Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:57 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - bmc 10:39 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| There is a general consensus, because it is the law, that alterations of any kind are illegal WITHOUT PERMISSION. What I have long advocated is that playwrights adopt Guirgis's attitude to their work rather than the cramped view you describe. But make no mistake, it's up to the owner of the property. I think sometimes examples involving tangible property are easier to understand than intellectual property. So let's assume you own a parcel of land. And let's assume that the shortest point between your neighbor's land and the bus stop involves cutting across your land. You are totally within your rights to insist that your neighbor walk around your property. Your neighbor can take the shortcut without asking and risk getting caught and forced to retreat, or the neighbor can ask and, assuming you are not an ass, you will consent so long as your underlying property is not damaged by the transit. Of course there are no property rights once a play enters the public domain (something we have made ridiculously difficult thanks to Disney having legally corrupted Congress to get an enormous gift). Yet some of us believe in the "sanctity" of the original play nonetheless, whereas I ascribe to Guirgis's mentality (as I said). |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? | |
| Posted by: FasterTheater 10:39 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Interesting way a theater company reacted to criticism over making unauthorized cuts - ryhog 10:57 am EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| Excuse me for being dense, but I don't understand why the playwright first was willing to let the production go ahead as long as they printed that statement, but then, once they printed it, ordered the lawyers to shut it down. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:54 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - FasterTheater 10:39 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| From what I read, they used the statement in marketing in a way that exploited it to suggest they were doing something exciting, daring, etc., and I guess that lack of contrition was the straw that broke the camel's back. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 09:22 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - ryhog 10:54 pm EDT 08/11/17 | |
|
|
|
| They did not use it in marketing (though Guirgus said it looked like a marketing item). Shelton put a big red warning stamp on the statement which made it look like it was supposed to be a joke. Also, the statement was added to the program stating why Giurigis' insert was wrong. The statement reads: “For me, a play is a living document that should transform from production to production. It is something the author bestows upon the public as a gift to be shared and theatre remains the greatest interpretive art the human race has developed. I say this because it is my fervent belief that as a director, an actor, a designer, a producer, a stage manager, a board operator, and an audience member, we are all taking the work of one artist and reinterpreting it into our own separate experiences. The play may not be what the author intended in his original vision, but as a work of art. I believe it is our duty to interpret and not simply repeat, to participate, not just transmit, and by doing so become a collaborators [sic] in the work.” |
|
| Link | The Insert |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:51 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - whereismikeyfl 09:22 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for that. I don't think that statement says Guirgis (not that it matters but spelled wrong by you twice, in two different ways) was wrong, but rather that the laws protecting him are. I also don't think Guirgis disagrees any more than I do. That said, I think we both disagree with breaking the law. All of that said, I think the huge flaw in the statement is at the very end: there was no collaboration here and that is all Guirgis is after. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? a Jesuit Off-Broadway by Rev James Martin SJ | |
| Posted by: bmc (`bmccabe67@comcast.net) 08:54 pm EDT 08/12/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? - ryhog 09:51 am EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| It took a day, but my memory bank finally unloaded the title of a book some friends gave me. Title is A Jesuit Off Broadway. James Martin S.J. got a phone call from Actor Sam Rockwell and playwright Adly Guirgis. He spent six months working with them, the cast, and director Phillip Seymour Hoffman. It's a very enjoyable book; It was published in 2007. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? a Jesuit Off-Broadway by Rev James Martin SJ | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:04 am EDT 08/13/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Why did Guirgis change his mind? a Jesuit Off-Broadway by Rev James Martin SJ - bmc 08:54 pm EDT 08/12/17 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for that. I'll track it down; I'd love to read it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.018176 seconds.