Is Stephen Schwartz's decision on the right track?

I think it's a blessing in disguise. The theatre companies can simply pick better written shows to produce.



I kid.



In reality, the majority of theatre owners, musical theatre producers and actors in the region are likely more liberal just like anywhere else and were probably against HB2. I don't see the point in punishing them.

I think it was the right decision. If people are angry about it, they should not direct their anger towards Stephen Schwartz but to Governor McCrory. They should be calling their legislators about repealing HB2. That's the point. It's not to punish those who live in North Carolina but to motivate them to take action and persuade the lawmakers of NC to get rid of this ridiculous and dangerous bill.



From what I understand he did not pull the licensing rights for school and community theater productions.

"So North Carolinians won't see WICKED for awhile. Let them reflect on why every time their cousins in Virginia rave about the show."



Devil's advocate -- As you said in your other post (I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was an existing thread when I posted), they will perform other shows. Which is all well and good EXCEPT when they lose out on performing a popular show (or put on a Restoration comedy in protest as you suggest) and the audiences don't come. That directly hurts the theater companies themselves. Or when a youth theatre group wants to put on "Pippin" and can't -- these are kids who can't vote yet, can't officially take part in the legislative process, and they are the ones being hurt. I think standing on principle and "reflecting on why they can't" in this case does more harm than good.

GavestonPS said: "^^^^ Well, to quote Marx and Lenin, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few legs."

Yes, some theaters may suffer. But if people who love theater stop going because they can't see the latest Schwartz hits, then that's all the more incentive for them to change North Carolina law.

There's really no such thing as a protest that doesn't disadvantage somebody. (And if there were, it wouldn't be very effective.) I'm sure the March to Selma played hell on the bridge traffic, too.

Another choice would be to commission new plays on the subject of the inherent bigotry of "religious freedom" laws. That would provide work to young playwrights as well as actors. (As someone else said, Schwartz will do fine without NC royalties, though I don't say this to belittle his sacrifice.)

I think he deserves enormous credit. Don't forget...in addition to Wicked, we are talking about Godspell and Pippin, which I imagine are very popular with high schools and amateur groups.

"

Wilmingtom said: "Schwartz is simply bringing more attention to the hideous situation in NC. No theater company will suffer subscription loss or go under because they can't acquire the rights to Godpsell or Pippin this season. They can do it next year. And he's not pulling licenses for productions that have already been issued because he can't. Those are contracts and for MTI to try to get out of them would be a nightmare of the highest order. He's just going for awareness and I applaud him.



"



But if no theaters will suffer hardship, doesn't that mean no local economies will suffer? So you are saying the move is basically all for show?

That's part of my concern -- the local economy may or may not be affected, but that small theater very well may be.

I really hope you are right with what you are thinking timeline-wise -- that would clearly be the best outcome for everyone.

missthemountains said: "Ilana, while I understand what you're saying let me tell you this. I was out in high school about ten years ago now in North Carolina and it was a nightmare. The years I spent there were among some of the lowest of my life. It is a truly horrible place, and Stephen is on the right side of history right now. F uck the subscribers, f uck the local economy. This is a human rights issue, and that reprehensible state deserves to pay for it."



Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have heard from so many people across the globe, and the dialogue that has been sparked has been truly heartening (and frightening, in some cases). It is incredible the amount of people who will claim it's about bathrooms. While I do still have concerns about the theater communities impacted, etc., I hope that as this tactic has been taken, that it is effective, and quickly. That really would be the best outcome for all involved -- especially for those walking in the hallways you once walked.

His material, his decision.

Margo319 said: "His material, his decision.



"



that is patently false and inaccurate. he is NOT the sole owner or copyright holder of the intellectual property, or the grand rights for that matter. he may own parts of a score, the ability to dramatically present those parts of the score, and more. but he doesn't completely or wholly own the material. others have their own livelihoods tied to what HE decides; other composers, book-writers, commissioning producers and organizations, licensing agencies, source material authors, the estates of writers, etc.

I think that perhaps he should make every show banned except for Godspell, which would have no royalties for a bit.

Edit: Spelling

Updated On: 4/5/16 at 06:17 PM

dianamorales said: "As someone from Mississippi, where the law was also passed, I think Schwartz's decision was a mistake. Of course I can't stand the law. However, theatre is known for influencing and changing minds, and inciting social reform. We need it there more than anywhere. Godspell especially.



"

Again, you are missing the point: Schwartz has not and cannot cancel ALL theater in any state. In the extreme, if others follow his lead and NC (and even Mississippi) end up with nothing but new works about "religious freedom" laws, that will make its own statement without killing all theater in either state. (Of course there are thousands of plays in the public domain, so they can always revive some of them.)

But to the extent some inconvenience results, then Schwartz' protest is no different from any other; all protests and revolutions require some sort of sacrifice from those who will benefit from the desired change. Look up the Montgomery Bus Boycott, inspired IIRC by Rosa Parks' refusal to move to the back of the bus. Yes, it hurt the bus company financially, but it made life most difficult for the black maids, et al., who were boycotting. They had to walk miles to and from work, in addition to putting in a hard day's work.

***

As for excluding GODSPELL from Schwartz' boycott because it supposedly has some sort of magical power to make people tolerant, that is just a pipe dream. There is no evidence that any particular play has that sort of impact. When audience members at Clifford Odets' WAITING FOR LEFTY jumped to their feet to join the actors in cries of "Strike! Strike!", it was leftists who joined the on-stage protest, not their capitalist opponents. Plays are sometimes useful in reinforcing beliefs, but I don't believe there is any evidence that they change many minds. (Except in the broadest possible sense: a lifetime of theater-going may broaden one's horizons, but no one play will change one's vote.)

And GODSPELL is the one Schwartz work that would interest those who favor "religious freedom" laws. A lot of such people don't let their children celebrate Halloween because consorting with "witches" is forbidden by the BIBLE. They weren't going to WICKED or PIPPIN (religion = murder) anyway; but the knowledge that the culture as a whole considers those states pariahs may have some influence.

Updated On: 4/5/16 at 10:06 PM