In the past few days, several people have contacted me by email about some of my blog posts and contested my view that some of the radical changes I have seen in recent HAiR productions aren't appropriate. (I wish these people would step up and comment on one of my posts, but it seems that writing publicly isn't always what people want to do).
In each of these contacts, the gist of the argument was that the reason for these changes is "artistic license", i.e., the desire/need to reinterpret the work in a different way from the original. One person also argued that the source of this feeling is that HAiR is/was essentially an improvised work and so it begs for further improvisation.
I would like to discuss each of these issues. First, the question of artistic license. The problem with using the term artistic license in this sense is that it is being used incorrectly. Artistic license is the colloquial term used to describe what an artist does to reality, i.e., to distort or ignore reality when creating a work of art. If a painter creates a horror scene out of his view of Disneyland, that is artistic license. If a playwright creates a comic farce out of events that happen in the White House, that is artistic license.
It is NOT artistic license to take the work of another artist and distort it, especially if that distortion is done without permission. That right is granted and retained expressly by the artist. If you want to do something different to reality, you are required to interpret reality on your own, i.e., writing your own musical. You aren't permitted to change (on your own) someone else's work without their authorization.
Yes, I know that "everyone does it". But that isn't really true. Indeed, most musicals that are presented in this country by amateur groups are changed somewhat, often by shortening some of a dance number, or changing a song's key, or even sometimes cutting some lines of dialogue. This is borderline modification, but in some cases it is necessary and although not strictly legal, mostly overlooked. As long as the overall show is the same, this doesn't hurt the production.
However, what if someone decided that, hey, we know that Tony is supposed to die at the end of West Side Story, but you know we want to have a happy ending, so lets just have him wrestle the gun from Chino and go off into the sunset with Maria. Would ANYONE think that a theater company would have the "artistic license" to do that? And yet, that is precisely what we saw at a recent production of Hair, in which at the end of the show, Claude was brought back to life, hugging Berger and singing Let The Sun Shine In with the rest of the tribe. How does that differ from the West Side Story scenario? Could someone explain that to me?
When a theater group produces a musical, it signs an ACTUAL license with the producing company (you might call THIS an 'artistic license' in that the author and publisher are licensing you the rights to perform the show) and that license clearly states (in every case that I have ever seen) that the work is licensed to be performed "as is" without changes or alterations. Anyone who then proceeds to change the work in some significant way and uses the term "artistic license" to justify it is not using artistic license at all but in fact is breaching the legal artistic license they are granted by the publishers. This, in our society, is called a copyright violation, and is punishable by losing your license, being sued for damages and possibly even being charged criminally (although that is extremely rare).
People often point to the reinterpretation of Shakespeare as a model for these kinds of efforts, but of course, the difference here is simple. Shakespeare's work has long been in the public domain and therefore is completely unaffected by legal licenses. Thus, it becomes a part of "reality" and can be interpreted freely by anyone who chooses to do so. Most modern musicals are still (and will for a long time be) under complete copyright protection and are therefore not permitted to be changed without the author's express permission.
On to the subject of improvisation of Hair. This is an area where I have learned a lot in the past three months. I, too, came into this process thinking that Hair had originally been an improvised musical. I now know that is almost completely the opposite from the truth. In fact, Hair had, and always had, a very very strong script, written by Gerome Ragni and James Rado over several years, then modified extensively after the original production off-Broadway. These modifications were done very quickly in the three months between the closing at the Cheetah and the opening at the Biltmore, and in fact were not completely written down into a composite final script form until after the show opened, but the script changes were always the product of the authors (yes, the tribe contributed in the process as the show was being rehearsed, as did Tom O'Horgan, and the highly non-linear staging techniques certainly had an effect on the final script, but it was still a script, just like any other show).
To think that Hair was improvised is completely misunderstanding the process. The show LOOKS improvised (that is the whole idea) but it is NOT improvised at all, and it is really important for any production/director/tribe to keep in mind that the lines are there for a reason, as are the songs. Saying that we should be able to do "our own improvisation of the show because, after all, it was originally improvised anyway" is simply a misstatement of fact.
Interestingly, Chorus Line was an example of a show that WAS almost completely improvised (or at least, created from the workshop improvisations of the original cast members' stories and lives). The story is well know that Michael Bennett took a bunch of chorus line actors and had them tell their stories in encounter groups and took those stories and worked them into a show. The script was written from the improvisation, but the improvisational technique is right there in the genesis of the production. YET NO ONE EVER REWRITES CHORUS LINE! Why isn't the argument made that "well, Chorus Line was an improvisation so we just decided to keep improvising and make a lot of changes to update the show"?
I think anyone who attempts HAiR needs to make sure they understand these two points. If you don't like the show because of the way it is written, fine, but then you shouldn't do the show. Or do as Jonathan Larson did, and write a completely NEW show based on a group of kids in Greenich Village in modern times facing different problems (after all, Rent may be a remake of La Boheme, but it also takes a lot from Hair). But, I don't think you should do HAiR "your own way". That just isn't justified.
One more point. Yes, Jim Rado has made changes to his show on many occasions. But that is his right, he is the original author (and even some people dispute this, feeling that since Gerry Ragni died, there shouldn't be any more changes to HAiR, but I will leave that one for the authors and authors' estates to work out). And if you want to make changes, you may want to contact him. You may even be able to get him to work with you on your concept (several companies have had varying degrees of success with this approach). If you do that, I would certainly agree that you are doing things correctly. But keep in mind, the vision then won't be yours, it will be his (possibly influenced by your ideas), as it rightfully should be.
Jon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's interesting how one show can be interpreted (and altered) in so many different ways. Obviously there are many directors who are going beyond the legal boundaries of "artistic license" in such alterations. But, at the same time, it fascinates me how the opposite issue might come up looking at being 100 percent true to an original work. Copying a dance, for instance, is potentially as much of a copyright violation as altering a scene in a play. And, of course, both can be justified via "artistic license." When it comes down to it, from the standpoint of a director, critic, actor, and theatergoer, I think beyond legal issues (which must be noted), it's up to the director to decide what is best for his or her play, and how to take the original vision and mold that into whatever it is the director hopes to sculpt the play into. It's not as easy to make such alterations in "West Side Story," as you've pointed out, but if someone never saw the original version of Hair, he or she might be less so inclined to remain true to the script. I'm not saying that's right - as I personally think Hair is going to always be strongest with the original vision kept intact - but I also think that sometimes art ought to relax a bit on copyright, that it'd be best off "open source," and open to interpretation. Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm really fascinated by the issue of artistic license versus copyright violation, so I thought I'd respond. :)
Adena, these are interesting comments. I have a few points to make about all of this.
As a software person, I totally subscribe to the notion of "open source" both for artistic works as well as software. Keep in mind, however, that open source is not imposed upon anyone, it is a choice that an author (either artistic or software) can make.
For those of you who aren't familiar with open source, it is a variation on public domain but with restrictions that permit you to maintain the "freedom" it encourages. If something is public domain (i.e., Shakespeare), anyone can create a derivative work (including a complete reinterpretation) and they then hold the copyright to the new work. They do NOT hold any right to the original work, so anyone else can come along and do their own version. However they can't copy anyone else's derivative work. Also, anyone can choose to charge for the use of their derivative work, even exhorbitantly if they so choose.
A good example of this is the New York Public Theatre's version of Pirates of Penzance which originally starred Linda Ronstadt and Kevin Kline on Broadway and in the film. The original Pirates is totally in the public domain, but if you want to do the New York Public Theatre version, with their changes, legally you are required to license it from Music Theatre International and pay their regular royalty rates. Moreover, you can't legally make ANY changes to their version without their permission because their version has its own copyright which is current. Why anyone would do this (the new version isn't THAT much better than the original which is already in the public domain) is beyond me!
Open source (typically using one of several common open source licenses) means that the original author (a) continues to hold the copyright, (b) expressly permits others to make derivative works at no cost and (c) generally requires that anyone who does so must guarantee to pass along the same rights to everyone else. I.e., if the New York Public Theatre version of Pirates of Penzance were open source, any of us could not only perform it free of charge, but we could make our own modifications without fear of violation of copyright. The only requirement is that we must permit anyone ELSE to do the same to our new version (i.e., produce it at no cost and permit further modifications, ad nauseum).
I like both public domain AND open source (preferring the latter a bit more). But again, in all cases, this has to be the choice of the author (who owns the original copyright). They are obviously always free to place their new work into public domain or under open source. But if the author doesn't WANT their work to be open source or public domain, that is also their right. The public can "vote" with their dollars by ignoring works that aren't open source or public domain and patronizing the open source works, but there has never ever been a suggestion that open source should somehow be FORCED upon creators.
I see another important distinction between software (nowdays commonly distributed in both open source and proprietary forms) and artistic works. Software is typically utilitarian and if it is proprietary, there are many practical restrictions on its use. In some cases, a virtual monopoly may develop (consider Microsoft Office :-) which makes it really bad for the user who may not have any choice in which software to use. You usually can't customize proprietary software in a way that makes it more useful.
I guess you could argue that this isn't different from the need for a theater or director to make certain kinds of changes to a show (such as removing offensive material or updating it to make it current). However, I am not sure those are REALLY utilitarian, but rather much more creative issues (i.e., if something in its original form is too "dirty", you probably should just choose a different show - your desire to do, say, Oh Calcutta! without nudity doesn't outweigh the authors' right to insist that their show be produced without changes).
So while I agree that everyone SHOULD put their musicals into public domain or open source, I doubt that they will ;-) First, there is too much money at stake. If someone placed a show into open source while it was still running on Broadway, anyone could just up and do a new production anywhere in the country without paying a dime. Second, authors really do want their work protected, for the most part. And we certainly shouldn't force open source on them, and we certainly should respect their rights if they choose to enforce them by copyright.
As for the issue about what you can and can't copy other than the script, yes indeed that has become a bigger issue these days (Urinetown's creators are in a lawsuit with several local theater companies over alleged "copying" of the original Broadway production - no one is sure how this will turn out).
Fortunately we have worked closely with the people who have rights in parts of the original HAiR and we have been encouraged to replicate the original where it is appropriate. We aren't doing so where it isn't (at least not in terms of staging, etc.)
My issues with many productions of Hair doesn't have to do with their staging (although I may not always like their staging), but much more with the mutiliation of the base work (i.e., the unnecessary script changes). This is where the author has their rights, and every HAiR production I have ever seen is different because of cuts made by the director. I don't think that is always good (although to be fair, there are a few changes that even I have consistently agreed with such as either cutting Hippie Life or moving it to a different place in the show, so you can't call me a purist even on this issue :-).
I am fine with modifications that don't destroy the meaning of the show. However, I think killing Claude and then bringing him back does a terrible disservice to the author's intent. I also think using Hashish which (like it or not) is a quasi-celebration of the drug culture, to bring in a Grim Reaper and deliver a "drugs are bad" message sucks and clearly destroys the authors' intent. Hey, I think someone else in this blog (or on Michael Butler's blog) once said, "trust the audience". They aren't as dumb as you may think.
Just keep asking yourself, "How would I feel if Jesus didn't die at the end of Godspell? Would that be something a director should be allowed to do?" By the way, I guarantee you if you did that in a show and Stephen Schwartz ever found out, you would be in the biggest lawsuit of your life!
Jon
I have a bit to say in response to your latest comment, but as I'm actually busy work right now I'll keep this short and to the point.
It may not have sounded like it in my original post, but I actually agree with you regarding not making inappropriate changes to scripts, for the most part.
However, I think sometimes a play is missing out on the opportunity to grow into its own if the director is a complete purist. This just depends on the play of course, and I think it's really great how in this production you are working so closely with the folks who were involved in the original production and you really know your stuff when it comes to what to replicate, etc.
It would be interesting, though, if the arts worked more like... public domain/open source/etc. But I know that wouldn't be possible because of the money issue. Still, there's plenty a director can do without changing the base structure of the play. Yea, I'm opposed to those kinds of changes. If, as a director, you don't like the way a play is written, find another play to direct.
I mean, I wasn't all that fond of the Godspell script, but - with the exception of choosing what to do with "Beautiful City" in the middle of the show and then its reprise during curtain calls, I didn't really change much of anything. Then again, I think I changed a lot from the way it's typically done. I would feel awful to go in and start rewriting the script. That's not my place as a director. Some directors feel it is their place. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Being a director myself, this topic interests me. When it comes to changing a play/musical, I have very mixed feelings. When directing a show, I generally stay very close to the script, unless I HAVE to change something. I try to leave the script alone. I will edit out lines that I feel are really awkward or I cannot get an actor to convey in the right way, but again, only if I really have to and only if it doesn’t change the meaning of the scene/show. I don’t, however, hesitate to change things when it comes to staging, casting, set designing, etc.
I think it is understood that each production of a play is different. A production must be true to itself to make sure the story is told in the best way possible for that production. It is impossible to perfectly recreate what someone else has already done and there is no reason to try. Why would you want to? The Broadway production of HAiR has come and gone and cannot be duplicated. Theatre is unique in that the same piece is recreated over and over again with each new production adjusting and re-imagining the story.
On the other hand, I think it is important to respect the playwright. A person going to a seeing a particular play for the first time has no idea whether he/she is seeing what the author intended or what a production artistic team came up with. A playwright should get credit for his/her work and also should not be held responsible or criticized for changes made by any given director. I am sure a playwright does not want credit/criticism for a play that has been changed to something that they did not intend it to be.
However, part of the wonderful collaborative nature of theatre is that none of the elements can exist on their own. There must be lights, sets, actors, costumes, a script, and a director and it takes many different artists to make a production a reality. When creating a play, all of these artists have input into what the final product will look like and they all must work together to complete the project. There is a certain amount of compromise inherent in this process. Therefore, once a play leaves the hands of a playwright, it is no longer only his/hers, but the work of all those involved in the production. So the very first performance of the very first production of any given play has already been modified from the original vision of the author. With each new group of artists that produce a given play, there are going to be changes to that play.
As far as copyright issues go…I have never asked permission to change anything. I don’t even know what the process would be and it seems that it would be too much of a hassle. In a perfect world, I think that an author that allows his/her show to be produced by other people should assume that it will be changed. The author will have to deal with the fact that they are putting their work into the hands of a director who might screw it up. But the director might also be able to breathe new life into a piece and make it better or more relevant. For a playwright it is a crap shoot, but for the sake of the art it is necessary. There have been many great revival productions that have brought plays to whole new audiences. Or, if a playwright only wants the play to be under his/her control, he/she should not make the rights available at all. I also think that a production should note if it has changed a play significantly in its program. I think that it is only fair.
Those are just some thoughts. Hopefully, I was fairly clear. I am at work and it is hard to really focus on what I am writing.
See Ya Later
Dennis
There are some good points here. Of course, each production of a play is different (if for no other reason than the cast and staff are different). And I too have changed things in plays (I believe I said as much in a previous post). However, I have always drawn the line at changing the intent of the production.
What that means, of course, is also subject to interpretation. For instance, once a company in San Jose decided to set Pippin in modern times, instead of the era of Charlemagne as it was written. They made NO changes to the music or dialogue (at least no significant changes), they just built a set and costumes that were modern instead of "historic).
A preview article of the show was written in the Merc and apparently, Stephen Schwartz' agent heard about it and on Monday before they opened, they were served with a cease and desist order demanding that they restage the show as it was written or their license would be pulled. Of course, the made the changes at great cost.
You say you have never asked, but that is something everyone says and probably shouldn't. When I did Tomfoolery, we wanted to add some songs and so we asked Tom directly for the permission and he granted it to us. Well, actually he "sort of" granted it to us ;-) He said "I have no problem with this, but I strongly suggest that you not ask Samuel French, the licensing company, because then it will become a big bureaucratic hassle. Just go ahead and do it." So we did, trusting that if anyone ever argued about it, we could point to Tom and say "He said we could." (Of course, we had this in writing).
And yes, it you ask the licensing company, you are likely to be turned down, because they really don't have any vested interest in dealing with these things, particularly on behalf of amateur companies.
However, others have succeeded. David Hwang, the professional playwright, approached Rodgers and Hammerstein Library about rewriting Flower Drum Song because the story was so dated and politically incorrect that no one was really doing the show anymore. His rewrite was a big success and it ended up on Broadway. But again, this was done with the authors (or at least their estates') total concurrence.
So back to what prompted this: does bringing Claude back from the dead at the end of Hair constitute simply an artistic interpretation that would come within the pervue of the reasonable allowances that must be made for restaging any work, or is it a major change from the author's intent that distorts the meaning of the show? I personally think it is the latter but I certainly understand the other view (even if I don't agree with it).
Interested (and differing) opinions are encouraged :-)
Post a Comment