Laurents vs. LuPone - does Sondheim have a say?

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 1:41pm

I know Arthur Laurents has his little vendetta against Patti LuPone playing Gypsy (still confused as to why), but does Stephen Sondheim have any say? Maybe he does, just not as much as Laurents?

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 1:42pm

Well considering Laurents wrote the whole entire book, and Sondheim just wrote the lyrics.

Laurents definitely has the most say.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 1:43pm

who cares

[bjivie2]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 1:49pm

I guess I'm just so desperate to see LuPone do the role that I'm trying to find any way possible to make it work in my head.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 1:56pm

With any luck she will give up acting permanently.

[Johnnytoc]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 2:02pm

Ouch.

Bjivie2, she just played Mama Rose at Ravinia.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 2:07pm

Bjivie isn't an idiot. Like many of us he couldn't make the trip to Chicago to see her in the role. So he wishes she could play it else where.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 3:35pm

ehhh wait 5 years. Laurents will be dead and then we can all go about seeing many people doing many things with his work. Who knows, they might even fix Anyone Can Whistle's book :o)

Posted: 8/21/06 at 4:34pm

i will step in here & defend Ms LuPone.
she is a goddess & a gift to us.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 4:35pm

Maybe they can fix NICK & NORA's book too!

[Horton]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 5:23pm

Can somebody explain the tension between Laurents and LuPone to me. thanks!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 5:31pm

Several years ago, Laurents and Lupone had a falling out over a regional production of his play "Jolson Sings Again." I've heard various reasons, but the real story seems to be that she wanted some guarantee from Laurents that he not only planned to take the show to Broadway and that if it made it, then she would be the star (she'd been burned in past). When he wouldn't/couldn't give her any reassurance, she withdrew from the production. Laurents SEETHED and blames her for the play never progressing beyond a few regional productions (truth be told: the reviews were always mediocre and Lupone was smart not to do it -- with or without Lupone, it'll never see Broadway).

So, ever since then Laurents has refused to allow any show of his to be produced with her on Broadway (under the Dramatist Guild contract, he has approval rights over casting of the original production, as well as any subsequent major revival of his work -- Broadway or national tour; a staged reading at Ravinia doesn't count).

Updated On: 8/21/06 at 05:31 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 5:45pm

"So, ever since then Laurents has refused to allow any show of his to be produced with her on Broadway (under the Dramatist Guild contract, he has approval rights over casting of the original production, as well as any subsequent major revival of his work -- Broadway or national tour; a staged reading at Ravinia doesn't count)."

I still don't understand why he would allow his personal grudge against LuPone, one that is completely unrelated to her talents and abilty to do a fine GYPSY, can continue to keep him from allowing her to do a full-fledged production. I wonder if his refusal could be challenged legally since it's aparently based soley on a personal vendetta? Wouldn't it be in his best interest both professionally and personally to bury the hatchet? It's so....um....8th Grade?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 5:51pm

No. Old Queen.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 5:51pm

There's no legal challenge that can be made. Any one of the creators of a show can blackball or veto an actor or director who wants to be part of a major revival or national company for any reason or no stated reason at all. That's their right under the Dramatist Guild contract. Basically nothing can be done -- by Sondheim or the Jules Styne estate or anyone else -- as long as he's alive.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 5:54pm

Sure it's 8th grade, but its his property. Nobody would ever have any legal leg to stand on to fight that. He has casting approval over major productions and he isn't obligated to give any explanation for why he does or doesn't cast someone in the role.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 5:58pm

"Laurents will be dead and then we can all go about seeing many people doing many things with his work."

Death doesn't guarantee anything. Sometimes the estate of an author is worse than the actual author ever was.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 6:32pm

I was really talking about LuPone doing a revival of Gypsy

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 6:35pm

Margo--my question to you: Do each of the creators have veto power over the other creators, or is there a voting structure built into the Dramatists Guild contract?

If Sondheim and the Jule Styne Estate (and the Jerome Robbins Estate, if is considered an author) all vote yes on LuPone and only Laurents (or his estate, if he ever dies) votes no, do they overrule himk or does he overrule them?

If it is a veto, you can bet Arthur has left written instructions for his literary executor.

[FoscasBohemianDream]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 6:38pm

On a related note. If Laurents were to pass (I actually love Laurents, he is so bitter I can't help but think it's cute), could Sondheim green light a re-write of the Anyone Can Whistle book? Such a perfect score and such a horrible book...

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 6:53pm

Pal, I'm not Margo, but I can tell you that it has to be unanimous. If Laurent's estate were to say no, it would be no. James Goldman's widow for example was the person who nixed the Papermill FOLLIES (though Sondheim later admitted he had misgivings about the production as well).

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 7:00pm

Yes, it has to be unaninmous. This Laurents situation is fairly atypical though. Most writers/composers are more than happy to greenlight any revival of their work. Aside from the obvious monetary benefit, a successful revival only adds to their legacy and the legacy of their work and they're glad that new generations will be introduced to and have a chance to experience their successes from decades ago. Petty biases and squabbles are usually set aside for the good of the overall work

Updated On: 8/21/06 at 07:00 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 7:48pm

I know that was the story on Follies, but I always assumed Sondheim was ambivalent and chose not to oppose Goldman's widow. I'm surprised if the DG contract actually gives one writer veto power like that--most contract and estate law is written so that there has to be a majority vote, or an outside party is named the tie-breaker.

I ask because I would assume that in most cases, the writers would come together and avoid conflict, but since Sondheim and Laurents are no supposedly longer speaking to each other, the potential for conflict is greater.

[Zachary Goldfarb]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 8:00pm

When Laurents dies (if Patti isn't way too old), his estate can keep her from doing a major production. So somebody better change his mind before he dies...

[2]

Posted: 8/21/06 at 10:08pm

I wonder if he will have any said in the movie Rob Marshall is thinking of doing, supposedly...