Rudin and Broadway MOCKINGBIRD Cancel Regional Productions

We all already know how ruthless Rudin is, but this is next level.

Rudin and the Broadway production have threatened litigation against regional theaters set to produce the Christopher Sergel adaption of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Some may disagree, but I find this to be greed in it's highest form. You have a mega-hit play, taking in millions each week, and you're really going to stick it to the regional theaters? Many of them look to lose thousands of dollars from this. To Scott Rudin and his production company this seems meaningless, but this is a huge blow to the budgets of these companies. It appears their agreement with Lee's estate may give them this power, but that doesn't mean they need to act on it.

Interested to hear what others think.

NYT Article

IdinaBellFoster said: "It appears their agreement with Lee's estate may give them this power, but that doesn't mean they need to act on it."

This seems backwards. Based on the contract, the licenses should have never been granted to produce the show in the first place. So them having to shut down the productions is more of a last resort to something that should have been settled, they shouldn't have needed to exert any power over a contract between the Lee state and the publisher. But with the absence of the Lee estate to shut them down properly, they stepped in.

I know one of the companies applied for these rights in 2017, only to receive such a threat from Rudin's people last week- for a production that has a four-week run this spring, far from NYC and not on any route for a major tour of the Sorkin production. Dramatic Publishing Co is still prominently displaying the rights as being available and assured the producer multiple times they'd be okay.

Someone seriously dropped the ball here, and it's not the fault of these small theatres, yet they are the ones bearing the consequences.

Yes, a contract is a contract. But come on- going after these small local productions is needlessly cruel.

Updated On: 2/28/19 at 12:33 PM

I think if this was one regional production in question, legal action might have been waived. But based on the numbers of productions around the country, some probably within the miles-limit allowed, I think it’s more practical and “efficient” (for want of a better word), to use a blanket policy across the board.

And yes, it’s unfair etc etc, but if you had a contract with someone, wouldn’t you want it honored? Otherwise, why do we need contracts for anything? Should we just cross our fingers that everything will go right and no one will screw us over in life?

As I said above, it will be interesting if the theatres have recourse against Dramatic Publishing. They, too, have contracts.

Updated On: 2/28/19 at 12:52 PM

Are they afraid of losing money off the Broadway production? Because I seriously doubt a small regional theater hundreds or thousands of miles from NYC could do that. A lot of people cannot afford a trip to New York, much less buy tickets to this bloated production This is awful but not surprising considering who Rudin is.

I don't want to wade too deeply into this, but one atypical feature here is the connection of the rights holder and the licensing agency. I don't know exactly who did something wrong here, but the fact that DPC may not have been an arms length party may be a part of the story. As an aside, these licensing agreements do a pretty good job of insulating the agency from exposure.

devonian.t said: "He didn't need to do this. I won't attend Rudin's shows."



He will miss you VERY much!

"Needlessly cruel" - yes, exactly my thoughts. Just because Rudin and co. CAN do this doesn't mean they SHOULD, especially given the precarious financial state of so many regional theaters. But as Rudin has proven time and time again, his company doesn't actually care about a thriving theatre scene or theatre audiences across the country, unless it puts a penny in his pocket.

^This! I've always felt Rudin is for Rudin, he's an elitist bully without the need to be. He is not willing to make theatre accessible to those that don't have the means. Theatre is not purely for those that can afford a ticket, but those living in the sticks, discovering themselves and following the Broadway news, never knowing that they will ever get to NYC. Look at his behavior with Bette and Dolly, even going so far as with holding production photographs and then when he didn't get his way at the Tony's Bette didn't perform. For all the flack Ken Davenport gets, you can never accuse him of not including those that cannot access theatre otherwise. It costs nothing to be kind, an agreement could surely have been reached without uprooting productions and regional company's budgets so he can throw his weight around- the audacity to think that any production of this work will automatically be associated with his production is absurd and shows his hubris- the adaptation isn't even the same and the grannies out in the middle of nowhere probably aren't even aware that there's a production on Broadway. He's an actor's producer not a people's producer. It's ALWAYS about the money for him and not the passion or love of the craft- which, any real artist will tell you is not why they do what they do. It's important to remember he finances the vision, it's not his vision, but those on the creative team.

Updated On: 3/1/19 at 01:13 PM

dramamama611 said: "Actually, revivals don't usually take away all rights....usually just those withing a certain radius of Manhattan."

First of all, this is not a revival. Secondly, the key word in what you say is "usually."

"I BELIEVE the wording is that no one within 25 miles of a major city could keep these rights. We had a local group here that was getting closed down over this but simply found another physical theater that was beyond the 25 mile mark so they are good to go."

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I can't imagine that Rudin did not have an exclusive, and also bear in mind that this is a deal flowing from the source grant of rights, not a playwright.

"This sounds far more like a communication error either TO or from Dramatic Publishing."

Likely, though it is more complicated both because there are 6 different parties involved and 2 of them are in essence alter egos.

There are a lot of unanswered questions. The ones at the top of my list are what the contract between the two estates says. For instance, is (as I suspect) the first adaptation agreement non-exclusive? And what approval rights does the Lee estate have over rights grants by the playwright? Among others

JSquared2 he doesn't need to- the decision is for my own conscience.

But hey, let's all do nothing about anything.

Scott Rudin Offers Community Theaters ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ After Controversy



Uh, so, now Rudin is offering all these theaters the chance to do the Sorkin version.

Updated On: 3/1/19 at 03:50 PM

JSquared2 said: "devonian.t said: "JSquared2 he doesn't need to- the decision is for my own conscience.

But hey, let's all do nothing about anything."

Or better yet, let's use some common sense when picking your battles? Not every tinylittle perceived "injustice"requires the same level of moral outrage."

And what better way to fight someone you think is on a high horse than by getting a high horse of your own!