Riedel on The Great Comet off stage battle - PART 2 — Page 3

QueenAlice said: "I was able to see the production last night, and loved it. It was a thrill to see how much the production and grown since I first saw it several years ago at Ars Nova. As I was watching it, I couldn't help but think about this unfortunate Fight. But playing devils advocate, I think I understand perhaps a little bit where the Kagan's are coming from. In truth, this production is very different from what appeared downtown. It has several new songs, and though certainly "inspired" from the work downtown, it is a completely different staging on Broadway.

So I can perhaps understand the disagreement with the credit that states this is "the Ars Nova production of…" because it really isn't.

It would be kind of like a credit that states "The Nederlanders present the Playwrights Horizons production of SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE" - and we all know that show changed greatly by the time it got to Broadway.

Certainly Ars Nova deserves credit for commissioning and developing the piece but why can't the credit line speak so much to that? I would think that's a potential solution.





"

Do you understand what a contract is? I'm sure you do, but from your posts, it wouldn't seem so.

(I can't speak for the second act of SUNDAY, because they weren't performing it when I saw the show at Playwright's Horizon; but the first act didn't change all that much. As other have pointed out, however, that is really beside the point.)

I don't understand why Kagan has that fight with Ars Nova now, instead of when the contract was being hammered out. This is just ridiculous. If he didn't want to give them the credit, he should have said that then, instead of now when he's breaching contract and has probably no chance of winning any law suit. Because he's clearly in the wrong. Back when the contract was being written he might have been able to push through what he wanted... or maybe he tried and failed.

But then this is still stupid because this is harming the show and he has absolutely nothing to gain from this, neither in terms of money or in terms of reputation. Who's gonna want to work with him after this? Certainly non-profits will stay away from him, and I bet a lot of other producers will think twice, too, before they get him on board. Especially since he's, from what I gather, never been particular successful in the first place...

But Isn't the whole point of creating an LLC to protect the individual? Even though he is listed by name in the credits, surely the Kagans have all their contracts facilitated through their own LLC production company rather than as individuals - I doubt they could be held personally responsible. Also, is there any possibility that the contract only guarantees billing for a certain number of subsequent productions?

Gaveston- I do understand contracts - I'm just trying to rattle my head around some plausible concept theory that would allow Howard Kagan to think he doesn't need to give Ars Nova the billing they are asking for. But maybe it really is just about ego and law be damned.

Updated On: 10/30/16 at 11:04 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/theater/producers-of-natasha-pierre-the-great-comet-of-1812-offer-to-settle-dispute.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Farts

Apparently it's going to be resolved now.

It certainly was avoidable, but the Kagans (or Howard specifically) were being greedy for no reason.

Yeah I don't get it. I figured there must be more grey area in the original contract for the commercial producers to take a stance like they did against Ars Nova, but it sounds like plain stubbornness.

QueenAlice--when you used the word "unprofessional," were you referring to Kagan or Ars Nova?