Letter: Our leap of faith
RENT - Christopher Curry/ The Towerlight
The “Rent” production you are going to see from now on is not the “Rent” that was previewed in this theatre [Mainstage] days ago. Was this past week’s incarnation unfinished? No. Was it not selling well? No, we had sold out our opening performances, and the rest of the run has been selling spectacularly as well. Was the production unsatisfactory to audiences? No, we had gotten rave feedback from almost everyone, including University administrators. So why is this show different than what we opened only days before?
Lawyers and contract law.
Copyright clauses.
Fear.
What had I chosen to put onstage that incited such a call to change? I had eliminated approximately five lines of Sprechstimme text towards the end of Act II (that’s all I’ll say. No spoilers here). If you’re a RENThead, you’ll probably know exactly what I mean. Please keep in mind that nothing had been done secretively, without departmental oversight, or without the deepest respect for Jonathan Larson, the exceptional creator of “Rent.” All angles were explored AND rehearsed, and the choice that we previewed with on Thursday, April 21, is one that I will always stand by.
However, within two days of our opening, grumbling reached our department through online anonymous bloggers and in-person patrons, and a chain of fear-based, legalistic decisions was handed down to me. To put it bluntly, I was told: Change the show, put the lines of text back in as written, or face imminent shutdown by copyright holders, Music Theatre International, Inc.
And so, like the characters in “Rent” who faced the ongoing struggle to create art in an increasingly corporate mindset and money-driven and fear-driven attitude, we, in tonight’s production, came in and reworked our ending into what you will see tonight. The “traditional” ending of “Rent.” We complied only under duress. Only if you saw one of the original three performances of our “Rent” will you be able to judge which was “better.” And is “better” really the point at all? Instead, I question the place of genuinely felt and articulated Art in the Institution. I, like Maureen, wish more of us would take that leap of faith so necessary to create truly magical moments of Art in our lives. Copyright law has its place, and playwrights have valid arguments about their work needing protection. But at what point do we take that inflexibility too far? Jonathan Larson died the night of his first preview about 15 years ago. Had he not, I would have been proud to bring our work to him with either ending. We will be putting it in front of the original production’s producer during the run. I have, nor had, anything to hide.
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. In this case, electronic media spread the word (and some of the word incorrectly, I might add) faster than imaginable straight to the legal offices of MTI, which called our department on Tuesday afternoon. I was then charged by my dean, my chair, University counsel and MTI that the end would be restored or the entire production would face shutdown. We will be in compliance by the time we open tomorrow evening.
I thank the cast and crew for their undaunted faith in me, and hope that the situation with “Rent,” if nothing else, teaches a real-world lesson about the harsh hazards of making art in today’s world. Remain willing to take a leap of faith.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
If it’s only five lines, what’s the big deal?
Besides, this isn’t just your art that you are working with, it is someone else’s and it does belong to them. They have the right to make sure their vision of what the play is supposed to be is carried out.
It’s no different than any writer wanting to make sure his work isn’t edited so that original message is lost.
If the issue were truly about creating art, you would write your own play, and then would be able to show it however you want. But that isn’t the issue – it is about interpretation, and the owners/ceators/etc. of a work have the right to control the interpretation.
You killed off a main character. That’s a bit more serious than changing a few lines, as you’ve vaguely implied here.
Anne, that’s not the matter at hand. What’s being debated is whether it’s reasonable for Bureaucracy to stifle creativity.
I cannot fathom how you thought that it would be okay to drastically change the ending of such a well-known piece.
“But at what point do we take that inflexibility too far?”
…on the very first page of your rehearsal librettos where it says you may NOT make alterations, additions, or cuts to the script or score.
Don’t try to pass the blame onto MTI and copyright laws. You messed up big time due to your own defiance, but I’m sure you learned your lesson. You don’t murder someone and then blame it on the harsh criminal code when you get sentenced to life in prison.
Bureaucracy is not stifling creativity hear. That’s a strawman argument.
This is a well known piece, owned by someone, who has the right to say how it is used.
No different than any writer wanting their work portrayed a certain way.
If this were truly about bureaucracy stifling creativity, we’d be talking about an original piece that is being censored.
But that isn’t the case.
Also, copyright law doesn’t stop you from asking for permission to change the end. It’s been done before for RENT, and it would have saved the heartache now.
I am a RENThead, and I completely stand by their initial decision regarding the ending of the show. It not only has to do with creativity, but passing on a lesson to the audience. This show is based off the opera “La Boheme,” in which the main character, Mimi, dies of tuberculosis, a deadly infectious disease which was not entirely known of at the time. In the preview of RENT, a work still in the process, Mimi, after being on the street for two months, barely any food or water, and obviously very, very ill from AIDS, surprisingly rises from the dead, with a “Wizard of Oz” magical ending, stating that she saw Angel, “and he looked GOOD.” Do we really want our audience to think Mimi will magically pop up and, in full health, tell everyone that she jumped over the moon? They didn’t even “kill her,” as some critics have said and will continue to say, she rose in the finale. It was open for interpretation. No person has any right to judge unless they had seen the initial ending on the University stage, and the ending that will now be performed. A preview is meant for change, and had Jonathan Larson lived, he may have changed it without the pressure of box office sales, producers, etc, BUT, unfortunately, we’ll never know. Yes, there are copyright laws. Yes, MTI has the right to tell the department to change their ending, but had they seen the standing ovation from the very last moment of the show and the audience reaction, maybe if there had not been fear from the world of art, there could be change to make a piece more valuable than ever. Towson University should be very proud for the truth that those students put into their work, and realize that although the vision is altered, that new moment in the end and the rest of the two hours of RENT will continue to be incredible. Maybe that’s what we should recognize as an audience rather than jumping to criticize the hard work these students have worked to give to us.
Perhaps the greatest aspect of performance art is its flexibility. I don’t want to see a work of art bastardized, but without artistic contributions from everyone involved, (which inevitably colors the work) it becomes a mere puppet-show. Performance art is not a museum piece. It is a living thing. But without new blood and new breath, it stagnates and dies. I think five lines of text is an acceptable trade-off. After all, the lines will always be there in the script. I have faith that you have honored and will continue to honor the spirit of this work of art.
Well put Steve. Ultimately, I don’t think this situation is something for anyone to become angry by or argue over. What’s done is done, and our University will continue to put on a great show. Bravo Towson!
Yes it’s only 5 lines….but a plot line is changed. You can’t do that. You can’t change a show. And I would think people at the university level would be the first to back that. You can make a show different and your own in other ways besides changing lines. It’s up to the “creative” persons to do that and make it not a “puppet show”. Do the show how it was written! Not that hard to make it unique even though your lines and music are the same as everyone else’s who does that same show. C’mon Towson….what were you thinking???
im glad to have been able to see Towson’s version…what a shame!
Apparently it needs to be reinforced that Rent is based on the Puccini opera La Boheme. @Kristina very eloquently raised the issue that the original ending includes Mimi’s death. With all due respect to Jonathon Larson, his version of the story is where the plot was changed.
Theatre is, among other things, a tool for social change. The ending as presented by the Theatre dept this weekend was one that was impactful and particularly mindful. Baltimore City ranks as the city with the highest rate of HIV infection in the country according to a 2010 study by the CDC. The infected are your neighbors, fellow citizens, and human beings. When their disease progresses it won’t matter that 5 lines of text were or weren’t said at the end of a play. When they are in pain because their body is systematically shutting down, it won’t matter that you didn’t get your feel-good resurrection. People don’t wake up, fly over the moon, and sing a song when HIV has turned to AIDS and the end is near. They die.
It’s a shame that we won’t know the kind of action that a full three week run of this show with Ms. Sadak’s preferred ending could have inspired. In this city we need money and awareness to be raised, and we need volunteers to step up. In order for that to happen, people need to be moved to make a change, and with a sanitized ending that is less likely to happen.
So, enjoy your fun at the theatre. Don’t take it too seriously, and don’t think too hard. Try not to have an emotional response, make sure you’re comfortable, and difficult questions aren’t posed. After all, entertainment is solely about light enjoyment and making a profit. Right MTI?
Go see the production. If you didn’t, then I don’t see your standing on the issue.
Thank you @Sarah Lynn, your comment is very inspiring. We were never trying to offend anyone, only to send out a message to show that there are those in our surrounding area who need help, and sometimes, that can only be displayed in the harsh reality of life. Our production of RENT, with our new ending, is still applicable to sending out a message of hope. Come see our production, you won’t regret it =]
West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet. Can I re-write the ending so both Tony and Maria die instead of the ending Bernstein/Sondheim/Laurents wrote? I’d only have to cut 5 lines or so from the text but so what? What’s the difference? I like my ending better.
The answer is no, it changes the well-known intent of the authors. If you can’t work within the text you are legally bound to by your signed contract, don’t do the show. If Mimi’s death is so important to you, do La Boehme instead.
Believing that your vision of the show is better/more important than that of the original creator is arrogant presumption.
I’m glad I went to opening night. All of the cast and crew do an amazing job and they all have they’re heart and soul into this production. I am looking forward to another incredible performance tonight!!
JohnM nothing about the ending of the show nor the production itself was arrogant. It was genuine and eye-opening. GO SEE THE SHOW. The change in the ending was not to stand out, to be avant garde, to be different in anyway. We felt like we were making an applicable decision. Look around you.
It saddens me deeply that several people have resorted to name calling, slanderous, and degrading remarks in order to try and prove their point. In the end, it was a decision that was made- good or bad- and a decision that everyone involved with this production made a choice to stand behind. As an actor in this show, I STILL stand behind every decision that was made, including the decision to restore the ending to its originally intended one. I have never been more proud to be a member of a cast. Everyone in this production has given their heart and soul to it and I, personally, will continue to do so each and every night I step on stage. The ending of the show does not change the overall story and the message behind it. I was quoted last week in the Towerlight as saying: “No matter what happens on stage or in their personal lives, ‘Rent’ is about love, it’s about hope, it’s about taking care of the people around you, whether it be your partner, the homeless people in the community, your friends, or your family. The world essentially is one big family.” I still stand by that quote whole-heartedly. I also still stand by something else I said which didn’t make the print: “I am thrilled that our production isn’t just a ‘carbon copy’ of everyone else’s Rent. This is OUR show and I am more proud of this than I have ever been of anything.” At the end of the day, no matter if the 5 lines are in, or out, of the show, this is still OUR Rent and is unique to Towson. I commend our director for her poise, grace, and boldness when it comes to this production. She has been, and still is, a driving force behind our cast, crew, and everyone on board, and I support her fully and completely. We have become a family. That being said, I would appreciate it greatly if people could stop resorting to “trash-talking” and degrading my family. I understand the viewpoints posed in this issue, but again, it saddens me that people have resorted to such nasty and negative remarks to reinforce their viewpoint.
As Andrew and Nina said, if you haven’t seen the show, please, come see it. There are more talented actors, musicians, technicians, and artists working on this show than I have ever seen. Please come see what we are trying to do here at Towson and the message we are trying to convey: Love each other and your art.
I think that I agree with the company. Rent is a creative work of Mr. Larson and he has a right to dictate how it is used.
I am a photographer, and I would be upset if someone used my work in a way that was not true to the original version without asking first.
Yes what done is done but a lot of the cast, crew and director feel it was ok to change the ending of someone’s work. Especially being at a University level they should be taught that it is not ok to alter a script no matter how minor it is. People defending the action keep saying Jonathan didn’t live to see the opening of RENT and that he might have changed his mind about having Mimi live. If you just do a simple google search you will find that the show had many reading, workshops and production’s over a span of 6+yrs and in all of them Mimi lives. In fact leading up to the Off Broadway production Jon was asked and pressured time and time again to have Mimi die. He would refuse and tell people that “I wanted the show to end with life”.
As young very talented artist’s it is your job and duty to perform the script as is. It is your Director’s job to help guide you through that process and adhere to the original script. If changes to the text or libretto are to be made they need to be addressed and filtered through the proper channels. Otherwise you are infringing on copyrights and performing rights. Many people over many years worked hard to bring RENT to life.. It is not your job or duty to alter it. It is your job to bring it to life the way it was meant to be.
You mad guys?
The whole “defenders of art” charade is pretty annoying. It’s really none of your business when someone makes a change to Rent unless you happen to be the ghost of Jonathan Larson and you’re mad about something. The director made a decision to change some things for the show, and whether that holds to the true meaning of the show is irrelevant. Look at a cover artist. Are you going to get all mad at Eric Clapton because his version of “Cocaine” (and no, he did not write the original..) is different from the original? Hell no. That’s one of his greatest hits!
So that being said, what happened here was an artistic leap made by the director. Not to be “more correct” or “better” than the original, but to put their voice, their style into the work.
Art has always and will always work like this: if you don’t like it, tough. If you do, congratulations.
@Compton, we realize the mistake we have made, we took that chance. And now, we have changed it to the original ending, and I invite you to see this piece of art that we have assembled. Again, our community is #1 in the nation regarding persons having HIV/AIDS, and even hold an outreach every Friday for our audience of any age to be tested for this horrible disease. I think the thing we should concentrate on at this point in time rather then scolding us for our mistake, is the matter at hand and that is our push for awareness. Thank you for your comment, we take everything that our audience, friends and others have to say to heart. With our new ending, and the rest of the show that we have worked so hard to bring together for you and for our community, we invite you to see this piece of art that Jonathan Larson had beautifully put together, performed by a wonderful, talented cast of young people. Our #1 priority is awareness. And we are more than happy to continue bringing that awareness to the stage.
And Skye, I agree with you 100% regarding the negativity. There is absolutely no need for slander, degrading remarks, etc. This show we have put together is ultimately about love, and that needs to be more prevalent in the art world. We unfortunately messed up, but we learned, and still remain standing as a cast, with just as, if not a more powerful show than last week. Again, thank you to everyone for their comments. If you have not seen RENT, come see it this week or next. You’ll really be in for a treat =]
So what did they change? I’ve been trying to figure out from the comments what Towson’s production changed and then put back?
What you did is equivalent to reading a book but deciding that you don’t quite like the ending. So, you reconfigure the ending to fit your liking, publish the rest of the book as is, put your name on it, and ask the public to pay to read something that is 99% unoriginal.
There is no doubt that Larson was a patron of the arts and would have encouraged artistic expression; but there was a reason for him copyrighting his work and therefore a reason why MTI did not let you disrespect it.
Not to mention, as a RENT fan thinking I’m coming to see a show that I am very familiar with and appreciate, I was confused about what actually happened at the conclusion of the show, and disappointed that the optimistic and powerful ending that I love was tarnished.
I am beyond glad that you were forced to change it back to the original.
The way Mimi pops back up off the table for the final number made me think she was alive anyway. Since I don’t have the script memorized I didn’t even notice the difference. Regardless, the show was (and will be) outstanding. The last six or seven minutes won’t change what the audience had seen up to that point.
Thank you @Kyle V!
There are a couple of issues here, but before I get to them I want to confess, at the outset and in the interest of full disclosure, I am a writer of musical theatre. This biases me. I understand that. Now, let’s move on.
The argument that Tickets were selling (etc.) is ridiculous because the “new ending” (more on that in a moment) wasn’t selling the tickets. The name of the show was selling tickets; the RENT “brand” if you will was causing those tickets to fly out of the box office. It’s remarkable arrogance to credit ticket sales of an existing brand – especially one so young – to an altered ending no one knew about.
More importantly, the “tortured/persecuted artist” defense is laughable. The moment you go futzing with the text – nevermind MAJOR plot issues – you’re putting yourself in the role of writer, not director. Short version: YOU’RE NOT THE WRITER! The director’s job is to interpret what the writer has written. You failed when you tried to rewrite the ending.
As for the “new ending” itself, had you done your homework on the show you would have learned that Larson wrestled with this very decision. There even exists a draft of the show wherein Mimi dies. It almost made it to the final version. Why isn’t it there? Because a decision was made BY THE WRITER that to leave the audience with a sense of hope IN THE FACE AND IN SPITE OF this terrible disease was important than “reality”. Incidentally, this attitude was brought by meetings he attended (think “Life Support”) where he was confronted by a man who explained that he was “living with, not dying from AIDS.” Your cavalier dismissal of this decision cheapens his memory and his work on this show, no matter how much you might claim the contrary.
Finally, you claim to aspire to inspire your students. Well, how about this: inspire them to create their OWN work and not rip off someone else’s. Consider:
“Lexie? Mark. Call me a hypocrite, I need to retool the ending of LOST so that it makes sense and answers questions.” No… That’s not how that line goes… I remember…
“Lexie? Mark. Call me a hypocrite, I need to remake ‘The Godfather’ so that Michael can make it out of the family and go on to live a successful life as an honest politician and statesman who does noble things for the good of all.” No… That’s not it either… What did he say? Oh, yeah…
“Lexie? Mark. Call me a hypocrite, I need to finish MY OWN FILM!”
It’s a travesty what you have done in the name of “creating magical moments of Art.” Also, you could try to convey that when you break the law, especially one you KNOW exists (and you really need to stop with that B.S. ” I never saw the contract” stuff, because 1) it’s insulting and 2) “Do Not Alter” is ALL OVER those scripts) you should expect to be called on it. In all honesty I think you should be fired; not for changing the ending of “RENT” (which, just by the way, I think is a good change. But that doesn’t mean I think it should be done. The music is all wrong after that.) but for being A horrible example to the students in your charge.
If you don’t like someone’s art, then create your OWN art. (Uh, that’s what Jonathan Larson did…)Changing the text of a dramatic work isn’t any different than spray painting blue eyeshadow on the Mona Lisa because you prefer it that way. And saying, “well, maybe Jonathan Larson might have changed the ending” isn’t a logical excuse for anything. One of the many reasons why literary estates are very strict about changing, altering, deleting or adding text (or changing the sex of characters) is to protect the intent of the author and prevent it from being perverted. If they let ONE company make a change, then other companies will demand to be allowed to make changes and then you have the possibility of some theater demanding to be allowed to turn “Rent” into a homoPHOBIC play about AIDS which was very obviously not the intent of Mr. Larson.
If you want the artistic freedom to make the art you want to make, then I might suggest creating original new work, or adapting very old works in the public domain…there are thousands of them out there…like the story of “La boheme”…
Oh, and musical artists get PERMISSION and PAY ROYALTIES when they record cover songs…or, they get the pants sued off them.
And, getting the rights to do a play or musical is the equivalent of renting a car. You pay Hertz money, they give you a car for a set period of time, then you give it back. You don’t add hot pink racing stripes to the car because it looks cool or expresses your artistic creativity.
The directors, designers and performers are free to interpret the text of a show as long as it doesn’t violate the artistic and commercial rights and intent of the WRITER(s) of the show. If the directors, designers and performers want to have complete artistic freedom, then they should collaborate and create new work. That is how the theater thrives and new art is created.
And, if you don’t like the libretto for “Rent” then perform the music in concert.
I have to agree that yes, the director did violate the copyright laws by changing the script. When you enter into a contract, you need to know that it clearly states that no alterations may be made to the music or script. Technically, you are even supposed to request permission to cast a role with a different gender.
Of course, this is skirted by a lot of the time, and the licensing companies simply cannot monitor every single show to ensure that it is produced exactly as written. Many theatres cut lines, alter music, and such. (The only show I am aware of that allows changes, even encourages them, is Godspell.) I was involved in a production where they added songs from the film version and rewrote the ending completely. It was wrong to do it, and I should have had the common sense to leave the production immediately. I didn’t, and we luckily weren’t reported or sued.
But there is a major lesson to be learned here. When a production changes parts of the script or music, or doesn’t pay for rights – everyone involved in the show is liable. EVERYONE. Even if you claim you had no idea, you can still be sued, and if the judgment is rendered in the copyright holder’s favor, you will have to pay.
I think that Towson needs to add a required class to their theatre programs – Arts Law. It is necessary for artists to know the risks and liabilities.
And for the record, I strongly dislike the “happy ending” of Rent. I wish it ended as Diane ended it. Unfortunately, changing plot, lines, or music is illegal.
I understand the point of view of folks who say “it’s not a big deal,” “it was just five lines,” or even “it was better to change it.” However, as a playwright, I firmly stand by MTI on this. I’ll try to explain why, just so you see where we’re coming from.
Playwrights and composers take on a great deal more risk for (generally) less material reward than screenwriters or TV writers. We are not employees, and we do not have a union. We have the Dramatists Guild, an advocacy group, which is great, but there are limits to our collective bargaining rights because we’re not on payroll. Instead, we usually create works on our own, with no promise from anyone that it will ever be staged. Jonathan Larson was no exception; he worked his butt off on this show for the better part of a decade and died before he could reap any of the financial benefits.
The one thing we do have, that TV and screenwriters don’t, is copyright control. We own our work, and license it out to be performed (or personally authorize an agent or publisher to do so on our behalf). Part of that license is an agreement that no changes will be made without written permission. It’s binding language in a legal contract. As the owners of intellectual property, we have the right to determine how it is used.
Musicals (including RENT) take YEARS of writing and rewriting, readings, workshops and rehearsal to create, all at the risk of the author’s time and money. Why should a theatre company or director, then, assume that he or she can “improve” the show by changing it? The author wrote what the author wrote, and every word has a reason for being there that was thought and re-thought again and again.
Creating a culture of ignoring copyright also has serious implications for the many playwrights whose plays and musicals do not have the name recognition of RENT and the late Mr. Larson. If a theater puts on a play of mine, and they make an unauthorized change that turns out to be a bad idea (or an idea that I don’t like), then I look like an idiot, because the audience automatically assumes that whatever they’re seeing was written by the author. In other words, I incur the consequences of their decision to misrepresent my writing.
Furthermore, as someone above pointed out, many writers and publishers are willing to make certain changes if the party asks. The fact that this involves some bureaucracy, and the risk that they’ll say no, is inconvenient, but not an excuse to circumvent it. Directors can direct action, orchestrate the mood and timing of a play, determine its look and feel, cast it, and contribute to the art in many ways — but the words belong to the writer. End of story. You can’t lop off part of a painting and represent it as the artist’s work. Same with a show.
You cannot change a published text, written or otherwise, in the name of creativity. You want to be creative, write your own musical. You want to do RENT, you have to do it as written. That’s it. No more or less than that. Case closed.
As a director, writer, composer, and scholar of musical theatre for the last 30 years, I am appalled by this story, and how it has apparently taught these students a profound disrespect for art. This professor should be fired, not just for changing someone else’s work, but for setting such a terrible example for her students and for being so unrepentantly ugly about the aftermath.
On the other hand, I see high school teachers do this kind of thing all the time, and I fear too many people are being taught that THEIR artistic impulses are more legitimate than those of Jonathan Larson or Stephen Sondheim or Rodgers and Hammerstein. Shame on Smith-Sadak!
By the way, Kristina posts here, “This show is based off the opera ‘La Boheme,’ in which the main character, Mimi, dies of tuberculosis.” Actually that’s not true — the musical is much more directly based on the original novel, “Scenes de la vie de Boheme,” and the show has only passing similarities to the mopey opera. It’s a wonderful, funny novel, totally worth the read. You can read in more detail about the novel and adaptation in my book “Rebels with Applause.”
I feel compelled to add that in my opinion Towson students are learning some very dangerous anti-artist, anti-ethics, and anti-legal lessons from Professor Smith-Sadak. Oh, and they’re also witnessing a fine example of anti-grace under fire.
It is shocking and distressing that a theatre professor would advocate violating contracts and copyright law. When the university secured rights to produce the play, their agreement was to present the play as written. Changing the text is a violation of that agreement. Does this instructor teach student directors and stage managers that it will be acceptable to ignore the stipulations of the Actors Equity contract when they are working professionals? Her behavior and the example that she sets for her students is unacceptable.
If you want to re-write a play, pick something that’s in the public domain (that’s what Larson did with La Boheme). But if you want to do a contemporary play, honor the contract with the playwright.
Copyright laws are not about bureaucracy stifling art. Copyright laws are designed to protect the author of the work from those who would make changes to it, as you are doing, and from those who would profit from a work without properly compensating the author.
Your arguments about “taking a leap of faith” and “fear” keeping others from allowing you to make changes to someone else’s work are specious and distraction from the real issue.
If you want to produce a pre-existing work of art, you agree to laws regarding that work. Period. There is no middle ground about “taking a leap of faith” or assuming what you think the author would think about your changes. The work exits as it stand until the copyright laws expire, at which point you are welcome to do whatever you want with the piece (though even then, I believe the original content should be respected but that’s another matter entirely.)
You’re legally in the wrong. Plain and simple.
p.s. If you want to change a play, there are also older texts in the public domain (like Shakespeare) that you are perfectly free to alter in any way you like.
Or if you somehow feel justified in making a change in a script that explicitly violates the authorial intent of the creator have the courtesy to acknowledge that somehow so an audience is not mislead into thinking the show they are seeing is the way the author wanted it to be presented.
In this case, a note in the program could have said “We decided Jon Larsons ending was a insult to his characters so we substituted our own which is better, Hope you like it!”
Or change the billing to say Book by Jonathon Larson and Diane Smith-Sadak, It would be just as illegal but at least it would be intellectually honest.
I cannot believe the audacity of this director. Any theatre person with any sense or experience knows that you cannot alter material. Using the excuse that she never saw or read the contract is merely a smoke screen….if she had no idea about alterations, she doesn’t deserve to be in the theatre.
I went to school at Adelphi with Jonathan Larson. We were there during a terrible time when AIDS, addiction and the like were rampant. I lost many friends to that terrible disease. Is Mimi’s reaction at the end of the show an insult to those sufferin
g…absolutely not! It is reality… DTs, delirium due to fever etc all; comes into play….and then there is artistic license. If Jonathan wanted to write that Mimi spoke in tongues and did a ballet at the end…that is his prerogative – it is his play – his voice…..Not the director’s………
Ignorance!
MTI should never allow their contracts to be associated with this director ever!
Aw, man. How embarrassing.
Ms. Smith-Sadak needs to go back to MusicalTheatre101: You can’t change the lyrics, darling! And change includes…leaving them out.
Yikes.
It’s like CAROUSEL only Billy doesn’t die. It’s all “just a dream.”
As a fellow theater teacher, you sound like most of my stereotypical “I know better” than everyone else type drama student. I think the Pullitzer and the Tony on top of the copyrights outweigh your false sense of entitlement to change the script. If you don’t like the ending, do another show. You knew ‘exactly’ what you were doing when you took out those lines and thought you were genious in leaving it up for interpretation. My dog could have chewed the script and accidentally cut out the same lines. It wouldn’t make him a genius, and he’d still pee in the house. For the sake of your friends and family, I hope the similarities stop at the line cuts.
It deeply saddens me that the director of this production (and in turn, the cast) is defending an illegal action with “well, the audience enjoyed it.” I saw the show with Diane Smith-Sadak’s “improved” ending and I thought the cast did an excellent job performing, but I was deeply bothered. Jonathan Larson wrote his play for a reason. Everyone is defending this decision by saying “we didn’t mean to harm anybody” or “we were not arrogant in changing this,” but the truth is, you broke the law. No matter how you look at it, rewriting a copy written piece of work is illegal. It has nothing to do with suppressing your creative freedom, or believing that one ending is different than the other. When someone commits a crime, the situation needs to be rectified. You all are lucky your production didn’t get shut down or that MTI hasn’t brought a lawsuit to Towson University.
If you don’t like the way the show is written, don’t produce the show. It’s that simple. As a paid staff member of a theater, we adhere to all contract rules. As a University, you have the responsibility to educate your students who may end up as an Artistic Director some day. Lead by example. Why would anyone think that they know better than the author (dead or alive).
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