Revivals: Do the Authors Have a Say?

[jv92]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:20pm

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

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:22pm

The authors have first refusal. Hence, Patti LuPone will never do Gypsy on Broadway due to her feud with Laurents.

[jv92]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:26pm

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.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:30pm

Under the Dramatist Guild contract, John Kander (as well as the estates of Fred Ebb -- lyricist and co-book writer -- and Bob Fosse -- co-book writer) have casting approval rights for any major revival of CHICAGO, namely for the Broadway and West End productions and major national and international tours. Some composers and playwrights (Sondheim, Laurents, Albee among others) are very "hands on" in terms of all casting decisions and personally approve all initial casting, as well as most replacements. Others are less involved -- as apparently Kander & Ebb and their representantives have chosen to be -- and leave such decisions to be made by directors and producers of their productions.

Updated On: 9/9/06 at 10:30 PM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:36pm

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

[jv92]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:37pm

And thank you Margo for a more detailed explination.

It's a shame, because on recent visits to Chicago I've been disapointed in the recent casts butchering the excellent material. It's good to know that as long as Sondheim is around, his equally excellent material will not suffer the same fate. (Hopefully, once his time comes, his represetatives will respect his work and make sure it is performed the way it should be.)


Oh, and I will say one posstive thing about Usher-
From the clips, he seems to be handling the choreography well. Updated On: 9/9/06 at 10:37 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:41pm

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.

[jv92]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:44pm

Forgive me, but may I ask of the details of the Laurents-LuPone feud? I've heard it mentioned several times, but I don't know what happened.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:45pm

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

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:48pm

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.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:48pm

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

[Julian2]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:51pm

That stinks

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 10:57pm

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.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 11:07pm

I don't know how she was able to finish the run after ALL that!

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/9/06 at 11:09pm

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

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 1:50am

This is actually starting to become more of an issue on the regional theatre level as well -- at the last couple of SETC and NETC conventions, there's been at least one panel on "playwrights' rights", where playwrights are now demanding more and more control over cuts and casting beyond the Broadway and LORT levels. It's an issue that has a lot of regional theatres concerned, so everyone's watching it with a lot of interest.

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:28am

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

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 5:44am

It varies from case to case...who the playwright/composer is, and what they or their estate have established and negotiated.

I've heard that the folks who administer the Rodgers & Hammerstein catalogue, for example, are quite powerful. If there are changes to characters or scenes, it has to be cleared with the R&H folks first.

Casting could ostensibly fall under "changes to characters and scenes." There was a case last year where a group was denied the right to do an all-female version of Grease because the authors (?) objected to the casting. I've also heard that Yasmina Reza reserves a lot of rights to her plays--for instance she will not allow the male characters from Art to be played by or changed to women.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 10:05am

"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

[dry2olives]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 10:10am

The sex of the character is certainly the author's choice. A year or two ago there was a New York production being advertised as "Chick True West." Sam Shepard's representatives closed it because they had violated the contract. The producers tried to claim that changing the sex of the characters was not the same as changing the script.

My favorite case, and I forget where I heard this, was a production of Annie where they added a new scene at the end of "New Deal For Christmas." Annie wakes up in the orphanage again. The events in the show were all a dream. She sadly sings one final chorus of "Maybe." They say kids in the audience were hysterical with tears. I believe they handed that one a "cease and desist" too.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 11:13am

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.

[saschasf]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 7:00pm

"My favorite case, and I forget where I heard this, was a production of Annie where they added a new scene at the end of "New Deal For Christmas." Annie wakes up in the orphanage again. The events in the show were all a dream. She sadly sings one final chorus of "Maybe." They say kids in the audience were hysterical with tears. I believe they handed that one a "cease and desist" too."
Oh my god, that is just plain mean! Do you know when that was? If the kids had seen the movie, I would bet they were VERY disappoitned. It was my fiet musical that I adored, but with this ending, I would have been a bit traumatized! I saw a church version when I was like 10, where it all was very religious, but Annie did end up with Daddy Warbucks (I think he married his secretary first, though.) at the end, as it should be.:)

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 9:01pm

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?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 9:09pm

SeanMartin, think from the perspective of the author. Would you want your work changed? It's an insult.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 11:17pm

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.