborators) wrote. I would venture to guess that many composers who have had their works on Broadway "love[d] art." I don't see how you can leap from that to thinking that means that he'd want people to take what he wrote and do it any way they see fit.

To Robbie's point, copyright law is kind of arbitrary, but I don't think that suddenly means we're saying ReNt is the holiest of holies.

It used to be a lot easier to get away with this kind of stuff, before the internet and the layman's ability to become the copyright police. I don't know that it's a detriment or not. I don't think cutting a line or two is cause for people to flip out, unless you are cutting lines that completely change the dynamic of the show, as is the case with this production of ReNt. Mimi lives, and while that's something that's always kind of rankled me, that's the show. That's how it's supposed to be in the show.

To those of you who think that because Mimi died in La Boheme that it's okay to change the end of ReNt, do you advocate splitting the role of Angel into two? After all, that character is based on two characters from La Boheme.
Updated On: 4/27/11 at 04:04 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 4:10pm

Also, the fact that he died before the first preview of it's official off-Broadway run is irrelevant. It's not like that was the first time an audience was seeing the show. She lived in the NYTW production as well. As Yero pointed out, Larson made a point of having Mimi live. That's the big issue, in my opinion. It's not like changing a character from male to female or chopping a line or two. He made a point to have the show end with this character living. We can debate till the end of time whether or not this was the right idea (and as I've said, I've got mixed feelings about it), but it's how he chose to end HIS show.

[wheelsinmotion]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 4:21pm

MY production of Xanadu will feature full frontal nudity and a gruesome death scene for Danny McGuire. The ending will feature the muses singing the title song while cannibalizing the corpse. Art is more than words on paper, people!

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 4:23pm

Phyl,

I was just being hyperbolic regarding the 'holiest of holies' to make the point that, at some point, everything will be in the public domain and we'll all be dead and isn't it all so silly...in the grand scheme. But while I'm still here, I'll gladly join in on the silly!

I'm with you...I'm ambivalent about Mimi living. I actually get why he did it. But for me, personally, I would have off'd her.

And namo...

Can 'Secret Mimi' be the title of Mariah's new cd? In which she covers CONTACT?

[FindingNamo]

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

Actually, Disney's been working tirelessly for decades to make sure nothing is ever in the public domain ever again.

I wish RENT would be so I could have Roger waking up and finding Mimi in the shower.

Mimi: Good morning, sleepyhead!

Roger: This place has a working shower??

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 4:35pm

Actually, Disney's been working tirelessly for decades to make sure nothing is ever in the public domain ever again.

Well, they've been making sure nothing of THEIRS is in the public domain. Aside from lobbying to extend the copyright a few times, they've argued that the specific design for Mickey Mouse (among other things) has been altered, so it's still within copyright.

I find copyright law kind of fascinating in an odd way.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 4:49pm

"With all due respect to Jonathon Larson, his version of the story is where the plot was changed."

Let's not forget, Larson did not change the opera La Boheme. He wrote is own show based on the opera La Boheme. Ms. Sadak changed a major plot point in an existing show, she did not write her own adaption.
I am flabbergasted that a college professor and a learning institution would do something so unprofessional and try to teach students that it is ok. I wonder if MTI will continue to license to them in the future.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 5:37pm

How is an adult teaching theater at a university if she doesn't understand how a show is licensed? What example is she setting if she thinks feigned ignorance (or actual ignorance) of theatrical production is ok if you're not called out? And that people are dumb enough to defend her after they've been made aware of her blatant breach of contract and IPR law is shocking.

I only hope that the people who think what she did is OK never have to deal with someone violating their copyright. Or does it only matter to people who think they can do whatever they want at any time for theater if they're personally being violated? There is no excuse for ignorance once you've been informed of the facts.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 5:46pm

"Let's not forget, Larson did not change the opera La Boheme. He wrote is own show based on the opera La Boheme. Ms. Sadak changed a major plot point in an existing show, she did not write her own adaption.
I am flabbergasted that a college professor and a learning institution would do something so unprofessional and try to teach students that it is ok. I wonder if MTI will continue to license to them in the future."

YES. Directors who make huge sweeping changes like this are just wanna-be writers who can't really write, so they fancy changing other's peoples' work instead of making their own.

There's a big difference between interpreting someone's work and changing it. If you're trying to do the latter, either get permission or write a new show. It's not your work to edit however you please.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 5:49pm

"I only hope that the people who think what she did is OK never have to deal with someone violating their copyright."

It's probably a safe bet they won't.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 6:07pm

^ lulz

[trentsketch]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 6:52pm

I don't know about that, FindingNamo. I wouldn't be surprised if Madame Director tried to sue anyone who stole her brilliant idea of putting graffiti on the backdrop of a performance of Rent. It'll be like the Urinetown choreography lawsuits all over again, only really baseless versus interesting in the discussion they create.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 7:36pm

"In some ways, MTI can be Alexi Darling. And I honestly think he would encourage different interpretations of his show because he loved art. And if he is about anarchy then what they have done in the show is totally what Mr. Larson was writing about."

Ok, this is just ridiculous. The Larson family established the Jonathan Larson Grant in his memory, to use the royalties from Rent to provide financial grants to young composers. Yes, no one knows what he would have done had he lived, but in his place, his family is using that money to provide financial support for ACTUAL struggling artists. Not to mention numerous AIDS charities.

Or, since apparently you can only understand things in twisted Rent metaphors, MTI royalties are like Benny, using their money to pay for Angel's funeral and Mimi's rehab.

A bunch of spoiled college students and a salaried professor are certainly not anarchists sticking it to the man.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 7:46pm

I definitely have strong feelings about Mimi surviving. I think it's unrealistic. I think it's hokey. I think it makes more sense for Mimi in the opera to survive because she hadn't been homeless and people can actually survive TB.

But you know what? It's not my place to change it. Jonathon Larson wrote the show, it was his decision and it's final.

[viewer2]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 8:57pm

Well, changed ending or not, Towson productions are to DIE FOR (pun intended). And now I'll have to buy my tickets for the matinee next weekend tonight even though I don't know how many people I'll have in the party, cause it will sell out. Sad thing is the Baltimore Sun has no one who covers theatre so no one gets props. So glad to see the theatre dept is getting publicity - good publicity would be better, though, such as the great news about the other spring show Kaspar, and the Kennedy Center competition.

I think we have learned something here. If you want to change the ending of a show - don't publicize it and definitely don't post it on the main Broadway Board of Broadway World.com.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 9:01pm

Or don't change the ending at all? That's like saying, "Next time you want to shoplift, don't get caught doing it." To all these people joining today to say these ridiculous things: you're making it worse.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 9:08pm

These new posters joining the board to try and justify or excuse what in reality was the lack of respect for someone else's work, someone else's labor is just downright PATHETIC.

Posted: 4/27/11 at 9:14pm

i love how they all signed up today to try and defend themselves.

then they plug the show. lol.


shill

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/27/11 at 9:21pm

I think we have learned something here. If you want to change the ending of a show - don't publicize it and definitely don't post it on the main Broadway Board of Broadway World.com.

That's not what happened, though. I'd explain how it all unfolded, but I believe there's actually a thread.

[Craig]

Posted: 4/28/11 at 10:11am

Oh no. Theater attendees are going to have to see the "tradition" ending to Rent.

That statement made me eyeroll.

Glad to see Jay posted here though.

[Jon]

Posted: 4/28/11 at 10:31am

I want to do a production of "Fiddler" where in the last scene, just as the family is about to leave Anatevka, a bunch of Cossacks come and ganng rape Shprintze and Bielke.

It's more realistic, and it's what the authors would have written today.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 4/28/11 at 11:34am

Or, a Sound of Music where the Nazi's gun down all of the Von Trappe's in the nunnery cemetery.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/28/11 at 11:59am

"So all I can think about is if he was alive, would he have let MTI take over his show?"


He almost undoubtedly would have because he wasn't a fool. If not MTI, then another licensing company. What composer wouldn't? It's not like MTI is the only licensing company that says 'you can't change the script'. By copyrighting Rent, Larson was saying "This is my property".

But then again- there is the issue, of course, of how much of that property he actually created..