|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 9, 2019 13:18:28 GMT
You don't get a credit for creating dialogue, unless contractually agreed ahead of time. It's not uncommon for actors to come up with lines of dialogue in rehearsals and they'd never receive a credit for it. The threat of a lawsuit can absolutely scupper a production. I worked on a WIP at a major new writing theatre and a whole element had to be ditched because one audience member threatened to sue, even though the production was covered by disclaimers and would certainly have won in court. Legal action is so expensive it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. I supported the women and I still do, but this new twist is worth looking at. An audience member? Wow. Fascinating. |
|
1,260 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jul 9, 2019 13:55:03 GMT
I am not sure they have added anything to our understanding of what has happened - other than the fact that nearly a decade ago, there was a dispute within a different production. Sure but does it not highlight 'previous' in this field and contributes to a better understanding of the defendant and any motives on a similar production, m'lud?! |
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 9, 2019 14:09:01 GMT
If you haven't heard the BBC Radio 4 Front Row interview it's available on: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006lny It's the first interview so you don't have to wade through a lot. Both the Tree and the Giant Olive blogs were eye-opening to me, I suppose in part because I hadn't thought about how complicated and messy workshops and 'based on' productions could be. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 9, 2019 14:29:55 GMT
You don't get a credit for creating dialogue, unless contractually agreed ahead of time. It's not uncommon for actors to come up with lines of dialogue in rehearsals and they'd never receive a credit for it. The threat of a lawsuit can absolutely scupper a production. I worked on a WIP at a major new writing theatre and a whole element had to be ditched because one audience member threatened to sue, even though the production was covered by disclaimers and would certainly have won in court. Legal action is so expensive it doesn't matter who's right or wrong. I supported the women and I still do, but this new twist is worth looking at. An audience member? Wow. Fascinating. Inspired to sue the Southbank Centre for not enough Alex Jennings at The Light in the Piazza. |
|
531 posts
|
Post by wiggymess on Jul 9, 2019 14:34:58 GMT
If you haven't heard the BBC Radio 4 Front Row interview it's available on: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006lny It's the first interview so you don't have to wade through a lot. Both the Tree and the Giant Olive blogs were eye-opening to me, I suppose in part because I hadn't thought about how complicated and messy workshops and 'based on' productions could be. Thought it slightly odd when they were listing the things the current production had in common with their ideas, and they described the protagonist 'going to South Africa for the first time after the death of a parent' as their 'original idea' which doesn't seem to fit with the fact it's based on Mi Mandela? Seems very muddied and I expect complex, but personally I don't feel that either side has helped much in clearing up the actual situation. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 9, 2019 14:47:26 GMT
I am not sure they have added anything to our understanding of what has happened - other than the fact that nearly a decade ago, there was a dispute within a different production. Sure but does it not highlight 'previous' in this field and contributes to a better understanding of the defendant and any motives on a similar production, m'lud?! Not necessarily. The situations sound somewhat different and the power imbalances certainly are different Plus a significant time gap. I wouldn't describe it as 'previous' as in 'form' - it is - at this stage - evidence of another development process breaking down. |
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Jul 9, 2019 17:03:29 GMT
The statement from Giant Olive starts from a slightly odd perspective as they say they are trying to correct the 'misrepresented narrative being circulated in the media by Sarah Henley and Tori Allen-Martin regarding ‘Tree’ at the Young Vic'. But they cannot speak about that as they are not involved in that. The statement then goes on to describe alleged behaviour ten years ago during a production called Zip. Tree isn't mentioned again, so how is this anything but a nice dish of suitably chilled revenge? Am I missing something? Now obviously I could be reading this all wrong (and am willing to have things pointed out I have missed) but it seems the Giant Olive article comes within a whisper of alleging plagiarism which seems to be what the Tree people are also saying. About two different projects with one common denominator. So is this all one giant circular karmic redundancy?  I shall be in my room taking 'a cure' if you need me |
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 9, 2019 17:14:12 GMT
Quite ironic that the controversy seems to be more exciting/interesting than the show itself by all accounts.The show was described by a family friend of mine from Stockport who saw it and said that he felt that it was ‘a load of old bobbins’...lol.
Btw,is this actually a musical as such?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 17:16:20 GMT
Quite ironic that the controversy seems to be more exciting/interesting than the show itself by all accounts.The show was described by a family friend of mine from Stockport who saw it and said that he felt that it was ‘a load of old bobbins’...lol. Btw,is this actually a musical as such? Was thinking the same myself. david described it as more of a play with music. |
|
3,320 posts
|
Post by david on Jul 9, 2019 17:18:55 GMT
Quite ironic that the controversy seems to be more exciting/interesting than the show itself by all accounts.The show was described by a family friend of mine from Stockport who saw it and said that he felt that it was ‘a load of old bobbins’...lol. Btw,is this actually a musical as such? Saw it on Saturday. I’ve posted my thoughts on it in the review thread for Tree. My overall thoughts were it was ok at best. I certainly wouldn’t describe it as a musical. More of a play featuring music (which is played from a sound desk rather than a live band). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 18:10:58 GMT
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 9, 2019 18:22:02 GMT
Was just coming on to post what xanderl found as well. I think they may have removed the original post after some feedback as they make clear they can't afford legal fees.
What a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparky5000 on Jul 9, 2019 21:24:30 GMT
This whole thing is a mess, but with most things that are trial by social media, I think the truth will probably lie somewhere in the middle. Kwame and Idris definitely do not come out of this well though imo, and the thing that jumps out to me the most is the arrogance of Kwame. To suggest a meeting in public to me smacked of a certain feeling of intellectual superiority on his part, even if that wasn’t the intention.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 10, 2019 8:24:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sparky5000 on Jul 10, 2019 14:03:53 GMT
That YV response has clearly had the big lawyerly treatment, but I’m not sure anyone is really grasping that this is now much more than what is legally right or wrong.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 10, 2019 14:17:41 GMT
Ooh that’s very business like isn’t it? Break it down, line by line. Makes the two women sound like delusional chancers. Maybe they are! I tell you what though, I am tired of hearing reference after reference to Idris Elba’s “very busy schedule” as if people are supposed to be grateful for him granting them an audience. What with that and his THE TRUTH statement he sounds completely up himself. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 10, 2019 14:18:02 GMT
Yes, that is a far better response. It's a bit too late to dispel the bad feeling around the production, however, and does fail to grasp that there's a larger issue here about how collaborative workshop and development processes work within the industry.
I am sure that neither women have taken legal action and kicked up a big public fuss for fun - they genuinely feel aggrieved. It seems that many creative people working in theatre genuinely feel aggrieved at the end of these workshopping processes, particularly when there's an imbalance of power, which is why their story gained traction.
The industry as a whole needs to look at their practices to make sure that they are fair, that communication and contracts are clear, and set up neutral arbitration facilities for handling disputes. That would benefit everyone in the industry - making sure fledgling writers come out of these experiences feeling supported and valued can only benefit the industry's efforts to develop new talent, and making sure the theatres and established creatives are protected from claims of plagiarism and bad faith means they avoid this sort of costly PR headache.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 10, 2019 14:54:25 GMT
Early responses from the ‘accused’ in this matter were flippant and blasé,I felt,but as the story has rumbled on,they now seem to be taking it more seriously...
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 10, 2019 16:32:13 GMT
Yes, that is a far better response. It's a bit too late to dispel the bad feeling around the production, however, and does fail to grasp that there's a larger issue here about how collaborative workshop and development processes work within the industry. With all due respect it’s only ‘a bit too late’ because people feel the need to firmly pick a side on things well before all the facts are known. I mean, acknowledging now that things may not be black & white is all good and well, but the board consensus was pretty immediate despite there being nothing to go on beyond a blog and some tweets (all biased). Much of the board were happy to comment and like boycotting the YV, state how ‘clear’ it was that credit and/or financial recompense should be given, and decided that Idris and Kwame weren’t giving their side of the story (biased of course, just like everyone else’s versions of events) but ‘justifying plagiarism’. It may well turn out that the YV is at fault here (whether ethically or legally), but that doesn’t change the fact that the board had made up its mind very quickly. And the jokes elsewhere on this thread about the scandal being more exciting than the play would be funnier, if it weren’t for the fact that by jumping on board before all the facts were known, social media like TB is complicit in the impact of the scandal in the first place. |
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 10, 2019 17:31:46 GMT
I wonder if, with the increasing tendency to workshop shows, it will lead to more disputes like this. You may all know this but 'Rent' had an ongoing dispute (from Wikipedia):
'Lynn Thomson was a dramaturg who was hired by New York Theatre Workshop to help rework Rent. She claimed that between early May and the end of October 1995, she and Larson co-wrote a "new version" of the musical. She sued the Larson estate for $40 million and sought 16% of the show's royalties, claiming she had written a significant portion of the lyrics and the libretto of the "new version" of Rent.[18]
During the trial, Thomson could not recall the lyrics to the songs that she allegedly wrote, nor the structures of the libretto she claimed to have created.[19] The judge ruled against her and gave the Jonathan Larson Estate full credit and right to Rent. A federal appellate court upheld the original ruling on appeal. In August 1998, the case was settled out of court. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.[20]'
In both the YV and the Giant Olive case, the writers were working on projects based on someone else's original idea and which went through various workshops - and that must make it a thorny process of figuring how who did what.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 10, 2019 18:15:52 GMT
jadnoop you can’t blame social media or the board for this. There’d be nothing for us to jump to conclusions about - rightly or wrongly - without seriously aggrieved collaborators willing to put their reputations and financial security on the line. No-one does that for fun. That the YV and Green Door eventually managed to do a bit of half-decent PR doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 10, 2019 18:46:42 GMT
jadnoop you can’t blame social media or the board for this. There’d be nothing for us to jump to conclusions about - rightly or wrongly - without seriously aggrieved collaborators willing to put their reputations and financial security on the line. No-one does that for fun. That the YV and Green Door eventually managed to do a bit of half-decent PR doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. The issues are outside of our control, but how we react -whether we choose to jump to conclusions or wait for more information- is absolutely each of our own responsibilities. And surely, all else being equal, making informed judgements is better than jumping to conclusions(?) I mean, you could make your argument about just about any 'crime' but the entire point of a fair justice system is to be as objective as possible and give each party the chance to respond, rather than to jump to conclusions based on the notion of 'there's no smoke without fire'. |
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 10, 2019 19:14:54 GMT
Equally, Jadnoop, perhaps you are quite quick to jump to conclusions about your fellow board members. :-) I'm not sure how a discussion board works if there is no discussion. A lot of the responses were quite temperate and when new info emerged it was shared. It is an interesting subject for lots of reasons, so it's not surprising people want to air their thoughts. But I don't believe that the Theatre Board has much weight with, well, anyone - certainly we aren't anything like a justice system.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 10, 2019 19:17:24 GMT
Well said,Kathryn and foxa,totally agree with your posts...this is a discussion board and all that people have done is to post opinions on the information as it became available...the ‘accused’ dealt with the original complaint with a rather holier-than-thou,dismissive and supercilious attitude imo and that is what seemed to raise hackles to start with.Sadly,I don’t think I will ever regard Elba in the same way ever again...not so much because of the TREE issue itself but because of his patronising,me,me,me Planet Idris social media words.
|
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jul 11, 2019 9:59:49 GMT
Ooh that’s very business like isn’t it? Break it down, line by line. Makes the two women sound like delusional chancers. Maybe they are! I tell you what though, I am tired of hearing reference after reference to Idris Elba’s “very busy schedule” as if people are supposed to be grateful for him granting them an audience. What with that and his THE TRUTH statement he sounds completely up himself. Exactly. We are ALL busy and important, darling. Most of us manage to get through life without being dicks about it. It is such a shame, I think the Idris who got these women on board and supported them was a different man 4 years ago but KKA's attitude seems to be the catalyst here. |
|
