| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:10 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - Singapore/Fling 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| I am having trouble understanding how the debate here relates to the reasoning behind the rule. I know the context. Fool was too old to be new and the Shepard plays were to popular to be new, but all were deemed new. I don't feel Nightingale has a place in this because it had never been produced until a year or two before it appeared on Broadway, and the previous mountings (London and Houston) were a part of a single production spearheaded by Vanessa Redgrave. Riverside was, as I said, clearly not a classic or historical play, and (now that I have looked quickly) does not appear to have been (in your words) "widely produced" in the interim decade or so. To me, the "context" does not provide a hook on which to hang Riverside and thus there is no rational basis for treating it as ineligible as a new play. (Thus, I point out, we don't disagree on the ultimate point.) But I don't see how this conclusion is in anyway informed by the people in the two shows, the amount of time that has past, etc. The bottom line is that the show has not been widely produced in the context of [the context you describe.] Note to Dramedy (since I feel confident you [S/F] would not dispute this): the appropriate metric is not wikipedia but the TCG data published in American Theatre. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - Singapore/Fling 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/23 |
| Next: | re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - oddone 01:30 am EDT 04/12/23 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.049544 seconds.