‘Rent’s’ script edits violate copyright
RENT - Christopher Curry/ The Towerlight
There are five lines in Diane Smith-Sadak’s production of “Rent” cut from the original script. But the absence of those lines almost forced her to shut down the show she has worked on since October.In the play’s original script, Mimi, an HIV-positive heroin addict, passes out at the end of the production, only to be reawakened by her deceased friend Angel in a dream and is given another chance at life. But Smith-Sadak said she didn’t accept that ending, and instead allowed the audience to interpret Mimi’s fate. In the Friday, April 22, and Saturday, April 23, showings, Mimi passes out in the arms of her lover, but she rises and Angel returns to the stage in the final song.
“In the ending, she’s living on the streets in December in New York City with AIDS and a heroin addiction,” Smith-Sadak said. “Nobody sits up and talks about their dreams. They just don’t. It’s an insult to the people struggling with these illnesses.”
But a stipulation in the copyright contract that allows Towson University’s department of theatre arts to put on the production stated that “no lines can be altered, changed or removed from the intent of the playwright,” according to theater department chair Jay Herzog. This contract was read and signed by Herzog. Smith-Sadak said she never saw this contract.
“Jay signed off on the contract,” she said. “I didn’t look at anything. Yet Jay as a producer, me as the director, the department of theater arts, the college of fine arts and communication, the University, the building owners, and the cast are all liable under a lawsuit.”
And they almost had that lawsuit. A representative of Musical Theater International, a dramatic licensing agency that authorizes the depiction of major Broadway shows, contacted Herzog, demanding the cast cease and desist with the production until they adhered to the original script.
Herzog said he anticipated the phone call.
“Opening night, I heard a comment, and the comment was, ‘They can’t do that, they’re breaking the law,’ from an audience member sitting right next to me. I’ll say it, I got nervous,” he said.
Herzog contacted University legal counsel Barbara English and discovered he had indeed directly breached the contract.
Herzog said as “Rent’s” producer and lighting and sound designer, he did not attend most early rehearsals, but was aware of both the change and the contract.
“There is a contract for every play, and the general rule is you can’t [alter the script,]” he said. “But for personal reasons that I’m not willing to disclose, I did not make a big deal out of it. But the first thing I did was own up to it and say ‘this is my mistake.’”
Herzog attempted to correct the situation by informing Smith-Sadak that she must include the lines. Smith-Sadak said there is irony in the fact that a commercial organization is taking action to limit the artistic direction in a play like “Rent.”
“This whole giant mess comes down to the bottom line of dollars and cents,” Smith-Sadak said. “And that is the biggest irony: that Jonathan Larson [‘Rent’s’ playwright] wrote passionately about the integrity of the artist following their voices against the commercial onslaught … and yet I keep wondering what he would think now having watched this thing grown over the last 15 years. What would he think of what has happened to this production, being in the hands of corporations and attorneys?”
Senior Nellie Glover, who portrays Mimi in the production, said raising awareness about social issues is what “Rent” is about, no matter the ending.
“I’m a definite believer in that things are meant to be,” she said. “But I find it interesting that people who say they love and support the arts, then take time out of their day and work to bring someone else’s art down.”
Smith-Sadak said she will comply with the contract, but with some duress.
“I thought about shutting the show down,” she said. “I thought about doing that and making a case of art and commerce. I think having that conversation on campus is a valuable thing. I wanted this event to not be secret and have a voice. But I decided it was more important to continue with the production because I thought it was reaching people in a positive way.”
Seventy HIV-positive and/or homeless individuals are seeing the show free of charge this coming Friday, according to Smith-Sadak, and the department is sponsoring free HIV testing at the University.
But the reaction to the change on a message board online at broadwayworld.com, which gained national attention, was mostly negative.
“It got to broadwayworld.com, and when it gets to broadwayworld.com, any lunatic with a screenname can spew any kind of garbage that they want. And they did,” Smith-Sadak said. “It was clear that they didn’t see our production, [but were] voicing very strong opinions.”
Comments on the website identify Towson University’s theater department as the cast who changed the ending, and encourage others to chastise and shut down the performance.
“I find it odd that a director of 11 years at this University, a published writer and a member of Actors Equity for 17 years, several years as a director in California … has not once understood that when you get a contract from any of the very few licensing companies … that the FINE PRINT in all of these contracts say you cannot change a thing,” an online commenter with the username taboo123 wrote on the BroadwayWorld message thread.
Read Diane Smith-Sadak’s letter to the editor: Our leap of faith.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Well MAYBE if she didn’t fucking change the script of such a popular production this wouldn’t have blown up in her face.
Wonder if she ever thought about that.
Probably not.
I’m personally curious as to what the lines were, not being a Rent fan myself.
I entirely agree with and support Diane’s decisions and justification. It’s a sad time when art has to be handled with such hostile inflexibility. Cheers to the entire cast for a truly moving performance and for putting up with all drama (no pun intended) of the situation in a professional manner.
>>>Sadak said there is irony in the fact that a commercial organization is taking action to limit the artistic direction in a play like “Rent.”
Direction is NOT taking someone else’s LICENSED script and then mangling it. Write your own damn script.
Jeremy,
Thank you for your article on “RENT’s edits violate copyright”.
I would like to share a few thoughts for clarity that did not make it into your article which I think are important.
The department began to make the changes to correct the end of the play back to the written version before there was a phone call from Music Theatre International. The phone call from MTI was not forceful but official. The representative caught wind of our change and simply asked us to honor the contract before action could be taken by the Larson estate. I am thankful that they called and offered us the opportunity to fix the issue, and I assured them it was already in the works. Since they do have a clipping service and they are still monitoring this case, I personally thank them and our representative who has worked with our department for many years.
As for the contract. The statement to not alter the play is on all plays by MTI, Samuel French, Dramatist Play Services and anyone in the business knows that. Although Professor Sadak is correct that she did not see the contract, the same statement is in the libretto she, the cast and the team worked from. We were trying to show the action, rather than say the action through the text in the libretto. In my personal opinion, we were really not trying to create a new ending. With an audience, I realized that might not be evident. With the blog, which is a mix of intelligent statements, jokes and nasty comments, it was a big alarm.
If you were watching the action on the stage, and not the video which played at the same time, it is seen that Mimi does awake and sing when touched by the character of Angel. We did not “Kill Mimi” as stated in on the blogs. But I can see how that was missed.
Professor Sadak also said she thought about shutting down the show. It is in her job description to direct plays for the department. The director does not have the rights or ability to make that choice.
What is the lesson for me, our students and your readers. When you are wrong, make right. I was wrong, but I unfortunately did not make that real discovery until opening night. My job…make right.
Jay Herzog
Department Chair
Theatre Arts
Moose… is that language necessary? The production has not blown up in anyone’s face, except in a positive way. Yes, a minor road bump has occurred and has been fixed, but we have sold out every show so far, and had nothing but positive support from the audience and the community. I invite you to come see the show if you are so heated about the issue and care so deeply about RENT.
Jeremy —
Thank you for taking the time, interest and energy to pick up on my online editorial. This will be my last statement on what has occurred, and then the show — which is truly excellent, and selling brilliantly — will continue to speak for itself.
Department Chair Jay Herzog is correct about the legal disclaimers about changes being in the libretto, and despite the crude language and attitude of Moose, I was aware of the artistic licence I was taking, and I take responsibility for that. I have written plays, and directed and performed for all of my professional career. I did not feel the ending of the play was changed except for the better and with the best of my research into Jonathan Larson’s work and process and the production history of RENT. Much of the information on the Broadwayworld.com site was absolutely incorrect (see Professor Herzog’s comment re “killing Mimi” above.) I also didn’t add certain elements that I was accused of, such as bringing Angel down as a boy at the end of the play. That takes no more than a simple look at Youtube and the Broadway production to validate for accuracy. It is genuinely frustrating to spend literally months of one’s life to put work onstage with a group of exceedingly talented and dedicated students (and faculty designers, and crew) — having deeply considered every choice of every character that is put onstage, only to have anonymous and often times mean-spirited people fling off a couple of lines of nasty commentary that garner so much attention.
I will also clarify a couple of points made in both the article and by Professor Herzog. When I spoke of “shutting down the production” it was in response to a very passionate and heartfelt conversation I had with the cast on Tuesday night AFTER we had restored the original ending to the play. We had an important conversation about artistic license, copyright law, intellectual property rights and the original intention of the show (set in a world of artists struggling against corporate/capitalist handling). The suggestion to walk off the show came in the heat of that moment, and was only one of many ideas bantered about by a cast wanting to protect what they had made. I do understand both my contract and my responsibility to the Department, which is why this issue never went any further. But more than any of that, I felt the show was much, much bigger than the 5 lines being debated. And that it was a valuable piece of musical theatre that deserved to be seen.
I would like the attention to return to where it is so richly deserved: on the stage. We have run thus far to completely sold-out houses with standing ovations every night — with both endings to the play. What we have is a genuinely moving story beautifully designed and performed that is touching people for all the right reasons. The play is 2 hours and 20 minutes long. This debate is literally about 30 seconds of an almost indistinguishable change. Most audiences will never know the difference.
I encourage anyone with a strong opinion in either direction to get a ticket and see the show BEFORE posting. Do your fellow peers in the cast that courtesy, they have certainly earned it.
Very sincerely,
Diane Smith-Sadak
Associate Professor of Acting and Directing
Towson University Department of Theatre Arts
Director, RENT
I recently read Diane Smith-Sadak’s Letter to the Editor regarding her production of RENT at Towson University and, specifically, her disappointment (outrage?) at not being allowed to alter Jonathan Larson’s Pulitzer-Prize winning script. Upon reading her letter, I was a bit disheartened that somehow MTI’s efforts to explain clearly the conditions under which a producer may present any of the musicals that we license had been unsuccessful, even in this one single case. However, readers’ responses to Ms. Smith-Sadak’s letter made clear to me that this was indeed an aberration, not just in terms of it being a rare example of an altered show, but also in terms of Ms. Smith-Sadak’s stated position representing a vocal minority rather than the general consensus. What a relief.
Given the general population’s understanding of the basic rules of licensing, I can dispense with justifying these rules based on the fundamentals of Copyright Law, which prohibited Ms. Smith-Sadek’s changes, and I can forego the discussion of basic contract law, which requires Towson (and its employees/agents) to abide by the stated terms of the performance license that they were granted by MTI (e.g., no changes to the material are permitted). But even if we (or most of us) agree that Ms. Smith-Sadak’s actions were inappropriate, I do feel compelled to address a few of her statements.
“This whole giant mess comes down to the bottom line of dollars and cents.” Well, no. In fact, I do not see any connection between this “mess” and money. Whether or not Towson’s production presented RENT as written by Jonathan Larson or RENT with a different ending authored by Ms. Smith-Sadak, Towson would be paying MTI for the right to produce the show. As many of you know, most of those royalties go directly to the show’s rights holders, i.e., the Larson Family. MTI’s insistence that Towson abide by the rules of our performance license (and copyright law) had nothing to do with money. If Ms. Smith-Sadak had decided to produce RENT without a license and without paying for the rights, perhaps then her “dollars and cents” argument would not be completely baseless. There is certainly an element of commerce in the business of licensing shows. Here, however, that element did not come into play. Here, our goal was simply to prevent someone from representing their production as being RENT, when everyone agrees it was not RENT.
“What would [Jonathan Larson] think of what has happened to this production, being in the hands of corporations and attorneys?” I did not know Jonathan Larson, and I would guess that Ms. Smith-Sadak did not know him either. However, I do know Jonathan’s family and over the past several years, I have become friends with his father, Al Larson. Al, his wife, Nan, and Jonathan’s sister, Julie, all have devoted themselves to preserving, perpetuating and protecting the memory of Jonathan, as well as his work. Having worked with hundreds of authors and their representatives, I can describe the passion of their dedication as extraordinary. For Ms. Smith-Sadak to accuse them, even indirectly, of leaving the responsibility of protecting RENT “in the hands of corporations and attorneys” is inaccurate, insulting, and just plain wrong. Ms. Smith-Sadak may not be happy that she was caught breaking the rules, but for her to wave her finger at others, particularly the Larson family as underlying rights holders, is unacceptable.
It is worth noting that the Larson family has shown themselves to be quite open-minded with regard to the issue of modifying Jonathan’s work in instances where they were in fact asked about the changes in advance. Most significantly, they authorized the creation of RENT SCHOOL EDITION, which is designed for high school productions of the show. While the heart and soul of the show remain firmly intact, the School Edition eliminates some of the profanity in the script and one song (Contact). This was done so that the show would be more “produceable” by high school students across the country, so that they could use the show to discuss the issues raised by the show in their communities. Significantly, the School Edition represents an approved version of the show, expressly authorized by– and indeed created by– the show’s lawful rights holders. As I understand it, Ms. Smith-Sadak never requested permission from MTI or the rights holders to make her changes to the material.
“But when fear dominates – fear of reprimand, fear of shut downs which cause loss of box office revenue – the artistic process and perhaps the product – suffers.” This statement is both arrogant and presumptuous. I can only read from this that Ms. Smith-Sadak believes that her product (i.e., the changed version of RENT) was better than RENT as written by Jonathan Larson. How else could she mean that the product is suffering? While opinions of course vary, all I can suggest is that she take it up with the Pulitzer Committee. Or the Tony Committee. Or the millions of fans of RENT whose love for the show has prompted producers to bring RENT back to New York City this summer. We all have thought about different endings for stories we love. What if Ilsa didn’t get on the plane and leave Rick behind? What if Roy Hobbs had struck out (as he did in the underlying book)? What if Rosebud was Charlie Kane’s dog? What if Elaine didn’t get on the bus with Benjamin? We can certainly imagine a different ending, but we know we cannot present those alternate endings without permission of the rights holders.
This was not about commerce or fear or delegating responsibility to lawyers. This was about one person deciding that she could write a better show than the one that was licensed and opting to present it in violation of the performance license. Respectfully, that is simply not allowed.
Drew Cohen
President
Music Theatre International
Thank you for clarifying Mr. Cohen; however, we never changed the ending to make it “better.” In fact, Mimi still rose in the end. Diane never intended to create a shocking ending to what she thought would be better than Mr. Larson’s version. Respectfully, we have changed the ending back to the original in accordance with copyright laws. So I don’t think there’s any need to degrade anyone for their opinion at this point in time on any side. We still have an incredible show that’s helping our community. We only hoped to changed the ending to raise awareness. Now, with the original ending, we can raise hope.
No “degradation” intended, by me, at least. I sincerely hope your audiences and cast are enjoying the material as Jonathan Larson created it. Break a leg!
I want to express thanks for the comment Mr. Cohen, and for allowing us the opportunity to right our wrong. As Nina said, our only hope was to raise awareness. This production has become much bigger than any of us had hoped- in some ways bad, but in most ways good. As the article this comment is in response to says, “Seventy HIV-positive and/or homeless individuals are seeing the show free of charge this coming Friday, according to Smith-Sadak, and the department is sponsoring free HIV testing at the University.” Our main hope for this production is that everyone involved- especially the audience and the community members- will be touched by the story that unfolds. Rent is a story of love, passion, fighting to have a voice, and living in the moment- “No Day But Today.” THAT is what I hope the audience sees. Regardless of the ending, the story is the the same. Mr. Cohen, please know that we have realized our mistake and have restored the originally intended ending. I am confident if you come see our production, you will be quite pleased at the representation of Rent on our stage.
I am still, no matter what has happened and will happen with this show, more proud to be a member of this cast than I ever have been about anything in my professional life. The people I share the stage with each night are all remarkably talented individuals who all have their own unique talents to offer. I will also say, however, that I am sad that there will be many people coming to this show just to see “what the fuss/publicity was about,” rather than coming to see our astounding performance. Some would say even bad publicity is still publicity, but I think many of my cast mates would agree that we would much rather be selling-out shows because of our amazing production and our talents, not the publicity surrounding the it and the changes that were made. At any rate, this is still an AMAZING show with an AMAZING cast, and I encourage anyone who hasn’t seen it to do so! We understand our mistake and have tried to remedy the situation. Let’s all put this behind us and focus on what’s really important: The amazing story and musical that is RENT and the superbly talented actors, director, technicians, and crew involved!
Can someone PLEASE correct the typo in the headline?!
Thank you Mr. Cohen, Skye, and Duffy, I hope they change it soon as well haha. Good show everyone!!
Looks like Mr Cohen has so eloquently explained to the professor here to take her changes and shove ‘em back where they came from.
I don’t care if Mimi lives or dies, much less who Mimi actually is because as far as musicals go, I don’t particularly care for Rent. But if you’re going to make such a change such as removing dialogue that reassures the audience that this character does indeed live through the strife she goes through, it’s no wonder why you’re going to get shit for it.
This all comes down to a case of our dearest Towson professor not doing her job and actually reading what was laid out before her before she agreed to it. Had she done so, she wouldn’t have taken her “creative liberties” with something YOU CAN’T DO THAT WITH.
Obviously, the production here on campus is still a success. People will go see it regardless of the issues that existed before. And I can only hope that she learns something from this experience, which is that even if your changes are interesting, artful, tactful, etc., no one is going to give a single damn about that if you’re promoting RENT as RENT or Avenue Q as Avenue Q or The Wizard of Oz as the Wizard of Oz when, in the end, that’s not the product they’re paying you money for. Give the people (and the contract) what they want, not what you want to do with it.
Personally after all of this, I want to see Hair without hippies now. Or Cats without the cats. I want to see Smith-Sadak cut that out. Let’s see what happens
Just pointing out how fast the folks involved in the production are backpedaling. Statements to the press have gone something like this:
1. Our production is amazing and unique.
2. Yes, our production has an nontraditional ending, because it is our legitimate artistic interpretation and we’re allowed to do that. Mimi dies.
3. Yes, our production had a nontraditional ending, and we knowingly took license with the contract because we feel our artistic interpretation should be allowed; and anyway, we only took out 5 lines to make Mimi die.
4. Yes, our production had a nontraditional ending, but we didn’t know changes aren’t allowed; and anyway, Mimi dying is more realistic and this is definitely what Jonathan Larson would want.
5. Yes, our production had a nontraditional ending, but we didn’t know that we couldn’t change it just because we wanted to and we’re sorry now.
6. No, our production had a traditional ending, because the guy who wrote that opera wanted Mimi dead. Jonathan Larson is the one who changed the story; we just fixed that.
7. No, the ending to our production wasn’t really changed, we just left it open to audience interpretation. Who knows what happens to Mimi? But she probably died, because that’s more realistic.
8. No, the ending to our production was entirely unchanged, we never ever said or implied or even considered that Mimi dies. She gets up and walks around, of course she’s still alive. But if she had died, it would have served the message of RENT and Jonathan Larson.
9. And anyway, our production is amazing and unique.
It does not help your claim of committed artistic integrity when you continue to make contradictory statements to the press, aka where it’s recorded and easily referenced. You cannot have it both – or all 9 – ways.
To quote the director, ” I did not feel the ending of the play was changed except for the better”. “Except for the better” is the problem & her opinion. It was NOT the WRITER’S opinion at the time he wrote it nor was it the writer’s opinion at the time of his death; or HE would have changed it as he DID change many things during the off-Broadway run. Albeit an artistic choice, it was not hers to make- especially with a fairly recently (15 years) deceased author. If JL were alive to see even his original production on Broadway, he MIGHT have AGREED with Smith-Sadak. Changing or dropping even ONE line, however, so soon after the author/composer’s death- no matter how strongly she thought Jonathan Larson WROTE IT WRONG {“Nobody sits up and talks about their dreams. They just don’t. It’s an insult to the people struggling with these illnesses.”}- was NOT her decision to make. Period. Let the director debate a LIVING author if she thinks HER way is better than HIS (Have Ms. Smith-Sadak call Stephen Sondheim to tell him she is dropping or changing 5 lines of lyrics in “Westside Story” because she feels her vision of the musical is more effective & realistic than his.); otherwise, leave the lines as written & make a program note about the deletion(s) you WANT to make to correct a deceased artist’s “mistake”.
JIM ALLEN
NYC
Dear God we understand WHY it was changed back. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ENDING THAT WAS PRINTED IN THE MTI LIBRETTO.
What we have a problem with is this backlash from 20 people with a computer that seem to have nothing wrong with their lives or no problem with what is going on the world, and seem to focus all of their time and energy in the last few days on 5 lines of a musical in a production in the middle of Maryland. If you haven’t seen the show, it’s a shame that you feel the need comment on this particular production with such emotion. The facts are the same and you all seem to be repeating yourselves profusely.
Skeptic, I’ve read all of the threads on this (being involved in the show) and I don’t see anywhere where a cast member in the show has said “our version is special and unique.” Again, I reiterate that the show has been “fixed” according to MTI’s standards, the show is amazing, and the two nights that altered ending was presented went well. We have about 10 shows other than those two nights where the EXACT ORIGINAL ending is performed. The problem has been solved and you can go find other musicals/directors/casts to berate online.
I promise you, this is not the biggest travesty to happen to the world in the last week or so. Did anyone hear about the tornado in Alabama? 200 people killed vs. 10 seconds of a musical. Let’s get real now.
Personally, I agree with Sadak’s decision (at least artistically). Mimi popping up at the end and Mooing has always seemed forced and awkward to me. It’s unfortunate that there isn’t any flexibility with these kind of situations, but at the same time, there are so many ways that a crazy director or producer can completely ruin a wonderful script.
Smith-Sadek paints herself as an oppressed artist yet touts selling out shows as a measure of success. She defends her indefensible changes by saying audiences wouldn’t have noticed them anyway. Herzog just turns a blind eye throughout and then gets “a little nervous” when as soon as there’s an audience their unnoticeable changes are noticed. Neither attempted to get permission to make these changes: a cynical, calculated decision that backfired on them. Both severely lack the integrity required of artists and educators.
Disregarding the importance of an author’s right to protect their work – diminishing it by contrasting it with natural disasters and death as Mr. Worthington does above – is what happens when students have instructors like Ms. Smith-Sadak and Mr. Herzog, who clearly have no problem altering a copyrighted script. That is, of course, unless they get caught.
I agree with Andrew. It is impossible to care about anything else happening in the world if you have an opinion about the changed ending in Rent, because having an opinion on it clearly means that that production of Rent is the most important thing in the world to whomever is discussing it. I also agree that because it’s clear the cast and crew are too emotionally involved, that that must mean that EVERYONE commenting is emotional. I’m glad that going to college has taught him (and thus compelled him to teach US) that it’s impossible to hold more than one thought in one’s head at the same time. I am glad that, by his logic, he has nothing else going on in his life, either! I don’t even know where Atlanta is!
As one of the outraged message board posters, I can say that we do not need to see the production to know that what your director did was ILLEGAL, DISRESPECTFUL, and UNPROFESSIONAL, and we are angry about that. Many posters even admitted that they think Mimi dying would make a better ending, but that she did not have the right to change it.
Beyond that, everyone’s defensiveness and arrogance and their refusal to admit they did anything wrong is what made the anger and outrage even worse.
I’m sure your production is great, and it is wonderful that you are so passionate about your show. But when you break the law, you are subject to the consequences of that, which includes internet backlash.
From what I’ve been able to see online about this production, it appears that the Towson theater department has a number of superbly talented artists and craftspersons. You have my admiration.
Prof. Smith-Sadak, however, comes across consistently as arrogant and, worse, actively looking for a fight. Shame on you, Ms. Smith-Sadak. Have the grace to apologize and then be quiet. This fine department deserves better from you.
I suspect that if the cast/crew of this show had let Professor Herzog have the last word on this subject, it would have ended there. At least he , however belatedly, recognized the problem created by illegally altering the text of the show. Unfortunately, Ms Smith_Sudak came along and attempted to portray herself as a martyr oppressed by corporate evil. Not only did she fail to apologize to MTI or the Larson estate or even acknowledge that what she tried to do was wrong, she had the utter audacity to claim that her ending was better than the one Mr Larson write and fought for.
Its all well and good that some members of the cast are at least paying lip service to the issue but that doesn’t mean the underlying issues aren’t work talking about.
And Mr Worthington? I get that you don’t like criticism. However, your attempt to shut down this discussion by referencing the tragedy in Alabama is simply crass and uncalled for. As was incidentally, your and some of your colleagues previous attempts to control the conversation by throwing around ridiculous accusations of slander against people who disagree with you.
I simply do not want this drama to be the focus of this production. We are including a lot of outreach programs with our show, including Hope Springs and The Jaques Initiative. Hope Springs is doing free HIV testing on Towson campus today in conjunction with the production and we have awareness expos every weekend. I’m attempting to stifle this argument because the problem has been fixed and the good that is coming from this production can shine through as opposed to the exaggerated offense you seem to take from a production you haven’t seen.
@AndrewWorthington: The script rewrite was a small issue and would have remained one but for the arrogant, ugly, and delusional rant published here: http://www.thetowerlight.com/2011/04/our-leap-of-faith/.
Sadak’s violation of the law and disrespect for artists’ rights was bad enough, but her bellicose namecalling in print afterward is unconscionable. Shame shame.
My phone number is listed on the Towson University Department of Theatre Arts website. After a restful weekend, I will be more than happy to have a logical, well mannered conversation with anyone who makes the call. I also think the performers should put down their keyboards to focus on the show and take a minute out of their busy day to drop by to chat if they still feel mistreated or frustrated.
I have made my public apologies and the show has been completely restored to full text.
With sincere thanks to the theatrical community.
Jay Herzog
How sad that the director has brought this upon her students.
I was at first intrigued by a college group being ambitious enough to tackle the topic of RENT. Being a Local Theatre Professional, I first became aware of the production when a friend who is in the cast was tagged in some production photos. Tonight, when I got home and saw the article on playbill.com, I honestly became ENRAGED about the production.
What puzzles me MOST about the whole situation is who, Theatre Professionals, Academic Theatre Professionals at that, would knowingly alter the libretto without consulting the the contract. I feel that this is simply a cop out by the director and the head of the department. Shame on you. You know better. The fact that one of you is touted as being a playwright should know better.
I will close with this story, when I first saw the show (from the front row) the lady sitting next to me was obviously videotaping it. During Maureen’s OVER THE MOON she noticed it, stopped the show by simply in character saying “SHAME ON YOU” and then continued with the show.
I wish my friend and the rest of the cast a successful run and hope to make it out to see support him.
Love and Light to the cast and crew, and to the rest of those who knew better SHAME ON YOU.
xoxo
“‘I’m a definite believer in that things are meant to be,’ she said. ‘But I find it interesting that people who say they love and support the arts, then take time out of their day and work to bring someone else’s art down.’”
You’re the one who has taken time out of your day to change an ending you found ‘insulting’ ‘for the better,’ Smith-Sadak. You’re taking RENT’s script, changing it, and advertising it as a production of Larson’s RENT. People are going to be upset. Stop playing the martyr against the big bad corporations that are protecting the integrity of Larson’s work.
In the midst of the problems people are finding and creating due to the situation, I’m happy to see that you all were able to have over 150 tested for HIV, and I think that’s something to be proud of. Way to go Towson!!!! Especially to the students, keep your chins up, you are incredibly talented and have helped many people, and I thank you for that, form the bottom of my heart!
And what about the movie RENT? They took a ton of liberties (and not just deletions for time sake) with the show. If it’s not about dollars and cents how come those people weren’t sued? And don’t even get me started on the Rent School Edition? I’m sure JL would LOVE that!
I am utterly amazed at the amount of delusional slander being committed on this article. So many posters are stating that Jonathan Larson changed Puccini’s La Boheme first. Well lets do a little investigative work here shall we? La Boheme had entered public domain when Rent was published. That was allowed under copyright law. The Rent movie: that was approved by the author’s estate. The Rent school edition: again approved by the author’s estate. I have long been an advocate of NOT altering works in performance. That does not stifle artistic liberties, it protects them. How would you like to have spent years of your life working on a piece of art and then have someone who has no idea of the labors taken to create that piece change it? This whole mess is about seeking permission. The director (and saying she never read the contract is a blatant excuse) chose to knowingly alter the text of the script. This is a disservice to her students and it is quite obvious that they have been deluded by her as well. They see this as encroaching on their rights as artists. I think they all need a refresher class in contractual law so as to not go into the theatrical world and think that this is found acceptable anywhere! As for wanting to alter work? DO something that has entered the public domain. Take La Boheme and alter it to present day times. It still rings of the story of Rent, but you now have the artistic license to do as you please.
It is frustrating that people who are allowed to produce this masterpiece reduce it to utter rubbish, and then point fingers at others when they are corrected for completely de-romanticizing a work. They didn’t even attempt to go through the proper channels. Had they done so, we might be able to see their side. Unfortunately, they decided to decapitate the foundation of underlying themes such as second chances and hope in the name of art. Pathetic. By doing this, they exemplify a conservative mind set only fit for RENT School Editions. In the future, I suggest this college goes for these productions more fit for their middle school attitudes.
Leave your response!
Year in Review
The Towerlight in Print
Check our print archives.
Categories
Weather
Archive
Resources
Used Cars
First Class Chauffeured Washington DC Limousine Service
Recent Comments
recent articles
Links
Sections