Trouble brewing at Theatre For a New Audience

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/theater/director-pulls-hamlet-from-theater-for-a-new-audience.html?referer=http://lm.facebook.com/lsr.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F07%2F14%2Ftheater%2Fdirector-pulls-hamlet-from-theater-for-a-new-audience.html&ext=1468448645&hash=AcmqE8KNxrMLVyStcKY-aCu23QFsrw8ztBuPRdJwfB632Q&_rdr



“It’s a bad precedent for not-for-profits,” Mr. Horowitz said of the play’s cancellation. “Creative artists should not take a production away. It hurts the field if that kind of thing can happen.”

Updated On: 7/13/16 at 06:36 PM

I know nothing about what went down, but I am wondering if this is not another case of a theatre that bought a "package" (high-flying director with high-flying actor in tow) without ever having a conversation about a "concept." It is perfectly reasonable for TFANA to eschew adaptations, but it sounds like that was not communicated in advance. (The only quasi-Shakespeare I have seen that Gold directed was his thesis project at Juilliard, Edward III, and that certainly was pretty radical. There was a lunchroom food fight to close out the first half, and I remember feeling so sorry for the crew during intermission.)

This conjures up CSC's dustup with Tonya Pinkins, although thankfully at least this surfaced in advance.

iluvtheatertrash said: "It's pretty clear that aggressive cuts to the text would go against their mission statement, I think. I would assume Gold read that. It sounds like he wasn't willing to work within the confines he was required, to me.... And I thin this antic is really very sad and quite a blow to that brand new space."

I had never read it (I rarely do, and would not assume Gold had), but I just did. What part of it suggests that aggressive cuts are against it? All I see is "adventure" and "diverse approaches to dramatic material."

iluvtheatertrash said: ""Theatre for a New Audience is dedicated to the language and ideas of writers: to a dialogue between Shakespeare and a provocative range of classical and contemporary playwrights, such as Christopher Marlowe, Edward Bond and Adrienne Kennedy."

Some cuts, sure. But his sound quite extensive. "

well I have seen some very extensive cuts at TFANA. and I see nothing about not doing adaptations. In fact, all the language about classical journeys and contemporary playwrights makes it sound like that's just what they want. To be clear, i think it is perfectly fine to NOT want to do adaptations but I think that's a conversation you have when you hire someone. and I certainly don't think reading the mission statement gets the job done. In the end this is truly about artistic differences and so parting company now seems totally reasonable. Horowitz's regret, however, seems more about losing revenue than anything else. I truly don't understand how co-producing with the public solves their adaptation issue. Anyway, everyone will survive.

Huh? I think you read a lot into this. An adaptation is a lot more than just a few cuts, which seems to be the issue.

If they don't produce adaptations and Sam wants to do a sort of adaptation, why did they say yes in the first place?

Because you don't say no when the hottest director in theater offers to work for you -- and then he brings along one of the hottest young actors in the world. Jeff and co. saw nothing but stars and dollar signs.

I don't feel pity for them. Communication was key here; they should have known what they were getting, but they were blinded by the thought of subscription sales skyrocketing. It's a crappy situation that could have been avoiding through communication.

And as HogansHero points out, TFANA has produced very aggressively cut texts before (their recent TAMBOURLAINE, for example), so I don't get the pearl-clutching as anything other than an attempt to save face by taking the moral high ground.

It seems like Sam didn't feel supported by TFANA, why is that his fault? If it was such a major get for them, shouldn't they have gone out of their way to make him feel supported?

Kad said: "It seems that what Gold wanted was complete control without any input from the company."

I don't think that is a fair description based on what we know. He met with Kalb and that certainly suggests he envisioned a typical collaborative undertaking.

The crux of Horowitz's gripe at this point has to do with the ethics of taking the rejected concept to the Public. Yet Horowitz bizarrely tried to work out a co-production (of a production that violated TFANA's standards, no less). And of course the play is in the public domain and TFANA had done nothing regarding the piece other than engage a director and actor, articulate what the production could NOT be and market the hell out of them to sell subscriptions: TFANA could have produced it with a different director and perhaps a different actor. And I highly doubt there was a contract that provided that Gold would not direct Hamlet ever again.

HogansHero said: "TFANA could have produced it with a different director and perhaps a different actor. And I highly doubt there was a contract that provided that Gold would not direct Hamlet ever again."

While that is very true, Gold would likely have been taking whomever else he brought to the project (designers and such) with him. And HAMLET isn't the kind of play you program and then go search for a director and star. So, while technically TFANA could continue with that play in the season, it wouldn't make a great deal of sense for them.

Also, these things happen. It's very possible Horowitz and Gold indeed had many conversations about the production and the exact details of the adaptation weren't worked out. Or even that Gold became interested in ideas that went further from the script. Artistic Directors/Producers and freelance directors always walk a delicate balance trying to both get what they want artistically, while also collaborating and making sure the other is also happy.

The part where the Public steps in for a full production seems a little ****ty, and Horowitz has a right to be annoyed by it. But when you're talking star actors and directors of this caliber, who have already cleared this time in their calendar, it's not surprising someone else would step in.

I think that you are correct Hogan. If this goes to the Public, is it going to be a part of their season, or one of their Shakespeare in the Park productions? And if no information has been disclosed either way, does anyone have any guesses?

I would guess a part of the regular season, so they could make money off of it.

Gaveston - The Oregon Shakespeare Festival is not a summer theatre! OSF has three theatre, two indoor and one outdoor. They produce 11 plays each season. The 2016 season runs from Feb. 19 to Oct. 30. This season's Hamlet plays in the outdoor Allen Elizabethan Theatre and closes on Oct. 14.

Yes, the OSF depends on ticket sales to tourists. On the other hand, many people have been going to Ashland for many years. It is not uncommon to hear people comparing a current production of, say Hamlet, to a production they saw at the Festival in the past.

Danforth Comins plays Hamlet and Sir Andrew Aguecheek in 12th Night. He's a wonderful actor.

RippedMan said: "What's the difference between adaptation and cuts? Adaptation means, to me, that they're going to rewrite a few lines, which with Shakespeare, seems just wrong and weird. "

Cuts means deleting words, lines, scenes. (This is virtually always done with Shakespeare, and especially with Hamlet.)

Adaptation means taking one thing and using it as a base for making something else. This can be minor to extreme. Shakespeare has probably been adapted more than any playwright in history, and some of those adaptations are among the major masterworks of our theatre. (e.g., West Side Story) The last SITP, Shrew, was an adaptation.