quote:However, the other is that it must clearly be intended to ridicule or otherwise lambast the original work. It cannot be a mere modification, it must be a targetted commentary.
Good point. And I'll have to say I was quite impressed at the sophistication of the intertextual dialogue in Puff Daddy's reworking of Zeplin's "Kashmir."
quote: Never mind that the use of that word in those contexts is ludicrously without meaning – so is the use of the “F” word.
OSC. To me, this is the heart of OSC's criticism: he can't see any reason why a character should cuss. Which is absurd on it's face.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Morbo: I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he means that in the play the word is simply used as an expletive, so its literal meaning is irrelevant.
I know its a hard concept, but I have many friends who NEVER do. In which there is no situation that would cause them to. Maybe it isn't real to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
I'd be careful about declaring something completely absurd.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it ok to edit movies, or filmed versions of plays for that matter, so they meet TV guidelines, but not ok to insist that a play shown live follow similar guidelines? With, as popatr suggested, a clear statement that such editing has been done?
I really do not understand why cursing -- which to my mind shows, if nothing else, a lack of ingenuity -- is necessary for "artistic integrity."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it might be absurd for, say, a jail movie to not have some language that my grandmother wouldn't use.
"Yipee ki-i-ay, Person of Degenerate Nature" Just doesn't have the same ring to it. *giggles*
Most of the humor in the South Park movie came from the outrageous over-use of profanity. That bothers some folks. So don't see it. End of problem. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'll bet he lets his movies get dubbed into a different language.
The words don't have the effect he's going for - the audience doesn't hear it and think "oh, tough guy.", they hear it and think "what the heck? my ears!! good grief - what is wrong with them???"
What's the point of that? It's funny to shock people? Everyone should have the same sensibility? Refusing to allow the play to be modified so the language does not pull the audience out of the experience is just like refusing to allow your movie to be dubbed or subtitled - if we want to watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, we'd better learn Mandarin.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it ok to edit movies, or filmed versions of plays for that matter, so they meet TV guidelines, but not ok to insist that a play shown live follow similar guidelines? With, as popatr suggested, a clear statement that such editing has been done?
The simple answer is that TV networks pay out way more money than your local theater company does, so the networks have a lot more bargaining power. Plus, no one's saying that playwrights can't choose to give companies permission to edit their work. It's unauthorized changes that are the issue here.
posted
Yes. It's a statement from the side that figures they can get away with ignoring the desires/needs/opinions of the other side.
It's another way of saying, "We have all the cards." That's why the concept of "artistic integrity" dissapears of the party who wants the modifications - networks, airlines - have enough money.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So there's no problem with integrity if the price is high enough. *sad*
Usually. Not always.
My point is that it's hard to draw that kind of comparisons between Hollywood and local theater. From an author's perspective, they're completely different worlds.
quote: It's unauthorized changes that are the issue here.
Well, I thought we were discussing both authorized and unauthorized changes. I actually meant authorized. :shrug:
Well, I think popatr is exaggerating slightly for effect, but I rather agree with the sentiment. I do not go see movies like "South Park," nor have I any interest in doing so.
So apparently, I should have to choose between listening to language I find offensive, and avoiding certain plays and writers altogether.
Not really a difficult choice for me, but I think it's a shame. As popatr pointed out,
quote: Why not try and accommodate people, especially when it's so easy?
No one is asking that ALL showings of a play be modified -- only the ones for the audience who WILL NOT OTHERWISE WATCH IT (most likely).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are they different worlds? The local theatre does deserve respect?
I read a quote somewhere (Rita Mae Brown?) that said something to the effect of "In publishing, the writer is a god, in theater the writer is king, and in movies the writer is hired help." In Hollywood, writers are pretty resigned to the fact that they have no control over their scripts. They accept this because they're typically paid very well. Not so in theater, on both counts. Unless you're Neil Simon.
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it is still a matter of what they can get away with. Declaring the theatre and the movies are different is declaring what is, not what should be.
I have no doubt that they'll continue to do whatever they can get away with, and call themselves edgy and brave for it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I went back and read OSC's article, and the original article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
OSC's main thrust seems to me to be that Neil Simon has made concessions in his art before, for movies and airline versions and whatnot, and for him to suddenly play artiste now and demand that dirty words be left in is therefore hypocritical and probably evidence of liberal attaks against decent people (okay, I paraphrased quite a bit there.)
First, plays aren't movies. A movie is necessarily a group effort, unless the writer is also directing, producing, and editing (which happens). Any writer knows going in that concessions will be made unless extraordinary circumstances occur. How much more important would it be for that writer to be able to control his work on the stage! Barring mad stage directors, a stage production is as close to the playwright's original work as you can get without the playwright just standing up there and reading it. He may very well feel more protective of his plays than his movies for that reason. I don't know. But - and here's the interesting part - neither does OSC. He didn't talk to Simon, doesn't know his motivations, he merely assumed that Simon set this condition to keep the dirty words in and wreck society. I expect a great deal more from OSC than that.
This also implies that in OSC's eyes, if you ever made a concession before, you must be forced to make concessions in your art forever after.
From OSC's article: If lines with the “F” word in them were not getting laughs in New York, he would have cut them immediately. No playwright is going to put up with that most horrible of all possible events: laugh lines that are met with silence. Simon made cuts and changes in every one of his plays based on audience response.
How does that bestow every high school drama teacher that feels the urge the right to make changes at whim?
And the part of his article that really pissed me off: But Neil Simon is worried about the integrity of his art. The statement from the company that leases the play is: “This author does not allow changes to his scripts under any circumstances. He understands that many communities may not be accepting of certain language or situations that may take place in his scripts. ... Therefore, he asks that, instead of making unauthorized cuts and changes, groups not produce his plays.” Ah! What a noble posture to take! True to his heart! Hogwash.
Earlier in this thread I quoted a clause from a sample stageplay licensing contract. Companies that license stageplays put them in there precisely so that independent directors can't make arbitrary changes and possibly change the meaning or interpretation of the play. Not just swear words, they also can't add or remove characters, change lines, lose scenes, change the ending, stick in commercials, kill off the main character, add a socialist message, anything. They perform the play as written, or do not perform it. This is clearly stated, and quoted by OSC. If a licensing company allowed changes, they would set precedent to allow everybody to make changes. It's not there so actors in Utah will be forced to say the F word, it's because Simon doesn't want to deal with a few thousand amateur productions who all want to make "tiny, insignificant" changes.
To hear OSC describe it, Simon is sitting in his ivory tower, drywashing his hands and cackling evilly over the turmoil he's caused in Utah. If I may quote him: Hogwash. I doubt Simon even knew about this before it hit the news, and he may not even know about it now. That clause is there to keep people from making any changes at all, not just the language. And I'm not assuming that, either. If you read the original article, the licensing company states, over and over, in simple language, that no changes are permitted. According to the attornery for the licensing grtoup, "This author [Simon] does not allow changes to his scripts under any circumstances. He understands that many communities may not be accepting of certain language or situations that may take place in his scripts, therefore he asks that, instead of making unauthorized changes, groups not produce his plays."
OSC also states that "The result is that the only places where Simon is not willing to have his plays’ words altered are those “provincial” small towns in America where people don’t routinely use the “F” word and so it falls painfully on the ear, killing the laugh."
The article disproves this flat and unfounded statement by mentioning a production of 'The Sunshine Boys' in Sacromento that made changes and was stopped when it was discovered. Sacromento is a provincial small town?
So we know that Simon is consistent with the handling of his plays, and has a simple request clearly spelled out in the contract that must be signed before production can take place. He didn't pop it on them, laughing, after they got all the costumes sewn, it was understood at the beginning.
But because his play contains words that OSC personally finds indefensible, OSC considers Simon an elitist artiste and blasts him for it in such ridicule that I can only assume he didn't read the original article but heard about it from somebody and went all crazy.
I'm not arguing that cussing is good and makes all plays better, or that OSC can't bitch about cussing in plays. But this was a direct attack on Simon without even an attempt to discover Simon's side on it, and that seems like just the sort of yellow journalism that OSC usually complains about. I'm almost to the point where I'll just read OSC's fiction and stop reading his commentary. It disappoints me too much.
Edited to add - went back and caught up on what got posted while I was ranting. Yes, versions are made for tv and airlines. One version. Authorized. Possibly done by the director, but at least done with his permission. This is a bit different from opening up the thing to anyone with a red pencil.
And please, please, please, knock it off with the various "if you don't like it, leave" comparisons. It's not the same thing. You are not being forced to attend this play, or see this movie, or read this book. To use an annoying analogy, I could demand that all the violence be removed from the Bible because I found it offensive but I wanted to read it anyway.
Take a big bowl of hot chili. You're happy, because you like hot chili. But others don't, and they really want to eat some of this chili right here instead of finding some other food they'd like better. So that more people can enjoy it, the cook is forced to keep adding water until the chili is mild enough for everybody. You know what? You probably won't like it anymore...
[ August 18, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Declaring the theatre and the movies are different is declaring what is, not what should be.
Maybe. Bear in mind, though, that I'm not arguing in favor of obscenity, necessarily. I just think an author should be allowed to insist that his work be performed without changes in the text, no matter how minor those changes might be.
Consider this counter example:
What if you were to write a play, and a small college theater producing it decided to delete five uses of the word "God" (refering to the deity, not the expletive) without your permission because they felt it would be offensive to the atheists and polytheists in their community. Would you support their right to do that?
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it still make sense? Would they replace it with, oh, Allah, which carries the same meaning for them as the word God was intended to carry? Would they replace the word because the associations with God were so vivid and disturbing that the play was functionally over when the word was said?
That'd be fine. In fact, I'd rather they do - when communicating, the artist serves the audience. If your words don't carry your meaning because your audience doesn't speak the same language, change the words.
I saw the musical version of that on Broadway, and the racially charged word for Jim never appeared. Was that a travesty?
I'm pretty sure OSC and I are thinking the same on this, because he's done it himself. He changed words in Ender's Game because the words shocked people out of the experience and the scene didn't accomplish what he wanted it to.
A work of art - ESPECIALLY a group production like a play or a movie - isn't an inviolate prism, each word of which is the perfect drop of gold. Insisting no words of a play can be changed - even though they render the play useless for the audience - is like saying Hamlet should never be edited. Always - the same. Four hours long, wearing Elizebethan outfits, and Ophelia should be a man. That rarely work for us - the audience.
Maybe Simon imagines there is a Platonic ideal of his play, and his earthly rendering of it is the only that could possibly match, and any adaptation to suit the audience is a personal violation. Maybe he thinks that. But he's wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katherina - what I'm arguing - all that I'm arguing - is that it's the writer's call whether his work can be changed or not, and under what conditions. What his work should be isn't the point. Both your examples were adaptions of works in the public domain, where the author's wishes no longer apply. And, more to the point, this writer's desires were clearly spelled out beforehand, and now people are whining because he actually meant it.
[ August 18, 2003, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe an artist should be allowed to say yes or no on a whim... but that doesn't mean that he's not an elitist (or maybe just a jerk) for doing so in certain circumstances.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there's no evidence that Simon has ever allowed any unauthorized changes to his plays under any conditions.
If you don't want to read the magnum opus I just posted, go check out the chili story at the end. I don't want lowest-common denominator entertainment. I have plenty on tv, thank you.
I tend to like artists who don't pander to the audience. They make me think, they confuse me, outrage me, even amuse me.
I highly recommend you never, ever read anything by Harlan Ellison. He uses very bad language and is renowned for fighting tooth and nail against even the slightest change in his work. Despite this, somehow he's become one of the most awarded writer in science fiction history and has written two of the most anthologized short stories in the English language.
Although not, possibly, in provincial small towns.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I tend to like artists who don't pander to the audience. They make me think, they confuse me, outrage me, even amuse me.
There's the difference. You are amused, confused, outraged, and provoked to thought by the word, and consider yourself a connoisseur for it.
Whereas the audience sees it as an unnecessary degradation.
Edit: I'd say what Simon has and has not changed is in the cannot-be-determined category. Whether he's allowed changes or not, he should. His play is in the wrong language.
posted
Point of order. I have not said I consider myself anything. I enjoy many such artists. I also enjoy artists with milder entertainments, and some that are positively bland. I have not said that I think my entertainment is better than yours in any sort of absolute sense, only that I do not want my entertainment altered to meet your tastes, any more than you would want me forcibly adding swear words to yours.
My two favorite comedians are George Carlin and Bill Cosby. Both are masters at what they do. If George toned down his act, he'd be less effectual, whereas if Cosby ever swore it would ruin his delivery. Why can't I have both?
[ August 18, 2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To follow up on my last post, OSC was not necessarily saying that the man should not be able to do what he did... but that his reasons and other peoples reasons for doing the same are elitist.
As I said, I agree more or less with OSC. Another case that bugs the heck out of me is how that people are trying to put down those video editing shops in SLC and elsewhere. (I think that artists should have no power to stop these editors. It's ridiculous in my mind.) I think that the attacks on the editing places are done out of arrogance, spite, disdain.
Elitism, I guess, though I don't know the word well.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought that an elitist was someone who supported the rule of the elite. Someone blast my idea to little bits if it's wrong
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism n. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
Simon has not asked for favored treatment. He has given no sign that he is better than anyone else in any way. All he has done is asserted his legal rights to prevent changes to work he holds copyright to. This is elitist, how, exactly?
popatr, all I can guess is that you don't believe an artist has any right to his or her creation after the work is done, even if changes are made that dilute or significantly change the work. I can see no way we can ever agree on this point.
[ August 18, 2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe they see themselves as the leaders of society, the wise ones. I do think that art has the power to move people philosophically &c.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Maybe the thing that is being said is "you can only enjoy my play(s) if you are up-to-date or trying to be."
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, see, I'm not trying to guess what they might be saying, or apply imaginary motives. I've given quite a few reasons why someone might not want their work changed without their permission, and even why allowing changes would be a nightmare when thousands of amateur companies would try if the contract didn't forbid it outright, and none of them have hinted at any secret overlord plans.
If anything is being said, it's "Here's my play, as I wrote it. Hope you enjoy it."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I've reread a lot of what I wrote, and I'm aware that in some places I'm exhibiting the same sort of maybe-elitist posturing that I'm denying.
I apologize for that. All I can say is that to me, the rights of an artist to control the presentation of their work is self-evident and something to be treasured, and it astounds me that others question it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of amazed by it, myself. I can't begin to understand why people believe that an artist should be FORCED to permit changes to his work in order to pander to the lowest common denominator; usually, people COMPLAIN about that kind of thing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think that writers should be forced to do so. However, when the changes are minor, as these were (IMO), I think it is a shame that the author is unwilling to allow such changes on a limited basis. (And yes, I fully understand the "slippery slope" argument.)
Of course Neil Simon has the right to refuse to allow such changes to be made.
I also have the right to object to his choice, and will hesitate the next time I consider seeing one of his plays.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. And I have the right to hold him accountable. He assigned motives to Simon without checking to see if they were true, and then lambasted him for them.
When that happens here, we jump all over it. I see no reason to ignore it just because it's OSC doing it. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Rivka's right, though. Maybe I am missing the point. Maybe he was saying, not that Simon shouldn't have the right to object, but that he shouldn't necessarily be applauded for exercising that right.
posted
Oh, I absolutely agree that "ignore it just because it's OSC doing it" holds no water. I think I just see different things when I read the article than you do. :shrug:
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So it is still a matter of what they can get away with. Declaring the theatre and the movies are different is declaring what is, not what should be.
Chris said it already, but I just wanted to chime in by saying, yeah, that's usually the way the real world works. Take Iraq as a case in point. Or running a mile before you are up to running three. Or buying the car you can afford but not killing yourself for the one you really can't. Ideals exist within reality and people usually work within their ideals as easilly as is comfortable for them.
Allow me to, I think, illustrate by reminding you that since you say that
quote: In fact, I'd rather they do - when communicating, the artist serves the audience. If your words don't carry your meaning because your audience doesn't speak the same language, change the words.
I'd be interested in your answers to the questions I had earlier. That is, if a curse word would work better for an audience, yet you, the artist, don't like it or feel it is needed, should you put it in? Let's say that word is ****? Let's take it a little further, get silly and say that what you write is never going to be interesting to anyone outside of Mormon communities because there isn't enough sex or naughty words. You talk to an editor who says he likes your story, but says that it needs some spicing up. Put some more sex and naughty words in, please, because audiences in Chicago and L.A. won't go for it, otherwise. Are you going to do it?
Let's take this outside of writing. Let's take this into the realm of the visual arts. What about my example of Schindler's List? How about, perhaps, blocking out the nudity in the medical inspection scene? Think communities should have the right to do that?
It seems pretty clear to me that people are usually as idealistic as they can be, but allowing idealism by committee, as you propose, is, in effect, going to kill all idealism. To you, changing the word '****' to something less offensive seems like a small thing, yet, to Simon, it might totally change the flavor of the character and the scene and thus effect the whole play.
Art *can* be a collaboration of artist and audience, yet it certainly doesn't have to be, and in cases of idealism, it should not be. For that, it seems to me that we *should* be thankful, since it gives absolutists with morals rather different from a secular community the ability to make religious material without polluting it with the crass sensibilities of the rest of the world. And make no mistake, what you are proposing would spell the end of religious, or idealistic art. You are looking at this only from the aspect of the religious viewing non-religious material, but it is a two way street, Kat. By seeking to force morality into (to you) amoral parts of plays, you only invite profanity into your own community. To say otherwise, to say that the relgious or absolutist community should not change for those outside of their group, is hypocritical, it seems to me.
(Edited for spelling and to make a little less haughty. )
posted
I started to go through and itemize his article, but I've been there and I'm tired and I've said it all already. Card tells us what Simon's motives are, tells us what Simon has probably, almost certainly done in the past, and then blasts him for his hypothetical, hypocritical ways. No proof, no effort to contact Simon and ask, no attention to the fact that every freaking Broadway play has the "no changes" clause in its licensing contract.
Card has made up his mind and denounced Simon, so evidence to the contrary is unnecessary. The good points that Card did make, and there may have been some, were lost to me in the ranting.
By the way, if you redistribute this post, please keep the word "freaking" intact. It's important to the tone of the work and my integrity as a Hatracker.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Yesterday the Salt Lake Tribune (the same paper that ran the article that wound up OSC) ran this followup:
'Producer knew altering Simon's script was illegal Playwright Neil Simon may have looked like the bad guy last week after he refused to allow strong language to be removed from a Utah production of one of his plays. But this week, producer Gayliene Omary took her share of blame for the flap, which led to cancellation of "Rumors" at the Grove Theatre in Pleasant Grove. Omary said Friday that when she decided to produce "Rumors," she knew it was illegal to make changes without permission. After all, the contract she received before starting rehearsals stipulated that no changes of any kind could be made to Simon's play without prior written permission. The same warning was in the preface of the scripts that were handed out to the cast.
From farther down in the article:
"Respect the artist: Charles Morey, artistic director of Pioneer Theatre Company in Salt Lake City empathizes with Simon's wish to have his plays performed as written: "A good playwright chooses his or her language very carefully to create characters, and the world in which the story is set," Morey said. "Sometimes the use of profanity in Neil Simon's plays says something important about his characters and their world, and if you are going to do his play, you have to respect that . . . It's really clear. He owns the play. No one has an automatic right to do the play. You have the right to do the play under the terms he dictates. If he said, 'I only want the play done by naked 7-foot-high Australians,' that's his right. He owns it." To Morey, the dilemma has an easy answer: "If you want to do a play but there are a few things in it you don't like, don't do the play, or get permission to change it. But don't plan your production with the assumption that you have the right to do anything you want with it."
I urge you to read the whole thing, Fair Use only permits short excerpts. Some excellent points.
[ August 18, 2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
