This is such an odd topic. Great for MTI getting the rights to Wicked. They've been doing a great job with snatching up rights to tick tick BOOM, Urinetown, Producers and Millie.
But what's all this talk about limiting what community and high school theatres can do? I agree that these people need to determine for their schools of companies what shows are appropriate, but I don't think that anyone should be dictating what they can or can't do. I understand issues of nearby national tours, other theatres having the rights, etc, but to just say "no" because it's community theatre or high school is bewildering to me. If the writer has some reason for this than so be it, but if a licensing company makes that decision, I think it's a bad decision.
As Joshua said, community theatre is there for the experiences. High school theatre is there for experiences and education. What are people going to learn by doing Oklahoma and Brigadoon every other year? If people can't do new shows they're going to be stuck doing the same ones over ang over again. No fun.
Magic, I don't think that Dextrous was saying that certain shows should never be allowed to be licensed to amateur companies. He was saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that these companies need to decide what they have the resources to do, instead of just doing Wicked because it's the hot new show. If they don't have an Elphaba and Glinda, there's no point in doing the show.
And just because some people don't have huge budgets doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't do the show. A lot of creative genius comes from small budgets and being forced to be creative. I was in an amazing production of Tommy where our entire set was risers and a white square painted on the floor. We didn't have an exploding pinball machine or anything like that. Does that mean we shouldn't have done the production in the first place?
And Dextrous, although I've agreed with everything else you've said, I completely disagree with your idea of not changing anything from a Broadway production. A director should have free will as long as the heart and soul of the piece is still there. If they change things just to be different and the meaning and depth of the piece that the writer is trying to get across is lost, then they're a bad director. But how do we get great revivals like Cabaret or Chicago if we stick to exactly what the originals do? With RENT specifically, Michael Grief's staging is quite brilliant, but it's not the only way to do it. And the only character that is race-dependent (correct me if I'm wrong) is Mimi, and they have already cast African-American girls with frizzy hair as that part, so casting an Asian as Roger isn't going to screw up the meaning of the piece.
In conclusion (haha), there's a fine balance between the responsibilities of the producing company and the licensing company. The producing company, whether it be community or high school theatre, needs to make sure that they can pull of a certain show, and not have opera singers playing Elphaba. Licensing companies need to grant rights to theatres that will produce a version of the show that, although not Broadway calibur, will stay true to the spirit and form of the show while giving their own artistic touch to it.
There, I'm done now.
Eeeeeeyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaannnnnddddd aaaaaaaiiiiiiiiyyyyyyaaaaaammmmmmmm teeeeeeeelllllliiiiiinnngg yyyyooooooouuuuuuuwwwaaaahh...
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
