The Little Dog is Not Happy About Chicago's Prudishness — Page 2

"I'm not sure about how stage directions would play into that though, as just about every director in the world (that I've worked with anyway) sees written stage directions more as "guidelines" than rules, unless it's something really important, like, "they take their clothes off and are both naked." Essential stage directions like this are a different case I would think, but where do you draw the line?"

I thought that the reason for stage directions was that the playwright wanted something to be done a certain way, and thus, they took the time to detail it in the text. Some playwrights and playwrights' estates get extremely upset when you diverge from the way the play has been written (I know the Beckett estate, for example, is very particular about productions following the text to the letter, and has shut down productions for breaking with the stage directions and thus breaking the terms of their contract -- when Fiona Shaw did Footfalls in London in 1994, for example, her costume did not match the stage directions' description and her movements also were contrary to what Beckett had written, and the Beckett estate cancelled a planned European tour [thanks, Wall Sreeet Journal!]).

Well, that's kind what I was thinking, Joe. I've done Hair twice and the nudity (which I did) was never compulsory.

When I did Angels in America the script says "He drops his pants. He is nude." It was something I'd agreed to when I was cast so it wasn't an issue, but it was my understanding I would have still had the part even if hadn't said I'd bare it all.

I reread the blurb and this line sticks out to me:

Beane has chosen to allow everything to to proceed as was—but apparently wanted his naked chagrin made public.

I kind of suspect it's more like Beane had no choice but allow everything to proceed and now he's just being a spiteful baby by making it public.

I understand a writer trying to protect his work, but professional theatre is filled with mixed messages about this sort of thing (witness any number of revivals that completey shred a musical's original book and we all ooh and ahh over it). How do we know what's sacrosanct and what's not?

The theatre was obviously acting in what they thought was good faith, since they invited him to the play.

I'm still inclined to believe what jbdc says. I think this was out of Beane's hands.

Penis or no penis, it is a great show!

HOWEVER, in t his case, I have to agree with the author, it makes the show make A LOT more sense if they nakedness (is that even a word) is included in the show. Diane's lines are lost if they keep their undies on. But, regional threater seems to like to keep the clothing on. However, I know Chicago's Balliwick is doing a rip off of Naked Boys Singing called Naked Lads Singing and from what my friends say they have NO problem being naked! HA! Maybe About Face needs to check in and stop making my hometown look like a bunch of prudes! HA!

Although from my friends in the Chicago theater scene tell me, Eric Rosen is a douche, so it really isn't shocking....

---

Playbill has an article about this up now.

Beane said, "If he had come to me and said, 'I made a huge mistake and didn't tell the actors at the audition [about the nude scene],' I think we could have worked something out."

Well, they DID work something out. I'm sorry, but I think Beane is just unahppy he didn't get to see some dick.

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/114892.html

Updated On: 2/6/08 at 05:43 PM

That's unfortunate.

Production Photos
(from AboutFace Theater)

The Poster



All pictures are legit!

Updated On: 2/6/08 at 06:07 PM

I guess, in a way, yes. But, I have the same question. I've worked with a lot of directors who simply ignore any and all stage directions and make up their own.

Updated On: 2/6/08 at 06:31 PM

You are so clueless and wrong Distintive Baritone, you can see video footage of Greg Kotis on the stage at the mercury theater in Chicago doing the promos for Carol Fox publicITty on CLTV which is the chicago local entertainment channel. Hello?!!

Stop spreading crap about stuff you know nothing of. The writers helped mount the chicago production and the following link clearly spells out who's side there are on.

http://www.dramatistsguild.com/about_statements_urinetown.aspx

the director is f-ing thanked by the Kotis and Hollmann publically.

They writers are on the director and Chicago creative teams side and they did not sue the Chicago team, Rando and Caraffa tried to sue. YOU ARE SO CLUELESS!! Get your facts straight!!

They asked Beane to cut the nudity, he said NO and they did it anyway.

TFB, folks. You would have been better off not asking.

---

Oh, I missed that they asked and he said no. It was stupid of them to invite him, wasn't it?

It still doesn't sound like the nudity is essential, though.

I don't know. I think if Beane believes the nudity is essential and impactful to the moment in the show, who are we to argue?

I rarely think that nudity is essential. But I believe it is always impactful. If an author believes that a moment's impact is weakened by the removal of nudity, then I believe he's got every right to complain. ESPECIALLY if he's already voiced the opinion and it was disregarded.

---

Do any About Face shows sell well?

---