562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 2, 2019 15:58:47 GMT
Wow. This has become a real mess. It’s easy -having no stake in the matter, and with very little information to go on- to make quick judgements, but I guess we’ll never really know what happened. Not least because this straddles ‘ethical’ issues of good and bad behaviour, as well as purely legal matters. The former is more emotionally engaging but, whether we like it or not, the latter is arguably more important.
Hopefully things are worked out in a way that is acceptable to all parties. And hopefully it doesn’t overshadow what looks to be an interesting play.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 16:09:10 GMT
From the sounds of it, KKA wanting a public debate on the subject, it feels like there isn't much mood for compromise.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 2, 2019 16:19:58 GMT
I didn't understand the public debate suggestion at all.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 16:22:03 GMT
I didn't understand the public debate suggestion at all. Sounded a bit macho and vaguely threatening to me tbh
|
|
1,199 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jul 2, 2019 16:29:54 GMT
Predictable lawyer-speak, telling us nothing about the underlying facts: "to write a BRAND NEW script," "Idris Elba’s ORIGINAL CONCEPT," "breach of any LEGAL OBLIGATIONS," "original WORKSHOP CONTRACT," "ATTEMPTS BY THE PRODUCERS to resolve the issue", "proposals were made in spite of that fact that the claims by Tori Allen-Martin and Sarah Henley have NO LEGAL BASIS" (a) Under copyright law, a "brand new" script can use the original writers' ideas, as long as it does not replicate the "expression" of those ideas. Therefore, only an examination of all the actual scripts, as they happened, can confirm that Kwei-Armah's script was "brand new;" (b)Elba originated the music, but it's unclear how much of the thrust of the narrative was his "original concept." Depends on the instructions to the writers, and how much of the story they came up with; (c) What in fact were the "legal obligations" that bound both sides? Depends on their contract, and if there wasn't a written one, what was said to who by who; (d) The classification of the contract as a "Workshop" contract is an unproven assertion at this point. The contract itself would say, if written, to what it applies. If the contract is verbal, the words of the parties, documented in letters, emails, texts, etc would be relied on to determine the breadth of the original agreement. Simply saying a contract is a "workshop contract" doesn't make it so; (e) The "attempts by the producers to resolve the issue" despite the fact they assert there was "no legal basis" does not in fact confirm that there was or wasn't a legal basis for them to seek to settle with the first book writers, although it does construct a legal position that if indeed the producers did breach a contract, they took action to mitigate the damages caused by that breach, something a judge would later consider when awarding damages. So effectively, all this tells us nothing about the facts other than whoever wrote this was very VERY lawyered up. And that's the tragedy of confusing cases like these. Whoever can afford lawyers has all the advantage, and time, as those without money are easily ruined by protracted lawsuits, which incur massive costs, risks of more costs, risks of damages, as well as the ruin of reputation, in this case, as well.
Horrible for a progressive theatre like the Young Vic to be so sloppy that they opened themselves up to all this in the first place. There seem to have to so many blown opportunities to resolve this all long before the week the show came out! This tarnishes what sounds otherwise like a moving and exciting show.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 16:47:40 GMT
Someone on twitter has now re-named the YV as Yucky Vultures...Idris needs to respond as he’s been left hanging...
|
|
18,813 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 2, 2019 16:52:20 GMT
You’d think though, seeing as it was a different script for a show that went in a completely different direction, they might have bothered to change the title too?
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 2, 2019 16:54:49 GMT
Towards the end of their article there is a reference to Tori writing a new piece (the implication is that it dealt in some way with this matter and perhaps the trauma of it) and after one small reading of that, was warned not to persist with it. I wonder if that contributed to their wanting to go public - if not only had they lost all claim to this production but also it was going to impact their work going forward. I don't know enough about these things, but quite a few writers on twitter are saying this sort of dispute is much more common in TV/film than theatre.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 17:05:50 GMT
On Twitter,a wag has pointed out that Alfred Enoch is in this show and was also in....How To Get Away With Murder!
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 2, 2019 17:08:49 GMT
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 17:09:15 GMT
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Jul 2, 2019 17:16:23 GMT
From the sounds of it, KKA wanting a public debate on the subject, it feels like there isn't much mood for compromise. Easy to say you want to talk when things go public. There should have been frank discussions long before this. He doesn't come out of this well... big boss comes along and trying to take advantage of other people's hard work on the cheap and take all the credit for all the ideas too?
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 17:20:00 GMT
Baz saying project was ‘took’ from Sarah and Tori is pretty damning...
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jul 2, 2019 17:29:42 GMT
Meanwhile Idris Elba's only tweet today on the subject of Tree was this a few minutes ago
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 2, 2019 17:33:32 GMT
Well. That shouldn’t come as a surprise I suppose. But you’d think he’d at least acknowledge that there’s a dispute, since his conversations with parties on both sides appear to be central to it.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 17:36:51 GMT
Agree that he should acknowledge the dispute...Wonder what some of the actors feel if they have heard about the row today?
|
|
1,427 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Jul 2, 2019 18:07:03 GMT
This makes the Young Vic look terrible. Yes - they put out a statement, but it goes with the narrative of the "big corporation" vs the little people. Look - I love the Young Vic and support them always - they do daring new work and foster an atmosphere of creativity and openness. Some of their shows work better than others but the point is, they take a chance on new work.
All they would have had to do is credit the ladies in something like a new musical by KKA with additional material by Tori Allen-Martin and Sarah Henley.
The fact that he brings up the death in his family only goes against him and his views and says that he wants to shade people's perception by playing the sympathy card. A theater can do what they want and clearly they wanted the show to go in a different direction. All they would have to do is credit the 2 woman and all of this could have been avoided.
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Jul 2, 2019 18:52:47 GMT
This is shaping up very badly. The statement from KKA feels manipulative and immensely childish to invoke the death of a loved one, how relevant was that? Idris Elba is playing a political game and saying nothing about the story but is nailing his colours to the mast quite obviously with his tweet, he would have been better to avoid any comment
It feels horribly reminiscent of those meetings we have all been in when you put forward an idea and get ignored then someone else says the same thing and it takes off. The power dynamic here is obvious both from a gender perspective and what I can only think of as a 'fame' perspective. And the work that the women had put in feels like it has been grossly disrespected. It will be interesting to see how this develops
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 19:05:11 GMT
None of the statements since dispute the original statement which came out, just the degree to which it's a changed work
Its obvious what happened: They wanted an Elba/KKA production and pushed out the original creative's so they could have sole credit. It's legal I'm sure but morally, super scummy.
|
|
572 posts
|
Post by princeton on Jul 2, 2019 19:13:03 GMT
Idris Elba is the sole Director of Green Door Pictures - so, in effect, his signature is on the official statement which has been issued.
|
|
4,594 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 2, 2019 19:14:40 GMT
There were a very few actual seats available for £10 at the Young Vic when it originally went on sale. I was afraid of it being Here Lies Love The Sequel so I quickly nabbed one for myself. Current debating between just not going, or going but making a tiny scene at the curtain call. VY do credit notes and they do not have an experiy date on
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 2, 2019 19:18:49 GMT
(This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but anyway...)
I definitely agree that there is a huge power imbalance between new writers and established producers/writers/etc. when it comes to the behind-the-scenes discussions on a project like this. However, I also get feeling that, once it comes to this sort of social media / 'trial by public', the balance shifts quite considerably, at least with the general public.
What I mean is that, most of us have very little concrete information to go on, and nothing that could be described as truly 'objective' at this stage. However, there seems to be (in my opinion) a general underlying bias & scepticism against the YV/Kwame/MIF here. On this thread, for instance, the writers' comments are discussed in terms of 'bravery', 'standing up', and so on, whereas Kwame/YV's comments are cold, calculated and intimidating. I'm not suggesting that this is definitely not the case, simply that the 'tone' we take from reading something is as much a reflection of our own viewpoint as what's within the text to begin with.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that the reality is one way or the other here; I have no idea, and zero stake in the matter. However, I'm simply pointing out that our underlying biases are probably generally towards David (in terms of 'vs Goliath') but we really don't know the full story.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 2, 2019 19:35:15 GMT
I also get feeling that, once it comes to this sort of social media / 'trial by public', the balance shifts quite considerably The fact that they've dared to go public, though, makes me believe there's something in it, and I wonder if social media could be a gamechanger with regards to this sort of thing. I know many people working in the arts/media, myself included, who have experienced something similar to varying degrees but haven't wanted to complain for fear of harming future prospects and anyway, we didn't have the means in pre-Twitter days.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 19:36:24 GMT
(This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but anyway...) I definitely agree that there is a huge power imbalance between new writers and established producers/writers/etc. when it comes to the behind-the-scenes discussions on a project like this. However, I also get feeling that, once it comes to this sort of social media / 'trial by public', the balance shifts quite considerably, at least with the general public. What I mean is that, most of us have very little concrete information to go on, and nothing that could be described as truly 'objective' at this stage. However, there seems to be (in my opinion) a general underlying bias & scepticism against the YV/Kwame/MIF here. On this thread, for instance, the writers' comments are discussed in terms of 'bravery', 'standing up', and so on, whereas Kwame/YV's comments are cold, calculated and intimidating. I'm not suggesting that this is definitely not the case, simply that the 'tone' we take from reading something is as much a reflection of our own viewpoint as what's within the text to begin with. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that the reality is one way or the other here; I have no idea, and zero stake in the matter. However, I'm simply pointing out that our underlying biases are probably generally towards David (in terms of 'vs Goliath') but we really don't know the full story. The young Vic e.t.c aren't denying the underlying aspect of the original writers complaints though. They are just saying they changed it so much they don't deserve credit. The tone of the rebuttal is very legalistic and aggressive to.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Jul 2, 2019 19:41:15 GMT
What I mean is that, most of us have very little concrete information to go on, and nothing that could be described as truly 'objective' at this stage. I think this is the massive problem with the social media age. It's all about short messages and immediate responses, which is not an environment that's conducive to understanding the actual situation. There's a pressure on everyone to pick a side and make a stand, and waiting so you can have an informed opinion isn't an option.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 19:46:50 GMT
What I mean is that, most of us have very little concrete information to go on, and nothing that could be described as truly 'objective' at this stage. I think this is the massive problem with the social media age. It's all about short messages and immediate responses, which is not an environment that's conducive to understanding the actual situation. There's a pressure on everyone to pick a side and make a stand, and waiting so you can have an informed opinion isn't an option. I'd say the original article and responses are detailed enough to form a response from
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 2, 2019 20:04:12 GMT
The young Vic e.t.c aren't denying the underlying aspect of the original writers complaints though. They are just saying they changed it so much they don't deserve credit. The tone of the rebuttal is very legalistic and aggressive to. I don't think it's correct to say that the YV hasn't denied the complaints. The YV statement says "Whilst we appreciate that they were involved in exploring ideas for a project based on Idris’ original concept, the truth of the matter is that MIF and Green Door did not feel their proposed direction was artistically viable. It was decided by these producers that the show needed to go in a very different direction with a new writer attached, using Idris Elba’s original concept as the starting point." They then say that they reached out to the writers about the new direction, but this wasn't accepted. Whether this was done in a fair or legal manner or not may be open to debate, but so far as I can tell, we can't yet be sure which side is correct here. In any case, my feeling is that you're being slightly unfair in dismissing the rebuttal as 'legalistic and aggressive'. The Young Vic is a formal organisation, which means that their communication, even on ostensibly more informal tools like Twitter is different to two upcoming writers writing something for a website. Not least because any Tweets could presumably form part of legal discussions which may follow. A more friendly tone may be nicer, but if they truly are not at fault, then they may not want to make a statement that could later negatively affect them. Similarly, Kwame is writing from his position in the organisation, not simply as a member of the public. I mean, this is why in most of our jobs we might not be able to speak/email with clients/customers/whatever with the same freedom as you do while with your friends. Don't get me wrong, I accept that on the whole Twitter allows people with less power to make their grievances heard by the wider public as noted by crowblack . And I accept that it may be in this instance that the YV/Kwame are at fault. However, my point is simply that the stuff we pick up from these things (it's too cold, too legal, they should respond more quickly, etc.) isn't necessarily a reflection of the underlying ethical & legal issues at hand: The tone of a tweet has no real bearing on which side is right here.
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 20:07:59 GMT
Tori and Sarah have took a big risk by going public with this statement.There must have been an overwhelming sense of outrage for them to blow the whistle on their alleged treatment by the YV,Kwame and Idris.Just imagine the trepidation in writing the statement knowing what a stir it would cause.Kudos to them for their bravery in ‘burning bright’ and having such courage.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 20:38:13 GMT
I also get feeling that, once it comes to this sort of social media / 'trial by public', the balance shifts quite considerably The fact that they've dared to go public, though, makes me believe there's something in it, and I wonder if social media could be a gamechanger with regards to this sort of thing. I know many people working in the arts/media, myself included, who have experienced something similar to varying degrees but haven't wanted to complain for fear of harming future prospects and anyway, we didn't have the means in pre-Twitter days. Perhaps we're seeing the beginning of something similar to the Harvey Weinstein effect we saw a few years ago; of one voice leading to an outpouring of people speaking out.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 2, 2019 20:46:39 GMT
The YV and the other producers have got this so wrong - tonally. They have not been conciliatory - they have reinforced the them-us divide.
If this isn't resolved quickly and fairly, KKA will be facing calls to quit - and quite rightly too. He should be setting an example of how things should be - rather than playing the mates game.
|
|