Now this is over-reaching authorial control...

If it was in the contract to begin with and they signed it I'd have no problem with it but 4 hours before the opening is messed up.

I've stayed for a few talk backs and usually find them rather interesting.

Hey David. China Doll was garbage.

I wonder - does anyone else feel that talkbacks often tend to be little more than opportunities for lonely/unbalanced people to listen to themselves talk at length?

I think that's the best line from that movie, too.

But I was referring to nutjobs from the audience - the ones who get up to ask "four-part questions" that end up being lengthy statements/opinions with no questions at all.

Once again, the pertinent focus is on the contract between the playwright and the theatre, nothing more and nothing less. No matter how unwise a license condition might be, it is enforceable. And the other lesson here is that a license is revocable.

P.S. While Mamet's talent as a playwright fell off a cliff about 20 years ago, Oleanna was and is a great play.

@newintown yes

The legality of it aside, Mamet has been an ass for years now, so this isn't really a surprise.

As for talkbacks, generally I don't find them interesting, but the brief one after Indecent last week was quite good. I'd imagine it helped that Paula Vogel is a professor and therefore very good at answering questions like that.

HogansHero, with the first contract signed was the company obligated to sign the second contract stating that a talk-back could not happen? Can one party say, "I know we had a deal and signed on it, but here are my NEW terms; take it or leave it."

It seems to me that if something wasn't stipulated in the first contract then Mamet and his representatives should have had to chalk this up as a lesson learned, and add it to all future contracts.

On a side note, I saw a production of Oleanna several years ago at Indiana State University, and it was followed by a very insightful Q&A session.

Yes, sometimes that is what happens, but I don't think I've ever stayed for one that didn't offer something I appreciated.

I've certainly sat through my share of excruciating talkbacks- a cringe-comedy moment of an older patron asking Lucas Hnath, "May I tell you how I thought the play should have ended?" at a talkback after The Christians comes to mind- but I have also sat through really wonderful ones, too. A talkback after John was very insightful (the long running time probably weeded out the people looking for a soapbox).

Even though they are hit-or-miss, and whatever you think of them, I think controlling whether or not they happen should not be within the power of a playwright. But when I saw the headline, I was like, "This has to be Mamet." And lo and behold, it was! Who else would it be?

Sounds like he slapped them with a rider to the contract at the last minute. This article from 2014 details the rider. This is all about his ego and control. I would love to hear what he considers his "damages" would be from a talkback occurring within two hours of the end of the performance hosted ANYWHERE by the theatre company, and how he arrived at the sum of $25,000 per instance. To me, it just looks like bullying, using money as his weapon of choice. I'd be interested to see the contract 1) to see how it addresses riders in connection with the contract (language that insists upon licensee signing any rider or addendum after the execution of the contract should be a HUGE red flag) and 2) to see what is considered a breach of contract by either party and the penalties involved. Mamet and Samuel French know these small theatre companies (and most large ones, even) don't have the money to pay penalties or to sue if they get slapped with talkback penalties. Personally, I've always hated his work. There are millions of other plays by millions of other playwrights. Don't sign the contract cuz he ain't that special to tell theatres what they are allowed to discuss post-performance with an audience.

I would also be curious how "Licensee" is defined in the contract. If the Licensee doesn't "authorize or conduct" the talkback, then someone else can. There's a legal loophole to be investigated if a maverick theatre company is that desperate to produce one of his shows.

Mister Matt said: "Sounds like he slapped them with a rider to the contract at the last minute. This article from 2014 details the rider. "

This makes me wonder if the blog's source was accurate or if, in fact, the rider had been there the entire time. (I have no clue, but this seems a bit more plausible, if just as absurd.)