quote: A new theatre company in Pleasant Grove, Utah, was recently in rehearsal for a two-week run of Neil Simon’s play, Rumors, when Neil Simon pulled the plug.
You see, the play contains “nine utterances of the four-letter ‘F’ word,” according Sharon Haddock of the Salt Lake City Deseret News (Aug. 8, 2003). The producers wanted to cut those words – though they left in the damns and hells – because their local audience would be offended by the R-rated language and would probably not come back to the theatre.
But Neil Simon is worried about the integrity of his art.
quote: Let’s just suppose, for instance, that the new Greatest Comic Playwright brought a play to New York in which several characters routinely used a four-letter epithet for “Jew” that begins with the letter “K.” Let’s suppose that the characters in the play used the “K” word in exactly the places where the “F” word is used today. (“Give me that k–ing gun!” “Go k– yourself.” “Go get k–ed.” “K– off.”)
Never mind that the use of that word in those contexts is ludicrously without meaning – so is the use of the “F” word.
The difference is that the “K” word has not lost its power to shock the people of New York.
What do you think Simon’s opinion of that language would be? Do you think he’d insist that the playwright’s artistic choices be respected, regardless of the effect on the audience?
Maybe. But I think it far more likely that he would say, “Too bad such a good playwright is so insensitive to the feelings of his audience that he would wreck his own play by including such pointless, meaningless language solely for the purpose of giving offense.”
quote: Taking the language and feelings of the general community into account won’t make you a worse, “less truthful” playwright.
It will, in fact, make you a better one, as surely as learning to work within the constraints of a sonnet makes you a better poet.
So, I guess my question is, what of the reverse situation where a character who does not 'cuss' sounds hollow and does not ring true, or entertain, his audience? Should someone who doesn't include '****' write it in, or be labeled an elitist? This is not a hypothetical question, by the way. I'm thinking specifically of Bean's childhood in the slums of, what was it, Amsterdam? It's been a while since I read that book, but I remember when I read it thinking that the characters sounded hollow and inauthentic because they did not cuss as many, dare I say most, street people do. In any case, let's say that we can somehow determine with a great degree of accuracy that most people feel as I do, that most people in Bean's class and situation in life would cuss. If Orson then does not put '****' in his work(s), is he some kind of moral, or intellectual, elitist? Because while I can't speak for Utah, it has been my experience that there are far more people who occaisionally cuss than who don't. So, in terms of speaking as 'the people' do, I would think cussing would be the way to go.
quote: Why have theatre companies (and academic theatre departments) in Greensboro repeatedly tried to open plays that no ordinary citizen of Greensboro would want to see? These plays are clearly not aimed at entertaining the people of Greensboro, but rather are intended to “teach us a lesson” on how to become good card-carrying members of the American Elite.
I think that's a rather large assertion without any supporting evidence, either for what a representative audience in Greensboro would want to see, or the motives of the producers of plays. Given the success of films with lots o' cussing in them, I find his reasoning rather suspect. Is Orson a moral elitist?
quote:
But we don’t want to join that group. We find them provincial, childish and generally dim-witted – for the good reason that they are provincial, childish and generally dim-witted. (People with any intellectual rigor are quickly repelled by the mass of self-contradictory absurdities that the American intellectual elite insists on believing.)
So their plays, which are designed to entertain that audience and help them feel smug and superior to people who are raising families and actually have to work for a living, just don’t have anything useful to say to the community at large.
So, again we have the assumptions and the accusations of motive. Now, admittedly, I ain't no intellectual and am not privy to their beliefs or how they think, so Orson could very well be spot on, but it seems to me that if a representative of that group had said something about homemakers or families as Orson did in bold, that I *would* think they were a prejudiced elitist. Is Orson an elitist? If he is, is he a better kind of elitist than (assuming his characterizations of that group are correct) the intellectual elites?
[ August 17, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
****This Post has been Removed because too many people misunderstood and I lack the energy to explain****
[ August 18, 2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I find it irritating that these artists insist on throwing a fit when a few offensive words are edited out of a script/movie what have you. The impact the story can have on a audience should be the main goal. If you want to offend your audience then sure make sure vulgarity is included. However, by omitting a few uses of a word a larger audience can be reached. We're talking one small section of the general audience. I get irritated at the Hollywood elite that get so up in arms about movie editing too. If I want to purchase a copy of your movie and then edit out a few scenes/words I find offensive and still enjoy the rest of the story why is that wrong? The motion picture industry still makes there money.... I'm not getting my thoughts to gel like I want them too. Maybe I'll post again later. Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote:Shakespeare had no need for offensive words.
Or vulgarity or bawdy humor. Shakespeare had way too much class for stuff like that.
--
Ach. This subject hits very close to home. I'll have to give it some thought before I respond.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
hehe Deirdre beat me to it.
I wouldn't exactly call Mr. Shakespeare, terrifically refined in terms of polite dialogue. I mean, quite a few of his characters are supposed to be offensive, and there is obviously more than a few sorted tales he had to tell.
I don't think Shakespeare is a good example of a refrain from naughtiness.
[ August 17, 2003, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Pod ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Shakespeare had no need for offensive words."
I'm actually BAFFLED by this, because you claim to be a student of theater. I'm going to assume that you're not actually a student of ELIZABETHAN theater, then, or simply haven't got to the part where you study Shakespeare yet.
Just because they're not offensive words TODAY doesn't mean that they weren't offensive a few hundred years ago. *grin*
-------
OSC's just got a stick up his butt lately about a perceived "culture war" between the good little ornery people, the last bulwark of decency against the tides of "elitist" barbarians who'd tear down everything that's right and wonderful about white-bread America. And he'd really resent my use of the phrase "white-bread," because it smacks of elitism.
He'll either get over it, or he'll develop one of those little veins on the side of his forehead that pulses in time to his ranting. *shrug* It's not all bad, though; when you get older, you get to carry a cane and whack people randomly with it if you think they're dressing inappropriately, and they'll let you get away with it.
-------
What OSC's really complaining about, here, is the idea that art has to be "edgy" to be thought-provoking or inspiring or transformational -- and that "edgy" is just another word for "outside the boundaries of decent society."
It's certainly true that too many people of all stripes have discovered that shocking an audience is the easiest way to challenge them, and that many audiences are coming to confuse being shocked, as a consequence, with being challenged. Finding an envelope and pushing it is one of the best ways to be "controversial" nowadays -- and OSC, as a stalwart defender of the envelope in almost all of its roughly square, thin, and papery forms, is understandably ticked about this.
He's not above a little shock value, himself, of course; several of his books have a few moments that might be considered gratuitously squicky. But the kind of shock value designed to poke holes in the fabric of traditional society is his SPECIFIC target -- so he's dedicated himself recently to opposing THAT kind of shock by going out of his way to shock people whose social framework does NOT in fact consist of "traditional" society.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wonder what he means by elitist? It drives me so crazy when he talks that way. I'd like to sit him down for a cup of tea or milkshakes and really pick his brain for hours. As for cussing, I don't like it, the sound gets on my nerves at times, but for some odd reason in annoys me when they cut the swearing out of movies. Worse is when they replace the swearing with silly words no one would use, like when I saw Good Morning Vietnam on NBC and they replaced the F-bombs with golly gee wiz or gosh darn, which was just silly. i don't like it when people cut movies or change scenes around. If they are offended by certain movies, they just shouldn't watch them. I speak as a person who wants to write who would get LIVID if some group of people rewrote one of my scenes. That sort of grittiness is an aspect of life, though he does have a point that sometimes that sort of thing can be overdone. Use the F word too much and it loses its power a bit. There's just so many times a person can use that word without wearing it out.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Shakespeare wrote some incredibly raunchy/filthy/insulting stuff. One of his sonnets was (among other things) all about his penis.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
This I did not know!!! What's this sonnet called? Though I did know he writes some rather bawdy stuff. Bawdy Elizabethan insults are fun.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"If I want to purchase a copy of your movie and then edit out a few scenes/words I find offensive and still enjoy the rest of the story why is that wrong?"
Wrong, no. You bought it, feel free to rip out, erase or delete whatever you like.
The movie people's complaints were against people editing their work and then selling or renting it, and I agree with them. If I create something, I don't think anyone - aside from editors or other partners in the creation process - has the right to change and sell it without my permission. My name is still on it, but it's no longer what I wrote. You're more than welcome to suggest how it should be changed, and I may change it or not, but it should remain my decision.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I think that the intent by OSC was to address a specific audience. For instance if you write under the constraints of the Bureau of Standards and Practices, as television is, you are writing for a general audience. This means that you must make the language accessible to the majority of people in general, so that it does not offend the majority of people in general.
However, I believe that, in specific instances, not using expletives would just not be realistic. In such a case, you have to ask yourself whether or not you would need to concede to the need for a general audience, or just forget about a "family" audience and aim for the realism.
It's not an easy question....
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Okay, so i just want to know something. Has OSC always been this derisive, or does it correlate with writing his column?
And tom, you still rule.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I asked Soupy Poopypants about this very serious subject, and Soupy Poopypants said that everyone in North Carolina believes that everyone outside of their state(of Mind)is either an idiot or an elitest.
Soupy Poopypants then asked me to borrow fifty cents, I them asked Soupy Poopypants if he had ever planned to repay me the 50 cents. He said no, not unless he won the lottery or got a job. So I told him he should ask if I can give him 50 cents, not borrow it. So he asked for 50 cents, and I gave it to him.
I admit 50 cents is a little pricey note to pay for a broad generalization, but hey, you know what they say, live large.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
*thinks of Full Metal Jacket*
Nope...no...Sgt. Hartman wouldn't have been half as effective of a character if he didn't swear every other word. Let the writers have their curse words if they want them, nobody's making you watch the play/movie/whatever, so there's no sense in getting bothered about it.
Edit to add: The OSC stance does strike me as elitist (to actually address the question of the post). It just happens to be a different flavor of elitist than the "intellectuals" he's talking about. It seems to be "moral elitist" vs. "artistic elitist" and neither of them (like most elitists) sound correct.
[ August 18, 2003, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
If I'm reading the excerpt correctly, Card doesn't know where those words are placed in the context of the play.
He assumes they are used, "word in exactly the places where the “F” word is used today. (“Give me that k–ing gun!” “Go k– yourself.” “Go get k–ed.” “K– off.”)" but that's not necessarily the case, and I think it's completely relevant to the matter at hand. We need to see the text of the play to make an informed judgement.
To his other point, is it possible that the word is supposed to be used as an invective on the audience's morality? Wouldn't you still need to see the text of the play? _____
"Shakespeare had no need for offensive words. He could write very well, without them."
Hart, are you a caricature? If not, I think we can do some work on your thinking habits. This is going to be personal, but I have a problem with your person so I think it's pertinent.
If you are making the claim that Shakespeare never used offensive language, you don't make that claim, btw, but you do have some incredible insinuations to that effect.
First of all, you know this presupposes knowledge of all Shakespeare plays. Are you really secure in making the claim that you are familiar with the breadth of Shakespeare's work? In addition, are you secure in the claim that you know what language would be considered offensive at the time?
Now if you meant by saying, "Shakespeare had no need for offensive words. He could write very well, without them." That while Shakespeare did use offensive language, he didn't need to in order to write well, contrary to what Shakespeare himself may have believed.
That's a kind interpretation of your quote, but I don't think that's what you meant to say. I think you are a grown man who makes too many claims that you don't think through, and I say this because I think that grown men who make too many claims consistently and often unknowingly hurt people. _________
Government by the consent of the governed is one of the most difficult systems of all because it's viability depends on the wise decisions and good judgment of so many of us. How is it the case that logic isn't taught in public schools as a necessary skill for a good citizen? Something is amiss with our national purpose when it doesn't include literature, theater, and fostering critical faculties. Instead, we have bigger cars, bigger parking lots, bigger supermarkets, and smaller cell phones.
We've come to believe that lazy thinking habits are acceptable in even a ditch digger, whereas I'd like to believe a strong intellectual tradition en masse should be part of our national legacy, if for no other reason than the quality of hundreds of millions of lives depends on our citizens being able to make the appropriate decisions in murky times.
CT said this in another thread:
quote:This is the heart of critical analysis. This is the reason for a liberal arts education: learning to work within the complex and the gray; learning to analyze without clear right answers, but still in better (rather than worse) ways.
Take yourself seriously, Ryan, because while you may think, vote, and post in play, the people you affect suffer and die in earnest.
I blame stupid people for our want of Healthcare and Energy. I'm not saying that the Rabbit's plan or CT's plan can solve those two issues, but it is that kind of great thought, burning idealism, and incredible effort that was not only present at the inception of this great nation, but is necessary in every moment for democracy not only to prevail, but for it to pursuade.
A lot of people will read the above post and call me an elitist. They are right. I am. Because there are big and little problems to be addressed and we all have a seat at the table and a say in what happens. I consider raising the bar of thinking in this country as being responsible.
[ August 18, 2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Take a look at Sonnets 135 and 136 sometime. 135 is the bawdiest of the two.
The key thing you have to remember is what the word "will" could mean at the time. Among other things, it served as a generic term for both the male and female genitalia.
There are other levels to the poem as well, of course, but that Shakespeare had that in mind as a possible interpretation is not disputed, as it is so blatant.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: OSC's just got a stick up his butt lately about a perceived "culture war" between the good little ornery people, the last bulwark of decency against the tides of "elitist" barbarians who'd tear down everything that's right and wonderful about white-bread America. And he'd really resent my use of the phrase "white-bread," because it smacks of elitism.
Wow. Who would have guessed that Tom of all people is so blind to the fact that there actually IS a culture war under way.
As we all know "whitebread" America is that section of the country where the people are so provincial and backward that they hate all minorities, burn harmless books they find offensive and still teach creationism in school.
Why are these fools so backwards? Well, most likely it is because they are white. And male. And not ashamed of it.
Actually, let me put it more clearly: Tom- that was the single stupidest comment that I think I have ever heard you make. You dare to tacitly accuse OSC of racism and a host of other sins because he rants against bad language?
What shocks me even more than the obvious absurdity of your indictment of non-PC white Americans is that some people even agreed with you. Are you who agreed also blind to the irony that your statements are perfect examples of the PC elitist" school of thought OSC is ranting against?
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Jacare, you don't think you're reaching alittle here?
I agreed with tom, but i've never concidered OSC under the charge of racism or being non-pc.
I really really hate it when people (usually conservatives [oh look i'm pigeon holing]) level charges of being politically correct against others (usually liberals), as an outright dismissal of anything they have to say. And it happens so often too. Good way to politicize a conversation.
How about this though, i think OSC is being a stogdy bastard, and you're accusing me of being an elitist. What we have an example of here is reverse elitism from OSC against something he doesn't like (hence the derision), and me laughing my head off, because to do so is highly hypocritical. No other charges laid at his door step, no racism, no other sins, just that Uncle Orson has progressed from Ornery to Crotchity.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
okay i know this should be noted as heavy with sarcasm;
quote:As we all know "whitebread" America is that section of the country where the people are so provincial and backward that they hate all minorities, burn harmless books they find offensive and still teach creationism in school.
Why are these fools so backwards? Well, most likely it is because they are white. And male. And not ashamed of it.
Last time i checked, Tom was white and male, and not ashamed of it. I can only claim to be half white, but still male, and not ashamed of it. I don't see what that has to do with being so pissed off at some percieved entity "the art community" and how they are against what he and all other caroliners stand for.
that is what seems so stupidly hypocritical, it is the very manner in which he goes about it. I've always claimed that in-group out-group politics are a retarded source of strife, and so, seeing it here, coupled to charges of "elitism", one might as well just plant a titanic flashing neon sign that says "Thar be irony here"
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Pod- I took your comment to mean that you agreed strongly with Tom. Tom used a ridiculous term to deride OSC's position
quote: "elitist" barbarians who'd tear down everything that's right and wonderful about white-bread America
If that isn't "politicizing" the conversation then I don't know what is.
quote: How about this though, i think OSC is being a stogdy bastard, and you're accusing me of being an elitist.
Yeah, if you agree with Tom's post then I think you are being elitist. OSC, rightly or wrongly, has cast his argument as the average Joe American being put-upon by the snobby artsy elite. Rather than showing why this isn't the case Tom appears to agree with the characterization and then deride the folks OSC is talking about as "whitebread America". Is that elitist? You bet. And then you said:
quote:And tom, you still rule
Which sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.
quote: What we have an example of here is reverse elitism from OSC against something he doesn't like (hence the derision), and me laughing my head off, because to do so is highly hypocritical. No other charges laid at his door step, no racism, no other sins, just that Uncle Orson has progressed from Ornery to Crotchity.
Fair enough.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
so i guess my point here, is that i personally don't care whether the term "whitebread" is used or not. OSC labeled a group, "the elitists", as standing against things he likes, thus setting himself apart from them. I had assumed that Tom's use of the term whitebread was simply as a term to refer to the other group created in OSC's dichotomy of elitism, personally, i don't really care what handle it is, and if you have a problem with the term "whitebread", okay, pick a different term. I'm just pointing out that i think that OSC's division is rather silly.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Last time i checked, Tom was white and male, and not ashamed of it. I can only claim to be half white, but still male, and not ashamed of it. I don't see what that has to do with being so pissed off at some percieved entity "the art community" and how they are against what he and all other caroliners stand for.
What does Tom mean by "whitebread America" which OSC is painted as defending, then? That is my hang-up. Everytime I have seen this term it is used to push folks with "traditional" values into the same corner as the KKK, Pat Robertson, Hitler or any other Right wingnut.
Edit- why is OSC's division silly? Maybe we can start there. I read OSC's essay, in the context of other essays as attacking "art" that derides "traditional" values. That is what I think he means by "elitist".
[ August 18, 2003, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Jacare:
Well the thing is, i think OSC's claim is absurd. He's taken a small segment of people he's encountered and generalized across the entertainment industry, branding them out of step with the people of north carolina. I mean, doesn't that seem like a rather hefty claim to make? This is the same entertainment world that puts out things like Terminator 3, or Dumb and Dumber-er, or Final Destination 2 (as if the first one wasn't bad enough). The theater world, is a small segment of what serves for entertainment in the US, and one could probably claim, one that's in a sorry state of disrepair in terms of widespread appeal, but then again, this is the same theater community that produced the Lion King, which i would hardly claim is elitist.
If OSC wants to talk about bad theater, about theater he doesn't like, okay, but i think categorizing theater as elitist on a whole, is sort of silly.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
First of all, could someone explain to me what terms liek "culture war" and "traditional values" [i]mean[/i}? You don't know how tired I get of seeing words like that and PC thrown around.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Pod- You are probably right. OSC is likely doing what many people do in political arguments and categorizing a whole group by minority actions. However, I think there is no doubt that there is a reasonably-sized minority which behaves just as OSC has described: You probably remember the controversial "art" show which included things like some guy peeing in another guy's mouth. You may have seen Pleasantville, which seemed like mostly an indictment of traditional culture, Or American Beauty which seemed to paint middleclass America as false and pretentious.
So while I agree that certainly there is a large body of American artistic culture which doesn't fit OSC's categorization, there is also a good bit which is widely accepted and admired within the industry which does fit OSC's definition.
[ August 18, 2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
well i have to run in a moment, but just really quickly,
i can see how "whitebread" could be a flashpoint then. Since i see pat robertson and the kkk as being radical lunatics on their side of the ideological world, i tend to discount them as being representative of well... anything, so to me the term whitebread simply means a near-confucian ideal of the family structure being paramount to the functioning of a right and just society, and that everything that might stray from that is immediately cast down as wrong and worthy of derision.
The thing is that art culture is one that is inherently non-elitist. its difficult for something that requires the patronage of the people to be systemically elitist. There can be pockets of elitism in any culture, but that doesn't make the whole thing elitist, and so castigating the art community as a whole, i find ridiculous, when compared to the social problems cultures like the computer science community has with women, where elitism is the rule and not the exception.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: First of all, could someone explain to me what terms liek "culture war" and "traditional values" [i]mean[/i}? You don't know how tired I get of seeing words like that and PC thrown around.
Others may use these terms differently, but here is what they mean to me: "culture war" is essentially the tension caused by rapid changes in the political definitions of what was once considered wrong. Examples are things like the interpretation of the protections of speech and privacy in the constitution to support things like abortion, pornography etc.
"traditional values" are harder to define. I would say they include things like the importance of family and strong definitions of what is right and wrong.
"PC" is basically the school of moral relativism which basically seeks to paint everything with the same brush with no discrimination between right and wrong.
[ August 18, 2003, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I've always understood the term "white-bread" to mean "bland" or "conventional". It refers those who need things pre-processed to remove any hint of color or spice. So, while it may be sometimes used as a racial comment, I think it's primary intention is not racist. I read Jacare's post above to be sort of knee-jerky, almost to the degree of the people who forced the public official to resign because he dared use the word "niggardly". Far from being a racial comment, I think Tom was referring to those people who insulate themselves into a self-imposed provinciality because they fear being offended by something outside their own experience.
More to the topic, I don't think vulgarity is warranted in most of the cases where it is resorted to. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. The example above from Cavalier (Full Metal Jacket) was a perfect example of the effective use of vulgarity. I think Kubrick's intent was to portray the surreal-reality of bootcamp. Having been through bootcamp myself, I can attest that his picture of the drill sergeant was spot-on. To have toned him down to avoid offending people would have completely ruined the portrayal. The fact is that a large majority of drill sergeants are foul-mouthed and vile. For some reason the military believes the best way to prepare someone for training is to humiliate him and debase him. That is a fact of life. To hide that fact, for Kubrick, would have been to ruin one of the main points of the whole movie.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*Walks into thread*
*does a little dance*
Full Metal Jacket is a great movie.
*does a little dance*
*walks out of thread*
Hobbes Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I've always understood the term "white-bread" to mean "bland" or "conventional". It refers those who need things pre-processed to remove any hint of color or spice. So, while it may be sometimes used as a racial comment, I think it's primary intention is not racist.
quote:Main Entry: white-bread Pronunciation: 'hwIt-'bred, 'wIt- Function: adjective Date: 1979 : being, typical of, or having qualities (as blandness) associated with the white middle class
It all depends on your point of view. The idea that the white middle class is bland, colorless and pretentious (as portrayed in the two movies mentioned above) is, to me, a ridiculous portrayal characteristic of the wrong-headedness of that whole side of the argument.
quote:Far from being a racial comment, I think Tom was referring to those people who insulate themselves into a self-imposed provinciality because they fear being offended by something outside their own experience.
Again, it is all based on POV. WHat one would consider "insulat(ing) themselves into a self-imposed provinciality" others might consider a very justified stand against unwelcome exposure to vulgarity or other trash.
There are those who say "you can never live life if you don't experience everything"
To which others reply "there are certain things which I simply don't wish to experience".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: "I've always understood the term "white-bread" to mean "bland" or "conventional". It refers those who need things pre-processed to remove any hint of color or spice.
Just to clarify, this is exactly the meaning I had intended. Any racial connotation is unfortunate, but not present; it's irrelevant to the larger issue.
And, frankly, I refuse to participate in your "culture war," Jacare. You and OSC are going to have to throw one without me.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
that's really the point that i was picking up on.
I think that the concept that this is a "war" of cultures is... i don't know... disturbing. The fact that people wrap it up and compartmentalize things as a "culture" is what i really object to. Disagree with someone if you want, disagree with a whole lot of people if you want, but parceling them up and writing them off is crappy crappy behavior.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I really don't want to get caught up in all of this, but isn't this all just trying to deal with the culture shock that is inevitable in America's "melting pot"?
And as far as an endorsement, yeah, I guess I would have to endorse Tom and Pod on this....
[ August 18, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I've always considered "white-bread" to be a metaphor with actual white bread. It's not flashy, it's not niche, it's not unique, it's not exceptional. It's wholesome, plain, mass-market, no surprises, widely-accepted, and easily consumable. In effect, the vast middle ground of our society (regardless of color, though I admit that the use of "white" in there skews it toward the "white" middle ground of society).
I specifically *don't* see Pat Robertson and the like included in that term, since they are niche and unique and very strongly flavored.
I've always seen "White bread" society to be the same society that drinks Coors Light, enjoys summer blockbusters, and engages in any number of other activities that make elitists (like me) say "how did anyone ever green light this project?" or "another sequel??"
White bread to me is always a comfort zone - and white bread society are those unwilling to leave that confort zone. I didn't see it as a racist comment at all... but that's the thing about metaphors. You can see them how you want.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:American Beauty which seemed to paint middleclass America as false and pretentious.
Why is it that depressing movies that take place in the suburbs are taken to be attacks on suburban life?
A depressing movie that takes place in the city usually isn't criticized as being an attack on city life...
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I do agree with OSC that the Hours sucked.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think that the concept that this is a "war" of cultures is... i don't know... disturbing. The fact that people wrap it up and compartmentalize things as a "culture" is what i really object to. Disagree with someone if you want, disagree with a whole lot of people if you want, but parceling them up and writing them off is crappy crappy behavior.
quote: And, frankly, I refuse to participate in your "culture war," Jacare. You and OSC are going to have to throw one without me.
Maybe I am just paranoid, but whether or not you want to participate in a culture war it seems that one is brewing. From where I stand it seems that the differences between your "whitebread" flavorless, spiceless middle class America (And I am still really curious as to how anyone who is a part of this class could classify it thus) and the leftward leaning policy makers are becoming more distinct.
Your average brainless worker drone just doesn't share the same values as those who are making big changes in our social and legal climate. That's no big deal- it has often been so. However, it feels like that last year's leftest radicals are this years political leaders.
Maybe it means nothing or maybe it is my flawed perception and it will pass.
But I doubt it. It feels to me like a greater polarization is occurring in American society than I have seen or heard of before. And it will almost certainly lead to some ugly confrontation.
quote:Why is it that depressing movies that take place in the suburbs are taken to be attacks on suburban life?
A depressing movie that takes place in the city usually isn't criticized as being an attack on city life...
Again, it is very dependent on POV, but it seems that in general Hollywood (as evidenced by a large number of films) takes the view that middle class America consists of nothing but a bunch of people pretending to be happy so that they can have fake social encounters with their equally false neighbors without losing face.
The whole film just grates on me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The problem is that people who are pretending to be happy can't understand people who are genuinely happy and therefore believe it is all an illusion.
AJ
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Banna- you may be right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: From where I stand it seems that the differences between your "whitebread" flavorless, spiceless middle class America (And I am still really curious as to how anyone who is a part of this class could classify it thus) and the leftward leaning policy makers are becoming more distinct.
As long as you frame the issue in dichotomies, Jacare, "war" is inevitable. Personally, I think your assessment of the issue -- that it's the "liberal policy makers" versus "middle class America" -- is ninety percent of the problem.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Tom- I wonder how you explain the recent Republican victories and the continuing popularity of Pres. Bush in light of your position?
Many leaders of the Democratic party seem to think that the answer is to push the party to the radical end of the spectrum. The Republicans are certainly nothing to brag about in many, many areas, but it seems to me that their recent success has been due to socially conservative tendencies. Do you disagree?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Sorry Jacare, but if you are referring to the Rally President as being elected, I'm afraid that's wrong. President Appointee Bush, more like.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So you're not framing the issue as "middle class America" versus "liberal policy makers," despite your earlier statement. You're framing the issue as "conservative policy makers, representing the 'common people'" versus "media liberals."
I'm not sure this is any more realistic, Jacare.
Frankly, I disagree with you; I don't think America is an overwhelmingly "conservative" country, and not even an overwhelmingly traditional one. I think conservative thought is an easier sell, however, and that conservatives are currently better mobilized politically.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: (And I am still really curious as to how anyone who is a part of this class could classify it thus)
Part of the problem, I think, is that you are making the term mean more than it does. "White-bread" does not equal "white middle-class", and only infers "white middle-class" insofar as the white middle-class actually fits its most provincial and pablum-nourished stereotypes. Those who are white middle-class, but do not fit this stereotype can nonetheless recognize the stereotype and whatever validity it holds.
I encounter the same thing when people talk about the "Gay Lifestyle". I don't think I fit that stereotype in most respects, but there are a lot of gays who do. I think there is value in being able to recognize the stereotypes of any class you belong to. It puts you in a better position to judge if they are negative stereotypes or positive ones, and can aid you in adjusting your own behavior and attitudes if warranted.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Ah. So you're not framing the issue as "middle class America" versus "liberal policy makers," despite your earlier statement. You're framing the issue as "conservative policy makers, representing the 'common people'" versus "media liberals."
Not at all. When I said "liberal policy makers" I meant the policy makers who are liberal- such as certain supreme court justices, much of the leadership of the Democratic party etc. The faceless masses of the middle class are neither at one extreme nor the other of the political spectrum. They are the center (obviously). The conservative policy makers generally represent the people no better than the liberal ones do. The picture I am painting is that most people are generally fairly socially conservative. Hence the dichotomy I am trying to draw is the reasonably socially conservative masses vs. the increasingly socially radically liberal policy makers (as in not all policy makers are that way but certain important ones are).
quote: Frankly, I disagree with you; I don't think America is an overwhelmingly "conservative" country, and not even an overwhelmingly traditional one. I think conservative thought is an easier sell, however, and that conservatives are currently better mobilized politically.
And frankly I think that the overwhelming majority of any nation MUST be socially conservative. The people with children to raise and bills to pay cannot afford to dabble in social experiments the way the rich and those lacking responsibilities (ie college students ) can.
If conservativism is an easier sell it is simply because of the make-up of the mass of society as noted above.
quote: Part of the problem, I think, is that you are making the term mean more than it does. "White-bread" does not equal "white middle- class"
It does by the dictionary definition and in every context I've ever seen (with the recent exception of Tom's post, apparently).
quote: ...and only infers "white middle-class" insofar as the white middle-class actually fits its most provincial and pablum-nourished stereotypes. Those who are white middle-class, but do not fit this stereotype can nonetheless recognize the stereotype and whatever validity it holds.
I see your point, however, it seems to me that Tom was not using this term to refer to some nearly non-existent stereotype, but rather to class OSC and all who agree with him into that same slice of spiceless, tasteless provincials.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: White bread to me is always a comfort zone - and white bread society are those unwilling to leave that confort zone.
I don't think this is entirely a conservative problem.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote:I've always considered "white-bread" to be a metaphor with actual white bread. It's not flashy, it's not niche, it's not unique, it's not exceptional. It's wholesome…
White bread is wholesome?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The picture I am painting is that most people are generally fairly socially conservative."
I disagree, actually, unless you're going to define "socially conservative" in a way that emasculates it and removes all of its controversial aspects. Most people ARE generally pretty "white-bread," as distinct from "conservative," which is because -- like white bread itself -- it's easier to like something if it's inoffensive and harmless, even if there's no flavor.
I think part of the problem -- part of the reason alarmists and ideologues are running around screaming about "culture war" -- is that people are DETERMINED to turn this kind of thing into partisanship, when it's really about comfort levels and personal experience.
[ August 18, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote:the differences between your "whitebread" flavorless, spiceless middle class America (And I am still really curious as to how anyone who is a part of this class could classify it thus)
Actually, we prefer to be refered to as "bourgeois."
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: the last bulwark of decency against the tides of "elitist" barbarians who'd tear down everything that's right and wonderful about white-bread America.
quote:Most people ARE generally pretty "white-bread,"
Do you think that there really are "right and wonderful" things about "white bread" (majority) America? ANd if so, shouldn't those who perceive it to be under attack defend it as OSC does?
quote: I think part of the problem -- part of the reason alarmists and ideologues are running around screaming about "culture war" -- is that people are DETERMINED to turn this kind of thing into partisanship, when it's really about comfort levels and personal experience.
What do you mean by "comfort levels and personal experience"?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
white-bread: Unextraordinary, typical, common, dull. Example: After his acting career ended, he went back to his white-bread existence in Davenport.
[ August 18, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do you think that there really are "right and wonderful" things about "white bread" (majority) America? ANd if so, shouldn't those who perceive it to be under attack defend it as OSC does?
I think there ARE "right and wonderful" things about "white-bread" America, but I should point out that I'm NOT using "white-bread" to mean "majority." That continues to be part of your problem.
The thing, though, is that not ALL aspects of "white-bread" America are right and wonderful, but the very nature of culture often demands that people who belong to that culture defend ALL of it -- and are often ill-equipped to figure out which elements are undesirable and/or optional.
Personally, I think the things Card loves about his "ordinary" America -- the strong families, the noble causes, the straight-shooting political values -- are not as commonplace on Main Street as he believes, and are NOT necessarily dependent on other aspects of "ordinary" society that he'd still fight to defend. It is possible, for example, to continue to have strong families AND gay marriage; one can swear like a sailor when angry and still have a powerful sense of duty.
Of course, this is one of those issues that will eventually sort itself out; notice, for example, how we've completely forgotten which words were curses back in Shakespeare's time. And women are allowed on the stage. The only time this kind of social change becomes problematic is when one side or the other finds it necessary to club the OTHER side over the head with their opinion -- and for the last few decades, we've been doing exactly that to each other.
IMO, it'd be nice if we just relaxed, instead of turning this into yet another component of partisan malice. There are those people who will fight all change, kicking and screaming; there are other people who aren't happy unless the world's turning on another axis. But these people have to live on the same planet, and I think we're doing irresponsible harm to our social fabric to suggest that a culture "war" of any kind is the only appropriate response to this integral facet of human nature.
[ August 18, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well said, Tom. Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
i don't see how being fiscally conservative (as one who is tight on money might be) means that you have to be socially conservative?
What really really scares me is that there is a portion of the populous (who Fox News seems to appeal to) who have decided that our government is not conservative enough. There seems to be a push to attempt to redefine the status quo as much further right than it should be statistically. If you look at the 2000 election as an exemplar, it looked like society is about fifty fifty if you take bush to represent the paragon of conservative ideals, and gore as his liberal counterpart (which i don't but for the sake of argument).
And as i said in the new dictators thread, it astonishes me that people call a court with Renquist and Scalia one with a liberal bent.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I agree with OSC on this.
The man should be willing for a performance of his work to be edited for vulgarity. Why not, as long as the audience knows?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: i don't see how being fiscally conservative (as one who is tight on money might be) means that you have to be socially conservative?
If this question is directed at me:
The two certainly don't have to go together. I am guessing that you are challenging my earlier statement about the Republicans in the last election. See, I am basing the idea that they were elcted as social conservatives on the fact that neither of the two major parties are fiscally conservative, so why would they be elected on that platform? The Republicans have shown themselves to be every bit and more spendthrifts than the Dems. The only difference is if the money is spent on social programs or wars and the SS.
quote: There seems to be a push to attempt to redefine the status quo as much further right than it should be statistically. If you look at the 2000 election as an exemplar, it looked like society is about fifty fifty if you take bush to represent the paragon of conservative ideals, and gore as his liberal counterpart (which i don't but for the sake of argument).
Both candidates portrayed themselves as moderates. They made as little mention as possible of the radical platforms of either party.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
oh well in that case, it may be a distinction with no difference, but the republicans do sell themselves as not "wasting" money supposedly.
And remember, the tax cut was a big sell.
however i still don't necessarily think that a republican congress is necessarily representative of the will of the people. I'd have to look at voter turn out and other issues before i'd be fully willing to make that assessment. but in that regard you may be right, but i still don't think that the republicans are winning off of their ideals of what the fabric of society is (hell, it may very well have been because of their stance on terrorism).
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Tom: the problem is that absolutists see change from their ideal as the most reprehensible thing that could happen. I don't agree, for a number of reasons, but i mean, lots of people peg hole history to find how their lineage has been around forever.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I agree with OSC on this.
The man should be willing for a performance of his work to be edited for vulgarity. Why not, as long as the audience knows?
I don't. The man should be asked if he is willing to edit his work for vulgarity. If he chooses to, fine and good. If instead he'd rather lose the publicity and money by keeping his work intact and unshown, that should be his decision.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
But why would he choose not to allow it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, perhaps he feels that the vulgarity is essential to the truth of the work. Perhaps he's opposed to letting people edit his stuff, in general. Or perhaps he thinks community "decency" standards are a bunch of bull, and he'll be darned (*grin*) if he's going to let a bunch of hayseeds tell him what his characters can or cannot say.
*shrug* Some of those reasons are more reasonable than others, but I'm not really willing to say that people aren't entitled to have 'em.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I would submit, all of those reasons amount to disdain of the objecting audience. (on some level)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
An artist who wishes to reach as many people as possible would more than likely be willing to make changes. An artist who has a specific message or a specific result in mind isn't as likely to change it to meet other people's preferences.
As an example: William Goldman has said, repeatedly, that screenwriters must be prepared to change things immediately to meet the whims of the producers and director. Yet when he was afraid that Princess Bride was going to get screwed up he actually fought for and bought back the rights to the screenplay with his own money, something that is simply unheard of in Hollywood. It meant too much to him to let anyone else touch it.
I'm glad it did.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
What is the difference between interpreting a work and editing it? If a high school teacher puts on a play, and takes out certain scenes to make it work better for her actors, is that editing, or is that just interpreting the play so it works for her needs? Does a director need permission from the writer in order to do this?
I have not heard of many plays that weren't changed to fit certain situations. I would think a writer would expect this to happen, to an extent. Otherwise, the written play would have to come with a video. You would have to copy the actors' words, expressions, and blocking.
So, without all the tangential whitebread stuff in his article, I agree with Card. So what if they took out some swear words?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I would submit, all of those reasons amount to disdain of the objecting audience. (on some level)
Certainly could be. Could just be disinterest. Not all artists create to be seen, some create because they need to, or for the joy in creating.
Your objections could also be seen as disrespectful to the artist. Why should you claim to know more about what makes his work good than he does?
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
But then they'd be preaching, wouldn't they?
(This post was to chris' 2nd to last post, not his most recent)
[ August 18, 2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Its funny how you can find truth in all of these points. I'm more with Chris on this subject.
It seems a matter of venue.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"It seems a matter of venue."
It is also a matter of degree.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, not to disagree or anything (watch, here's where I disagree ) but Aaron Sorkin had quite the rep for awhile about not not allowing the actors to change so much as a "a" or "the" in a script. I wonder when he lightened up about that. Maybe after editing Shindler's list and realizing that if Steven Speilburg was cool enough to understand that sometimes, things need to be changed a bit. . .? Nah. . .it's more likely that it was when he was busted for drugs and then the drug supply stopped. I hear that has a way of humbling people sometimes. Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
I don't think disinterest is the right word, either. Writers can be deeply interested in their audiences' reponses (and usually are, whether or not they're willing to admit it) and yet still want to be veiwed own terms.
As for the question of interpretation vs. editing, most playwrights draw the line at changing lines of dialogue. Some writers go even further: Samuel Beckett, for example, took legal action against a theater for not following his stage directions.
[ August 18, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Okay, y'all went berzerk there with posts while I was typing. That post isn't meant for anyone in particular.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
We're doing the play Les Miserables at my school this year. Half of this play is about prostitutes. Prostitues are not a "suitable subject for a high school audience." So, instead of doing a play that is suitable, the director is doing some incredibly heavy editing. She has changed almost half of the "prostitute's song," instead of just cutting the song. One of my best friends is in it and it's driving her crazy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Legally, you can't change plays at all without permission from the copyright holder unless said permission was granted in the licensing contract. In real life, it happens a lot.
A common clause in a standard contract reads: "The granting of this license to you to perform the play is not to be construed as a right to (...) [make] changes of any kind (...) in the play including but not limited to the deletion or interpolation of new music, lyrics or dialogue or change in the period, characters or characterizations in the presently existing play. (...) Any violation hereof will be deemed a willful infringement of the copyright of the author(s) and shall automatically terminate this license."
Many schools that put on plays are unaware of this and they either find out when they get sued, or the author never hears about it, or the author doesn't really care much. As was said, often it's a matter of degree. Some plays have alternate versions available. Some plays have explicit restrictions on what can and can't be changed.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
From the Samuel French Website at [url]http://www.samuelfrench.com/royalties.htm#RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS[/url], under PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS:
quote:No changes may be made in the text of a play without prior written permission.
As I understand it, that's pretty standard.
Edited to add: Yeah, what Chris said.
And also: Why can't I get the UBB Code to work?
[ August 18, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Hmm. . . I wonder if this is one of those things that has more to do with fighting a copyright infringment than it does ego. Didn't OSC (or Kristine) say that you have to go after every copywrite violation or you'll lose your ability to go after them? Something along the lines of someone doing something that you really don't care about, but then someone else comes along and does something different, but you can't make them stop anymore because you let that other guy to whatever he was doing. Am I even close on that memory?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Well then, the play should come with a video tape, and they can do the play sort of like Tae Bo.
edit to say this was in response to Chris. You guys are too fast.
[ August 18, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Where some people here have expressed surprise that little changes aren't allowed, I'm frankly astounded that it's even at issue. If the play has elements you feel are unsuitable for your audience, do another play.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
See, no one but an artist (that I can imagine) would care that people bought their products, mangled them, and then sold them again. (As long as the buyers knew that they were mangled and knew that their warranties and guarantees were voided.)
Of course, artists sometimes fancy that they aren't workers. I can understand that--all the art I want to make is just to express myself. But really, it's so self-centered. That's what I'm saying.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Elizabeth - maybe they could write another play about a group of people performing chunks of the desired play. That way, not only could they avoid the objectionable parts but they could make fun of the whole thing. Sort of like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, only different...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:See, no one but an artist (that I can imagine) would care that people bought their products, mangled them, and then sold them again.
Speaking of disdain...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Some of the last few posts remind me of the conversation in the movie Amadeus between Mozart and the king.
I guess my question to those of you who support 'editing' an writer's work for taste, would you also support the same thing in other arts? Kayla brought up Schindler's List. So, let's go with that movie. Let's say a community has the ability to add or remove scenes to movies at will. If a community objects to, say, how life was depicted in the concentration camps (because you know, there are groups out there who believe they never existed), should they have the ability to change the film such that it puts a happier face on the camps?
You can bring up other examples ad infinitum. Should Mozart's music be changed if an audience doesn't like it? I mean, granted he's dead, but the principle, I think, is still there. That is, which is more important, the work, or the feelings of the community.
quote: IMO, it'd be nice if we just relaxed, instead of turning this into yet another component of partisan malice.
A large underlying reason that I started this thread was to use it to point out that OSC has developed a habit of being derogatory and dismissive to people in opposing camps. He dismissed Nancy Pelossi as a San Francisco liberal. He dismisses anyone who doesn't potray middle class life a certain way as an intellectual elite. Media is divided into, God help us, pro-American media and, though he hasn't said it, the implication is clear, anti-American media.
I agree with what Tom said. I, personally, don't think this kind of us versus them dialogue is constructive nor very intelligent. I know this is OSC's site and I might get banned for saying it, but the kind of shrill hyperbole that he engages in isn't helpful to me in understanding what he wants to say, makes me think that he has an agenda, and that he doesn't really have any facts to support his position because he doesn't use them.
Sigh. I realize this is his site and I hope my words will be taken as those from a frustrated fan and not from someone who wants to impugn his character in 'his house'. I tried to say them as politely as possible.
[ August 18, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Chris. I think we could make millions here. Forget about Pole-bo(joke from another thread), I am going to make some Hamlet-Bo productions, to be sold to every high school who wants to put on hamlet. The actors will line up on stage in the same way as on the perfect video, say their lines in exactly the same way, sit on exactly the same color furniture, etc.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"See, no one but an artist (that I can imagine) would care that people bought their products, mangled them, and then sold them again."
Two problems: 1) art is not always considered a product, as you already observed; and 2) if the mangled product is the ONLY version of that product seen by that specific audience, and if indeed the mangling makes it inferior to the original, the audience's opinion of the work (and subsequent future viability of the work) is harmed by the change.
It's more like loaning someone your car for ten bucks, then getting ticked when he brings it back having ripped off the upholstery -- claiming that he and his friends don't like leather, so the "bare foam" look is better for them.
[ August 18, 2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Popatr: the difference is, a performance is a form of distribution (both factually and legally). If one performs a play differently from how it has written, one has created a derivative work and distributed it (which is illegal under copyright law without an authorizing license).
It would be (very roughly, due to the principle of first sale involved in material goods that does not come into play for artistic performances) analogous to a company purchasing a power tool and modifying it in some way (such as by removing a safety guard) and then selling that.
Actually, a better analogy would be to a person purchasing the plans/specifications for the purpose of producing identical power tools, then altering the plans so as to produce a modification of the original power tools, and selling those (despite the original contract being for the production of identical tools).
You can et companies would have a big problem with that.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Tom, By that logic, then, the artist supposes that the (good) reputation of his work would be harmed in the eyes of the people of sometown utah if they miss the swear words.
I don't think this is the case.
The rental analogy doesn't work for me, because he can fix the car for the next buyer at no cost to himself.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
fugu13, I have to admit that I'm out of my depth on this issue--but don't I have a right to "distribute" anything I buy? I buy ten power drill and I can give them as gifts, sell them on ebay or whatever.
Let me admit again that I'm out of my depth here.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I think the best analogy would be to buy a McDonald's franchise and then not sell the food that all the other McDonald's sells. Imagine the surprise of the people who walk in and find no Big Macs! And what of the people who live in that town that don't even know Big Macs exist!
Now, imagine people in Utah, who see the "changed" version of the play and then recommend the play to their relatives (also conservative, but had to move east recently for a job.) Yikes, can you imagine their surprise when they go see the unadulterated version in their local theater?!? Would you want your relatives to see it on your recommendation and have them see an entirely different play?
[ August 18, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Kayla, Therin lies the ultimate importance of the person understanding that the work has been changed. That's why I mentioned it.
Perhaps it would be a good idea if they also had a basic understanding of the way it was edited, as they do in TV.
"This has been edited for language" "This has been edited to fit your screen" etc.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Popatr: the difference is the principle of first sale. Under the principle of first sale, once you've bought a particular physical product, you are free to sell it to whomever, because there is still only one if it. Each sale is a transferral of ownership.
With a performance (or other form of distribution), however, no transferral is done. It's as if you took a power drill, duplicated it, then sold the duplicates. That is illegal. Similarly, even if one owns a license to perform a particular play, it is not a license to alter that play and perform the derivative work. The reason is because the new, derivative work is not the work you were licensed to perform.
Consider if someone purchased a license to perform a play, then added racial slurs throughout and performed it. Should an author be required to allow people to do this? I do not think so, and the law takes a similar stance.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I was in an abridged version of The Crucible in college. I believe it was a standard thing (done by the people we bought the rights to perform it from) and not heavy editing on the part of the director. My work-study was as the director's office assistant, and she could never find her keys, much less keep script changes straight. What we did was in the script.
I think we did leave out one scene (the one where whatsername's insanity is made clear) but I think that was more for time than clarity, since the actress was playing her pretty nutty anyway.
There are other ways around that. The actors could mutter, the audience could stick its fingers in its ears and go "nyah-nyah".
I have wirty-dords in some of the stuff I write, but not just because I CAN, you know. Sometimes it just feels right for the character or situation.
I do admit, though, that my own comfort level with certain words in print probably contributes to it. I was raised a Baptist, and I generally don't cuss unless I want to annoy my husband (He taught me to cuss, taught me the joys of a 'mouth-filling oath' to quote Shakespeare.) I don't like to cuss and I usually don't like to be around a lot of cussing, but it really doesn't bother me in print or, usually, in movies.
*thinks*
Actually, I was at a bridal shower yesterday , with a bunch of women my age or older, and there were some oaths uttered, but with no force behind them. It's the loud, angry cussing that really bothers me. But the blushing, hand over the mouth whisper "What the F-- was I thinking?" at the end of a funny story didn't bother me at all. I think thaT's because my dad only cussed when he was so angry he was about to have a stroke.
Okay. I've talked myself around to the idea that we all have different comfort levels when it comes to that sort of thing, probably dictated by our environments. So it stands to reason that some of us would allow religion to be the arbiter for us. Less confusing that way. *resists urge to quote Futurama again . *
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote:maybe they could write another play about a group of people performing chunks of the desired play. That way, not only could they avoid the objectionable parts but they could make fun of the whole thing. Sort of like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, only different...
Hey, I've heard in some media you only have to change 10% of the original work before it becomes a parody and thus your own artistic property.
What are we waiting for? If we hurry, any one of us could become the Puff Daddy fo the theater world.
[ August 18, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't find "foul" language to be particularly foul, but then I lived with a close friend from Québec for five school terms, and you just get used to it. Now when we're at home we string complete sentences together that are composed of nothing but expletives. Just, you know, for s#@ts and giggles.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Yeah, but in Quebec, f*** really ISN'T foul language. It's just an everyday slang word, meaning "interact," right?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Lol.
"Bob, what are you doing right now?"
"I'm ****ing with my computer."
Yeah, we use it that way in the states, too, Deirdre. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And for those people from non-English speaking countries who might be lurking in this thread, please note the all important 'with'.
'****ing with your computer'= o.k.
'****ing your computer' = *not* o.k.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To be a parody it must meet two requirements: one is a certain percentage must be changed, which could be 10%. 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.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Storm: True enough.
[ August 18, 2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
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."
[ August 18, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Luckily it doesn't have to be a sophisticated targetted commentary .
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
fugu:
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.
[ August 18, 2003, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Which is absurd on it's face.
No, it isn't.
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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."
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
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. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...
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.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
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.
[ August 18, 2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Great analogy, kat! Thank you. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So there's no problem with integrity if the price is high enough. *sad*
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
"Just don't go see it." . . . . . . "Get out of the country if you don't like it here."
I realize there are major differences between those two things, but I think they spring from the same general attitude.
Why not try and accomodate people, especially when it's so easy?
[ August 18, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
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.
[ August 18, 2003, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why are they different worlds? The local theatre does deserve respect?
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote:"Get out of the country if you don't like it here."
I think a better analogy would be, "If you don't want to follow the laws in Saudi Arabia, don't take a trip there."
A perfectly reasonable attitude, if you ask me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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).
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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 ]
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
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?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
[ August 18, 2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Okay, so we disagree. I would be unhappy in that situation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What about Huckleberry Finn?
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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 ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
[ August 18, 2003, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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 ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
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.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
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
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
From dictionary.com:
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 ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
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.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Chris, some more speculation for you:
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."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> His play is in the wrong language. <<
At most, this is only true of this particular audience.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Ditto.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Doesn't OSC have the same right to object?
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Yes, he does.
And we have a right to object to his objection.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
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.
*sigh*
I think I'd better reread the article.
[ August 18, 2003, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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:
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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. )
[ August 18, 2003, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Here's an interesting development.
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 ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Chris, your rebuttal to Card's artical was excellent and, I think, brings up some great points.
Thanks. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I really need to be clearer in my writing.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I wonder if OSC ever licenses his plays. Stormy made a good point. Would he be cool with adding curse words in "non-provincial, elitist towns?"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kayla, if you're referring to me using Schindler's List because you did, I understood your post perfectly fine. I didn't mean to imply that I believed that you agreed with me by using Schindler's List in my post, as well.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Nah, it wasn't you Stormy. No worries, mate.
It was more of an out loud brain fart. You know. I think things, I think I write them down, then I realize that one would have to be a mind reader to have guessed it. You really have to live in my crazy head to fully appreciate it.
[ August 18, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
First of all, thank you Chris, for actually reading about the actual issue this whole thing is regarding. I'm not sure how many people actually did that.
That said, I wish some more people would read Card's article. The point of Card's article is NOT that Simon is a jerk, so Chris's (admittedly VERY valid) point about Card's swift judgement about Neil Simon is tangental to the real point of the article.
The article is basically a plea to the theatres in Greensboro to put on stuff the people in Greensboro want to see. Remember, these articles are written not for us, but for a newspaper in the south, near where he lives. He gives us access to them--at his own expense--as a service, not because we're the target audience.
Consequently, many of his articles lean one way, partly because he percieves his articles are going to be reaching a certain audience who he thinks need moved from that direction. And it cracks me up to see everybody calling him such a conservative reactionary, because having heard him lecture for years in towns that are quite conservative, and seen how riled he gets some of them, too. So don't worry. Eventually something will roll around that will get Card writing his more liberal ideas, and all of you who are left-leaning can proclaim how Card's finally "seen the light" on something, when in reality I think he's been casting quite a bit of light on a lot of things for a long time.
Card is not catagorically opposed to profanity. He avoids it in much of his fiction, but uses it alot as well, when the situation dictates. (Anybody read his novelization of Cameron's "The Abyss"?)
His own philosophy: "There are no bad words. Only bad uses for words."
Kathy Kidd's letter demonstrates she, at least, got what he was really trying to say--that a real artist seeks to communicate through his art, rather than inflict it upon someone.
I find it absolutely logical that this flap occured without Simon's knowledge, and that he may not yet know that it's going on now. That's not really the point, and calling it "yellow journalism" is probabaly overkill.
The question the article asks is this: Which will ultimately find itself more viable? Carbon-copy, mass-produced, "white bread" plays that seek to satisfy everyone? Or ones that take advantage of the unique characteristics of each community?
I saw "Groucho and Me," a three man one man show about the comic at a local theatre. There were maybe eight of us that showed up. This was in a large theatre (I'd seen David Copperfield float a car there three months before) and was a great show (it had been playing to sold out houses in London while I was watching Copperfield float Ferraris).
The guy playing Groucho absolutely, positively adjusted the show for us. He made jokes about every one of us. Best darn show I ever saw.
Look at TV. What's the only stage form that's getting prime time network tv time? Improv comedy.*
What people want is stuff that speaks right to them. And taking plays and stripping them of what makes them unique from movies and TV and even books--the ability to be something different for different people in different towns on different nights--is like taking the big screen out of the movie theatre and installing little TVs to the seats like the ones they used to have in bus stations and airport waiting rooms. Sure, nobody blocks your view, but defeats the point.
In reality, McDonalds DOES alter its menu from state to state to adjust for regional tastes. So do other restaurants and stores. Anybody outside of Utah ever hear of "Fry Sauce"? Anybody outside of Louisiana know about Garlic Tobasco before a couple years ago? I was in a HUGE grocery store in Pennsylvania, and was shocked to discover I couldn't find Tortillas.**
And the really, really, weird part, to me, is how suggesting that such practice is a good idea is "cultural elitism" and engaging in a "culture war." I think people are confusing the issue.
It's going something like this. Card says "Simon feels everyone should accomodate his art, rather than trying to make his art communicate with the people, therefore Simon is an elitist."
Various Hatrackers come back and say, "Card thinks Simon's way of practicing his art is inferior, therefore Card is an elitist."
Thus we create a situation where even the most anti-elitist person can be called an elitist, because, after all, he thinks he's better than somebody else! He thinks he's better than an elitist!
I don't think this definition works. An elitist is somebody who thinks he's better than EVERYBODY, or everybody but a small group of people who are enough like them.
Card is arguing that the tastes of the people in Pleasant Grove or Greensboro are as valid as those of the people of New York. Just how does that make him elitist?
----------------------------------------- *There's actually one more, and that's Pro Wrestling. The scripts for each night are written around the cities the wrestlers are in, and local sports teams, cultural quirks, and colloquialisms.
**Clearly, without tortillas, all we are left with is plain white bread!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Okay, one of the things I was thinking earlier today was about Sweet Home Alabama. Isn't it funny how many movies have been made about some Yankee stuck in "hell" in the South and comes to realize the charm, love and family values of the South? (Doc Hollywood springs to mind, also, though both of these movies are more a "rediscovering your roots" kind of story.)
I moved to a small town (6,200) and you know what? It's just like the city, only slower. The people are the same, there's just less of them. Kids are playing unsupervised (as evidenced by son spending 5 minutes thinking about jumping off the deck before he actually broke his arm, where was the adult supervising them) unlike like the kids of the fast track yuppies who have nannies raising their kids. I had more stuff stolen out of my yard the first month we lived here than all of the other places I've lived combined. Folksy charm is great and all, but it ain't the end all, be all. Sometimes, it's just down right annoying.
I get really sick and tired of movies preaching the virtues of "the slow and hot country life" like it's the holy grail. Yeah, city folks are all screwed up. It's them Southerners who know how to live.
Give me a break. I like cities. Nothing wrong with that. Some people like small towns. Nothing wrong with that. The South is nice. The North is nice. The California coast is fabulous, if only I could get all the other people in California to leave, I might actually like living there.
If you ask me, "provincial" towns are just as elitist as any other town. They think their way is the right way, and everybody else be damned.
So, you know what? If your town wants to produce Neil Simon, great. If it doesn't, great. Whatever all y'all want. Just stop bitching about it. Do it, don't do it. It's really up to you. But don't buy the rights and try to sneak your way to making it "fit" your town. I won't touch up the Mona Lisa next time it's in town, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't either.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to get out of a small town, living in a city, being career oriented. And there's nothing wrong with want to stay in a small town and live the way you were raised. Whatever floats your particular boat. Just don't try and make everyone else live the way you do.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
CJ, are you on crack? Did you read that whole first half of the article? OSC does nothing but slam Simon. Yeah, the second half, he goes on to lecture playrights about how not to snobbish elitists, but I think you missed the point of the article. Card is just ranting about intellecualism. He really hates that. Nearly as much as he hates Meryl Streep.
Let's look at some of the quotes.
quote: A new theatre company in Pleasant Grove, Utah, was recently in rehearsal for a two-week run of Neil Simon’s play, Rumors, when Neil Simon pulled the plug.
quote:And the only producers unable to make changes in his plays to fit the language of their community are those trying to bring New York theatre to English-speaking audiences that haven’t reached the same level of crudeness as New Yorkers.
quote: Among American intellectuals, you know Simon will be generally regarded as an artistic hero for putting those provincial Utahns in their place.
quote: But then, American intellectuals are generally elitist, bigoted twits who are incapable of questioning the biases and shibboleths of their own narrow-minded community.
quote:In other words, this is indeed about the difference between civilized people and barbarians. Simon is simply confused about which group he’s in.
Hardly a plea for putting on plays that Greensboro wants to see.
But wait. Here's that section.
quote: But we don’t want to join that group. We find them provincial, childish and generally dim-witted – for the good reason that they are provincial, childish and generally dim-witted.
quote:Mostly, though, theatre is being killed by the same intellectual pretension that killed poetry as a public art. Art exists as a dialogue between artist and audience, and if the artist stops listening to the audience and instead deliberately drives them away (and here we cheerfully wave to T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound), the audience learns to stop looking to that art for pleasure.
It’s those producers in Pleasant Grove, not the current incarnation of Neil Simon, who are going to keep theatre alive as a meaningful art in America.
Hey, you know what? If those producers in Pleasant Grove are the last best hope, we're all screwed. Because what they were doing was a perpetrating a fraud. Great values. If you don't like the law, break it. Yet, we're the elitist snobs. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Card has some excellent points to make in the piece, unfortunately, no one who doens't already agree with him is likely to be swayed in the least by the piece. This is not a pursuasive essay, its a rant. If this essay was turned in by one of my students, I'd give it a D, because it violates the most basic rules of logic.
For example:
quote: Among American intellectuals, you know Simon will be generally regarded as an artistic hero for putting those provincial Utahns in their place.
But then, American intellectuals are generally elitist, bigoted twits who are incapable of questioning the biases and shibboleths of their own narrow-minded community.
This is a classic example of begging the question. Who are these american intellectuals and how is it that we can read their minds and know how they will respond? I personally know a fair number of intellectuals who would not have made that response. Scott would be far more pursuasive if he stuck to the facts and avoided name calling.
quote: So their plays, which are designed to entertain that audience and help them feel smug and superior to people who are raising families and actually have to work for a living.
Who are these intellectuals who have not children and don't have to work for a living. Are they also able to go without food and drink? Do their hearts not beat like our hearts. This is one of the lines I commonly hear from concervatives to discredit liberal ideas and it makes me absolutely livid. The only point of such a sentence is to dehumanize the opposition. It was the tactic Nazis used against their opponents and I am aghast to read it in Card's essay.
I am a university professor, so I guess I am one of Card's "Intellectual elite". Many if not most of my friends and associates qualify as intellectuals and all of them work for a living. They have families just like you do Scott. They love their children just like you do. If you can't make your point without sinking to dehumanizing those who might disagree with you, then you shouldn't be making it in print.
The really sad thing is, that I largely agree with Card's points yet I am still offended by his rant. Rather than being pursuasive, this type of Card's rants on this subject are more likely to widen the divide.
[ August 19, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
But Card isn't writing for the New Yorker. He's writing for a newspaper that appears in the south, where that type of sermonizing, exaggeration, and stone-throwing will speak to his audience.
C'mon, wouldn't he at least get a C?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Sure. As long as he doesn't mind if we "alter" it a bit for audiences that aren't in Greensboro.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
That's the key, Kayla.
Don't you think he would? Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Morbo: I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he means that in the play the [f___] word is simply used as an expletive, so its literal meaning is irrelevant.--Deidre
I know its a hard concept, but I have many friends who NEVER do [curse]. 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.--Kat
My point, which I didn't take the time to expound upon (the Simpsons were on!) is that characters often have to curse to be true to their roots in real people. Olivet's example of prison movies is great, as is the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket. Either example just does not work without beaucoup cursing. Cut versions usually sound ridiculous.
Deidre, cuss words are often (usually?) not taken literally. They are usually used for emphasis, humor or to express surprise or anger by people in all the social classes on occasion. When does anybody mean "f___ you!" literally? My objection was to Card's use of the phrase "ludicrously without meaning." It's fine for you and your friends to never curse in real life, Kat, in fact I envy you friends like that. However, billions of people do curse, and good writing should be true to its characters.
I'd bet real money that some of the posters on this thread who are for letting stage productions edit screenplays (weakening copyrights) were posting the opposite sentiment on all of those digital copyright threads a few weeks back (strengthening copyrights.) So should the artist, in whatever media, control his work or not?
I think the artist created it, he should keep as much control as he wants and is legal. Basically I agree with Chris and others who think the copyright holder should have the final say in how their works are presented.
[ August 19, 2003, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:"In publishing, the writer is a god, in theater the writer is king, and in movies the writer is hired help."
Deidre quoting Rita Mae Brown. Exactly. This is why comparisons between movies and plays are difficult. Movies are so expensive, if you want to write a big-budget feature, you play ball: you don't have final say on your script. Or they get someone else. So in a sense, almost all movie screenplay writers have less artistic integrity than other artists. Until the screenwriter or directer gets the Holy Grail: "final script approval" written into his or her contract. This is extremely rare. I must say, I've learned a lot about the theatre on this thread. Thanks to all the theatre people. I don't know much about theatre, movies are my groove. I had no idea licensing plays was so involved.
[ August 19, 2003, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
But the question is still on the table:
Would OSC protest if language he chose not to use were added to his plays (or books, maybe), in order to make them more palatable or "true" for given audiences?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually my question is "Why didn't Card, a much better writer than I am, write such a lousy article?"
Try a different tack. Explain the situation - without the loaded language, as the second Salt Lake Tribune article did - and then ask why Simon and other playwrights don't offer alternative versions of their plays, minus the profanity.
Spend some time talking about language and how cursing is considered "adult," when oftimes it's just a childish way to shock people or an easy way to get a laugh. Talk about Neil Simon and his history of amazing plays, possibly the greatest living playwright, and ask why someone of that skill must go for the easy laugh.
Acknowledge the playwright's control over the work without sounding sarcastic - again, as the second article did - but ask why, if versions of his movies are made for airline and television viewings, why versions of his plays couldn't be made for school and amateur productions where such language is inappropriate. Then there wouldn't be a question of unauthorized changes, and they would be available to a much wider range of productions. Suggest that Simon try it, and then see which version gets licensed more often.
Talk about how pervasive cursing is in entertainment today, and discuss in glowing terms how wonderful it would be to have quality adult entertainment without the obligatory shock words tossed in to make it seem "real."
Such an article, written with the masterful phrasing and pacing that OSC is capable of, would be something that might make Simon and other playwrights think. It offers a suggestion, not a kneejerk condemnation, and a reasonable one at that.
[ August 19, 2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by TimeTim (Member # 2768) on :
What else can you say?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Something would be a healthy start?
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote:Deidre, cuss words are often (usually?) not taken literally. They are usually used for emphasis, humor or to express surprise or anger by people in all the social classes on occasion. When does anybody mean "f___ you!" literally?
Right. Of course.
quote:My objection was to Card's use of the phrase "ludicrously without meaning."
And I still object to your objection because I think he's trying make a point about how expletives lack real meaning so he can make the comparison between the word "f***" used in the play and his hypothetically use of "k***." I really don't think he's saying that "he can't see any reason why a character should cuss."
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I agree with Chris Bridges that OSC could have written a much better, more convincing piece.
I have an alternative hypothesis as to why the article was written the way it was. I will assign as many motives and possibly negative characteristics to OSC as OSC did to Simon.
I think OSC all of a sudden realized that the Rhino Times deadline was approaching and had an "Oh dear, I have to write something for this stupid column again. Why did I get myself into this?" moment.
So, he jotted down, an off the cuff rant that he felt emotionally passionate about, without finding out the facts first, just to have his column filled. OSC admits he procrastinates until his wife tells them they need money (see the sci-fi interview). He probably procrastinates in real life on other stuff too. When he does this, with short articles it is more glaringly obvious because they don't go through the critiquing rigors that he goes through in his novel.
Normally, even when I disagree with OSC, he appears to have put more thought into an opinion than he did into this one. But, OSC is human. Let him be lazy and rant once in a while. We all do. It doesn't really harm us, does it? It just reminds us that we always have to be questioning everything anyone tells us, because they may not have our best interests at heart.
AJ punctuation round up edit (and it is still lousy)
[ August 19, 2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Someone say something. I hate having the last post! I want to know if people think my theory is plausible or if I'm merely off my rocker.
AJ (who is frequently off her rocker anyway)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Banna, I'll bet you're right. It isn't flattering to Uncle Orson, though. Whatever the intent, the essay could have been written better.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Why is being human unflattering?
Frankly, i'm much more willing to explain this essay over this, since i, at least, have been a chronic procrastinator most of my life, rather than writing OSC off as becoming more and more crotchety.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I just mean that it isn't flattering to a writer to tell him he published some seriously sloppy writing.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Deidre, I see your point. Perhaps I did read a lot into one phrase.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I'm not fond of OSC's rants againsts elitists and intellectuals.
But...
I think that the idea that theater scripts should be inviolate is laughable.
Plays are not novels -- confined to the page, dependent only on the words to convey meaning.
Directors and actors and the demographics of the audience should be part of the equation when it comes to staging a play.
I'm not saying that I support fully-sanitized versions of plays. And because of the parameters and condtions of the modern marketplace, I am a supporter of copyright law.
But not allowing changes to a script seems to me to run counter to the entire history and goals of dramatic performance.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes, I'm making an unflattering judgment on OSC in this case My other point is though I am making it on about as little evidence as OSC appeared to have about Simon.
In the few personal interactions I've had with OSC I've liked him as a person very much, and he was willing to listen to a passionate rant I had about some of his characters.
Once you get to know a person regardless of their field, and actually know some of their motives, for the most part, you tend to not include them in the broad "elite" brush. A very few people could retain that "elite" title. The person I always picture in my mind as an "elite" is the guy that does the interviews on Inside the Actors Studio. But, when he interviewed himself for one of their anniversary shows, he showed quite a bit of humanity.
I think we've probably established that OSC doesn't know Simon personally. If OSC did, I think he would have written a very different more compassionate article, even while probably disagreeing. The problem is that that is the standard we are used to him writing to, and he didn't do that this time and we are disappointed.
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
In light of your earlier request for someone to comment, Banna, I'll just say that what you're saying makes all kinds of sense, and that I agree with you completely.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It's worth pointing out that OSC HAS to maintain pretty strict control of his OWN intellectual property. If he's quoted without permission, or someone makes a tribute website with fan fiction or some such, he'd whack 'em.
Think about the Mona Lisa. She's everywhere. They put funny hats on her. They put someone else's lips on her and make her talk on used car commercials.
You know why? She's in the public domain. Leonardo da Vinci is DEAD, and has no estate or survivors controlling his creations (as , say, Rembrandt does). My husband's old company had a color management product called the da Vinci, because they would have had to pay royalties to use the name Rembrandt.
Then they proceeded to make a very suggestive training video ("That's it, now do it faster") designed by Germans (German company) that many American customers found offensive.
It was a debacle. Simon may be unwilling to give an inch because stuff like that can happen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hmm, all of Rembrandts works are definitely in the public domain throughout Europe and America. He's been dead longer than even the heavily extended copyright terms of recent years.
Perhaps they've managed to get the name protected as a trademark.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wasn't there a Rembrandt toothpaste?
Glad to think people still think I make sense sometimes. I don't know if I will have a shred of dignity left once people read my story in the fur thread. Though, I guess sense and dignity are not necessarily the same thing. And I posted that story voluntarily.
I hope I haven't offended OSC in what I've said about him if he's reading this thread.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Kathy Kidd's letter demonstrates she, at least, got what he was really trying to say--that a real artist seeks to communicate through his art, rather than inflict it upon someone.
What letter are you referring to, CJ?
Before the thread dies, let me point out that I don't disagree with Card's belief that giving your audience what they want is often a good idea and can make your work more accessible. I do disagree with the tone of his piece, his assumptions about Simon specifically, and the motives and rationale he ascribes to people who don't change their work in general.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I hope I haven't offended OSC in what I've said about him if he's reading this thread.
Banna, are you kidding? It's possible that you're wrong, but you certainly weren't offensive. You put forth a very plausible scenario, based on information OSC has made public about his work habits. Where could the offensive part of that be?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm paranoid
AJ
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Welcome to the club. Man, you and Dragon in the same day! You know, this is going to involve extra snacks and everything. Are you trying to ruin everything?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmmm. I think I found that article to be mildly offensive. What does he mean by provincial or elistist? I still don't understand it... To me, speaking as someone who wants to be a writer, a person has every right to object to cuts and changes made in their play or story or whatever. I know I would. After all, good art, interesting art should not have to cater to the taste of the masses otherwise we get things that are so bland. But, on the otherhand, the F word is often overused as if a person is saying, ooo, how edgy, using the f word fifty times in a row. Am I alone in thinking the term "f word" is really funny? Anyway, I can see it from both sides but to me it's unfair to call someone so many names just for not wanting their play cut. If they don't like the language they out to use some other play or write one of their own.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Syn, you and Morbo have very similar posting styles.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
We do? How?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I shall quote Tristan from page three of Ryan Hart's thread The New Dictators.
quote: Uhm, since we are talking about posting styles, may I lodge a complaint with you, Morbo? Your habit of ending most sentences with a line break makes your posts flow weirdly and is, to me, stylistically difficult to read. If I slow down it doesn't bother me much, but I usually scan the threads very quickly and when, if in a hurry, I get to a post that is formatted out of the norm, I tend to skip it. I don't know if I speak for more people than myself, but if you wish to increase the chances of your posts being fully read and appreciated by people of my sensitivities, you might perhaps consider changing to normal paragraphs.
I'm rather on the random side myself... I still wish people would stop saying stuff like "cultural elite" and "that's too PC" because for some reason I can't figure out it drives me loony.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Somehow I don't think that Mr. Simon is thinking, "Aha! I've got those backward middle-Americans now!" Give me a break.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Syn, line break=line feed=hitting return or enter. I tend to hit enter after many sentences, instead of only to start a new paragraph. At least in your 11:25 pm post, you do to. Tristan (and others, I suppose) think it chops up the flow of my posts when read.
I'll try to change, but it's a tough habit to break. I had to delete about 3 <enter>s just in this short post, and I was thinking about it!
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
Morbo, the key is to replace the line feeds with the dreaded "3 dots" (aka ...). I do it all the time... And people don't call me on it
A word to the wise... Or maybe just the wizened.
-Bok
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do that too...
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
At the risk of reviving the whole culture war debate, I'm tossing this article, Is It Curtains for Theatre?, into the fray. In it, theatre critic Toby Young raises a lot of issues that come up in OSC's invective:
quote:So what kinds of plays are likely to appeal to my peer group? Within the theatrical community, the general consensus is that what’s needed is a John Osborne or an Arnold Wesker, an Angry Young Man who’s going to light a fire under the Establishment. Ask any broadsheet critic and they’ll tell you that the West End has become too ‘safe’ and ‘middle-class’, much like it was in the 1950s…
Much the same thinking led to the Royal Court backing a new, provocative school of writers in the 1990s led by Sarah Kane. Her play Blasted managed to outrage Middle England by including scenes in which a man is raped, has his eyes plucked out and then eats a dead baby. Kane’s succès de scandale gave rise to a new movement called ‘in-yer-face’ theatre, but it quickly became apparent that, stripped of its obscene content, it contained little that was new or exciting. Today, too many young playwrights think that the only criterion of success is whether a leader appears in the Daily Mail condemning their work as an affront to public decency.
Rather than yet another attempt to épater le bourgeois, what’s needed is a counter-revolution, a new respect for the traditional virtues of the well-made play. Admittedly, I’ve been working as a critic for only a year, but the new plays that I’ve enjoyed the most have been the ones that combine a fairly highbrow intellectual content with a lowbrow sense of just how to keep an audience entertained…[Their authors] realise that if you want to take an audience into new territory it’s sensible to re-use some of the old guy-ropes.
(I'm stepping out for a bit, but I'll respond to any thoughts people might have on the article when I get back.)
Edited to add: the link should work now
[ August 21, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wow, I didn't realize there had been more posts.
CJ, I'm not sure what you were talking about when you said Kidd 'got it'? Her letter had virtually nothing to do with Card's letter that I could tell beyond the kind of tangential fact that they were irritated by a performer/artist. What does her letter say about an artist in relation to the standards of the community? Maybe the rest of her audience really got into the Peter, Paul and Mary act....
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Great link, Deirdre. Here is a quote that I think epitomizes the "intellectual elite" OSC so despises:
quote: The rot began with Samuel Beckett. He, more than any other playwright, was responsible for the idea that in order to be considered ‘art’, a play has to be difficult and inaccessible. Never mind that Shakespeare constantly threw in bits of business designed to appeal to the groundlings, or that Ibsen and Chekhov knew everything there is to know about keeping an audience on its toes, Beckett was applauded for refusing to compromise, for being resolutely non-commercial. After Beckett, any concession to the popular audience was regarded as ‘selling out’
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While I don't necessarily disagree that we began to see such things most dramatically with Beckett, a few observations.
First, I'd put the beginning of the change more with Camus, who won the Nobel Prize for Lit before Beckett was popular. His writing isn't much closer to traditional writings, but the indicators are pretty clear.
Second, Beckett never intended even his strangest plays to redefine art. Beckett was a writer convinced he would live out his life in obscurity (until proven otherwise) because he didn't think his work would or even could fit in with mainstream art. He wrote what he felt he had to write.
Third, while Beckett's writing appears "difficult and inaccessible", it is not. In fact, one of the remarkable things about it is that while it defies traditional analysis (and is the nightmare of most english lit majors), it is incredibly enjoyable to experience. Audiences can go see Beckett plays and be baffled over what exactly they are about but also be greatly moved. This is not inaccessibility, but direct accessibility, a bypassing of the social filters that are on most other works. This is not to say that bypassing social filters is the right way, and that otherwise is wrong, but that Beckett did things one way, and others do things their ways. It is not at all uncommon for me to read a Beckett short story out loud to someone, and for them to be incredibly moved by it, being made happy and sad, yet having little idea what goes on in the story.
So while Beckett may have been the greatest pioneer of the movement to obfuscate meaning in performances, I would not consider him part of the movement.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Thanks, Jacare. I’m glad you pulled out that bit about Beckett, since the article’s critique of Beckett’s influence was one of the main things that endeared it to my heart. I would have quoted it myself, only I didn’t want fugu to think I was baiting him again.
I also liked the next paragraph:
quote:Beckett’s pernicious influence on postwar British drama was compounded by the ideas of Bertolt Brecht. Brecht was an unashamed Stalinist who harboured a puritanical contempt for the idea that people might actually enjoy themselves at the theatre. In his communist vision of the future, theatres were to be the indoctrination centres where the workers received instruction on how to become better citizens. To this end, he railed against such ‘capitalist’ conventions as sympathetic characters, colourful sets, incidental music, atmospheric lighting ...anything, in fact, that threatened to keep theatre-goers entertained. The object of a good production, he believed, was to ‘alienate’ the audience, to unsettle them, to shake them out of their complacency.
Never mind that I love Brecht. I still can’t deny that he is largely responsible for the contemporary notion that good theater should be offensive and medicinal.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Fugu, I can't find anything I disagree with in your last post.
So...why don't you tell us a little what you mean by "social filters"?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You know, I think I've seen a 'Is this the end of theater? piece for about the last million years.
As to the article, you can see just what it's talking about in 'Cats' and 'Starlight Express'. Yep. I mean, what's 'The Producers' about? Who knows? I don't. :/
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
edited to delete snotty dismissive comment
[ August 25, 2003, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: You know, I think I've seen a 'Is this the end of theater? piece for about the last million years.
Wow. I'm only twenty-five. I must seem really young to you.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm actually making a serious point. You have all these articles about the obscurity of theater to the common joe, yet there's one vital ingredient missing from both Orson's article and that dude you just posted. What could it be? Perhaps actual theater showings to actually, you know, provide evidence?
So, let's take a look at these awful, elitist plays that OSC is complaining about.
quote: "Polish Joke," a comedy by David Ives, kicks off the third season of the Deep Dish Theater Company of Chapel Hill. The play is the story of Jan Sadlowski, a Polish-American man who has spent his life trying to deny his ethnic background. In a series of comic sketches, he seeks to remake himself, changing everything from his name to his national origin.
Woah! Totally anti-family!
quote: Raleigh Little Theatre's season continues today with the opening of the drama "Children of a Lesser God," the story of the relationship between a young, deaf woman and her idealistic, hearing teacher.
Dear God! That just drips intellectual haughtiness from every pore.! :/
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Uh, did you see the movie? (Children of a Lesser God)
::in best Inigo Montoya voice::
I don't think that play is about what you think it is about.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was intentionally a bit vague on that topic (first rule of paper writing in the real world: if you can't define something well, don't; invent a nifty sounding term), but I'll try to elaborate a bit.
First, a bit of a structure. Plays in some way involve emotion. I'd even go so far as to say that there is no art that does not at least attempt to involve emotion in its experience in a major way, and no good art that does not.
I am not saying that emotion is the most important thing to the analysis of art, or the only important thing, but it is an important thing, but as is customary I shall choose a mode, or vector, of analysis, and it shall be emotional analysis.
When viewing a play as a carrier/transmitter/creator of emotion (henceforth, an emotive work), it is important to ask what internal structures (to the play) facilitate this action, and what manner they do it in.
Since Shakespears is a ready reference point, consider his plays. In particular, consider how he portrays certain insults. For instance, at the beginning of Romeo and Juliet (and in several other places in various plays) he has one character bite his nails at others. This is an insult in the play, and also in the society of Shakespeare's time.
These are two very different roles. While it may be less clearly understood by the reader/viewer that it is an insult if they lack the societal background, in the play it will nevertheless still be an insult. However, to the modern person it will not be an insult when viewed personally.
This is still not what I would call a societal filter; this is a societal convention, a common reference point borrowed from a common experience (theoretically). Beckett uses such things regularly, as well (though perhaps less often).
A societal filter is the implicit assumption that (some system of) the societal conventions in a piece are meaningfully representative of human emotional experience.
some notes on and ramifications of this concept:
There is nothing wrong with this assumption. In fact, it will generally be a correct assumption, by direct example (notable possible exceptions lie in the area of extreme speculative fiction).
Societal filters may be (and often are) unintentional. Shakespeare loved writing about Italian people, but for some reason they always seem to act like English (and sometimes French) people.
The boundaries of societal filters are not well defined. Many possible rearrangements and combinations may be useful for the analysis of a given piece.
As to why there are no societal filters in Beckett, it is because he never assumes the importance of any societal conventions. If he considers one important, he tries to explain its important. If he includes one but not explain it, it does not hold importance (to his story).
This can be seen reflected in numerous stories of Beckett's. For instance, one story is all about the importance of supporting someone, and of being independent. It tries to expose that importance explicitly, without societal reference (indeed, the world is so deconstructed that there are no other people in it).
Or in Beckett's views on love: he repeatedly uses conventional modes of love, then breaks them down (sometimes by building them up!) to get to the root of the mode's importance (love), rather than relying on assumptions surrounding the mode.
I'm such a lit geek.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kayla, I'm not sure what you're saying...
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Storm, the article I linked did give examples. One of them, the Sarah Kane play, was even mentioned in the section I quoted.
No one is saying that every play produced is offensive and incomprehensible. But in my experience there is a tendency among theater people (i.e., people who work in, teach, or write about theater) to take a play less seriously if it’s easy to follow or has bourgeois moral assumptions.
And, sure, "The Death of [whatever]" articles are pretty easy to come by, mostly because it's a good way to get people's attention so the author can get into what he really wants to talk about. That doesn't mean they say nothing new or worthwhile.
[ August 21, 2003, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Deirdre ]
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
quote: As to why there are no societal filters in Beckett, it is because he never assumes the importance of any societal conventions.
Ah hah! Two absolute statements! I'm sure I can find some counterexamples to refute them.
Later. When I'm not supposed to be doing laundry.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Except they're only absolutes when viewed incorrectly, without the societal filters . After running through the appropriate hatrack and lit analysis filters we get their true meaning:
"Beckett doesn't do that much".
Actually, I stand by their absolutism, but only with regards to Beckett's later works.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Fair enough. Define "later works," you're on.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If I did that, I wouldn't be a lit major, now would I . We'll start with the last five things he published (not sure what those are off the top of my head), and I may name an earlier cutoff later.
*marshals Beckett's works around him to look through*
As a side note, while my cutoff may seem arbitrary (it is, largely), and any adjustment to it will almost certainly be dependent upon an observation of the very phenomenon I allege is characteristic of his later works, this is because my observation is an attempt at a classificatory observation.
So long as my observation is classificatorily useful, that is, delineates a collection of Beckett's works in an analytically useful way in line with the parameters I have asserted for the boundaries (that is, at the end of his career), my observation is successful.
Posted by Deirdre (Member # 4200) on :
Arbitrary is fine, though I'll admit I was hoping for a slightly broader range of stuff to work with . For now, any boundaries are useful, so long as they define the limits of the debate.
Disjecta: Miscellaneous Writings and a Dramatic Fragment (1983)
Catastrophe (1984) What Where (1984)
Quad (1984)
Stirrings Still (1988)
Since I'm way more familiar with his drama, I'll probably focus on Catastrophe and What Where, his last two plays. They both involve depictions of authority--some sort of political dictator in one and a director of a play in the other.
I did see them on Beckett on Film, which I recommend, btw, but I don't have the scripts on hand. So I guess I've got some marshalling of my own to do...
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It drives me so crazy when he talks that way. I'd like to sit him down for a cup of tea or milkshakes and really pick his brain for hours.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
This I did not know!!! What's this sonnet called?![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) but Aaron Sorkin had quite the rep for awhile about not not allowing the actors to change so much as a "a" or "the" in a script. I wonder when he lightened up about that. Maybe after editing Shindler's list and realizing that if Steven Speilburg was cool enough to understand that sometimes, things need to be changed a bit. . .? Nah. . .it's more likely that it was when he was busted for drugs and then the drug supply stopped. I hear that has a way of humbling people sometimes. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Whatever the intent, the essay could have been written better.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)