Revivals: Do the Authors Have a Say?

After seeing Chicago recently and watching some press clips of Usher in the role, I'd like to know, do(es) the author(s) (in Chicago's case, John Kander) have(has) a say in who is cast? I think it would think a composer should have a say in who sings his music and an author in who says his dialouge.
This has to do mainly with stunt casting as Chicago, Beauty and the Beast and so on have done to keep going along.

Updated On: 9/9/06 at 10:20 PM

So John Kander let Usher perform his work? Wow. Just from the press clips I thought the score was butchered.

Well, thanks for answering my question Yankeefan.

Yankeefan, what happens after Laurents has gone to the big theater in the sky?

---

Laurents could possibly bar Lupone from EVER appearing as Rose on Broadway or the West End by having his estate enforce a specific restriction on her playing the role after he dies. Not sure if he will, but I'm pretty sure the Dramatist Guild contract would allow him to do it.

---

Long story short:

She bowed out of a crappy show of his out of town, because he couldn't promise her the lead on Broadway. He believed this was the reason it didn't go to Broadway (the show was bad to begin with, so that's why). He barred her from ever doing a show of his again. Now, since Gypsy at Ravinia was a concert staging, it doesn't count. She's able to do it regionally, but not a regular production, I believe.

It's more or less the same thing as her feud with Lloyd Webber. He fired her from Sunset Boulevard, she sued because of a "I'm going to NY with the show" clause in her contract, and won.

She has fights with a lot of people.

Updated On: 9/9/06 at 10:45 PM

That man knows how to bear a grudge! Margo, do you know the specifics of the feud?

ETA: Never mind. You guys are psychic.

---

Updated On: 9/9/06 at 10:48 PM

Well, Webber didn't actually fire her. She was playing Norma Desmond in the London production and in her contract he had guaranteed her the role in Broadway production once the West End production closed. Lupone's reviews in London were mixed with some critics complaining that she was way too young for the part. Meanwhile, Glenn Close was playing Norma in LA and receiving raves. Because of that (and because he had a huge amount of his Really Useful Company's assets tied up in the show), he changed his mind and offered Close the Broadway production. Lupone sued to enforce her contract and won a monetary settlement (a million dollars in most reports).

Despite all of that, Lupone finished her entire London run in the show, so Webber never fired her.

---

And in Connecticut, she has the "Andrew Lloyd Weber Memorial Pool" (note the spelling). It's all on her online blog.

Well, as someone who doesn't like LuPone very much, this certainly doesn't really get her any higher in my books. :)

"Not sure if he will"

Regarding Patti playing Rose, Laurents has said, in his typical snappy-patter style: "Not now. Not ever."

---

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 10:05 AM

That ANNIE was the Trinity Rep production in Providence. They scripted that segment, and it was performed at least three times, but then the authors got wind of it.

---

But this opens that ol' slippery slope, guys. How long before authors and composers start asking control on how a song is sung or a line read? Will there be physical and racial requirements? How about the director's concept? Will the sets and costumes have to be cleared?

How long are these to be inforced? Will D'Oyly Carte start imposing requirements on Gilbert and Sullivan productions, even though they're technically in public domain? How about the folks who license the operas of Verdi and Puccini?

Frankly, I think the idea of the ANNIE production is marvelous and should have been allowed to stand. Theatre should be allowed to experiment if it's going to expand our experience with the material. After all, how many times does the sun have to come up tomorrow?

---

Theatre is not only a collaborative venture but, at this level, a business, pure and simple. Yeah, it starts with the authors, but from there, it's expanded by the producer and the director and the cast and the designers and the choreographer and the orchestrator and the prop maker. Sometimes these people make choices for the author that vastly improve his work (Think about what FOLLIES would have been had it remained THE GIRLS UPSTAIRS). If an author wishes to play God and deny a certain production because he doesnt like the way his baby is being treated, then, honestly, he's in the wrong line of work and should become a novelist.

Bear in mind too that the author usually *does* see his vision realized with the first Broadway production. How many people get to say that? And once he's gotten it his way, it's time to let it go and let others find their interpretation of it.

Heck, consider ANNIE, if you want. It's based on a comic strip that was drawn by a hardline, pro-business conservative who had little empathy for those who lost everything during the Depression. He probably would have looked at the musical and found it insulting because it violated the spirit of his work by trivializing it. Should we be honouring that as well?

Art is always going to be about change. If we dont allow latitude for interpretation, then we might as well forget about ever seeing shows like TAKE ME ALONG or A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC or even OKLAHOMA, all of which were based on previous works and all of which veer radically in spirit from the originals.

---