Threaded Order Chronological Order
| reality check from the sidelines | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:36 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I am an inspiring teacher, thanks for noticing - keikekaze 02:32 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I have not posted in this thread because tbh I am not interested in the show or encores but it's actually your argument here that is specious. You are perfectly free to wish that living people would not fuck with dead people's work product but the fact is that, one way or another, the creatives DID sign off on this. A creative has every right in the world (and, thanks to the Sonny Bono Act, for an obscenely long time imo) to micro-control, through their heirs and assigns, every aspect of the exploitation of their work, but once they do that or don't do that, the heirs and assigns stand in the shoes of the creatives. So when you and others jump up and down about this, let's all understand that we/they are expressing an opinion about what we/they like and don't like, and nothing more or less. (And fwiw let's remember that 99.9% of the approvals of living playwrights et al are made on delegation.) Likewise, how many people and for what duration something is going to be seen does indeed affect approvals by both the living and the dead. Many writers are willing to let changes be made in small scale presentations that would not be granted in first class rights. Plus, it is well to remember that no violence is done to a play by letting someone change it. The original is still there for the future. It's not akin to painting on a Picasso. And in this particular case it would seem beyond unlikely that Porter's effort will ever see the light of day again. Because something "wrong" may have been done, but not something unlawful. Finally, when you say what you say in your last paragraph, you are doing nothing more than expressing an opinion; you have no authority and the people who do have spoken. And fwiw, if it is not clear, I don't think a play needs to become a museum piece of interest only to a dwindling audience as if it is too precious to adapt. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: reality check from the sidelines | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 05:11 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: reality check from the sidelines - ryhog 11:36 am EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Finally, when you say what you say in your last paragraph, you are doing nothing more than expressing an opinion; you have no authority and the people who do have spoken. And fwiw, if it is not clear, I don't think a play needs to become a museum piece of interest only to a dwindling audience as if it is too precious to adapt. I never claimed that I was doing anything more than expressing an opinion. That's my opinion, and there it is. I don't need outside help to understand what the limits of my "authority" are. But I do wish that any play that's worth reviving at all would be revived with delicacy and respect. And if a play isn't worth reviving--or if one thinks that the play isn't worth reviving without wholesale rewrites (most likely by less competent hands than those responsible for the original)--then why do it? Why bother? Why not do something else that you're more in sympathy with? And fwiw, if it is not clear, I also don't think a play needs to become a museum piece of interest only to a dwindling audience as if it is too precious to adapt--so I'm not going to let you try to put those words (which I never said or implied) into my mouth without objection. By definition, any play worth reviving is not a museum piece. But a crappy rewrite may very well render it one. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: reality check from the sidelines | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:08 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: reality check from the sidelines - keikekaze 05:11 pm EDT 03/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I'm happy you clarified. As I said, I have no problem with your (and anyone's) expression of opinions, whether I agree with them or not, but the words you chose to use (tamper, excuse, uninvited, etc) suggested more than an opinion. You ask why, why, why. The answer (not one I'm expecting you to embrace) is that some people believe that understanding a play in the present context and from a different perspective is a good thing. Does it always work? Is it always better? No, but no writer knows whether something they write is going to be any good until folks can see it and react to it. That's one of the beauties of theatre. I'm not afraid of that. Also, I have written many times on this board that, in my view, theatre (or any art) must resonate for its audience in order to be good. Resonance is not a static attribute of a work; it changes over time and it changes depending on the audience. When we don't let it breathe, we condemn it to the museum or, more likely, the dust bin. I don't know if the revisions here were good enough. (As I acknowledged, I did not see it.) That's on Encores if they were not. But I also know that one can't judge any production by the reaction of an audience that was looking for one thing and got another. And that's how I read a lot of the reaction. If I thought I was going to see Hello Dolly and the curtain rose on Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg (or v/v :-) ), you could not accurately gauge the production based on my reaction. Finally, as you quoted, my comment about museum pieces etc began with "I don't think...." I'm not sure how you got from my words that I was attributing them to you. I was not and I am sorry if something about the way I wrote it made you think that. And finally finally, if you have any actual interest in understanding the answer to all of your "why"s, the link from Chuck Mee discusses it much better than I ever could. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.012690 seconds.