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."
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"?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
white-bread: Unextraordinary, typical, common, dull. Example: After his acting career ended, he went back to his white-bread existence in Davenport.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
The man should be willing for a performance of his work to be edited for vulgarity. Why not, as long as the audience knows?
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would submit, all of those reasons amount to disdain of the objecting audience. (on some level)
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Okay, y'all went berzerk there with posts while I was typing. That post isn't meant for anyone in particular.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 . *
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but in Quebec, f*** really ISN'T foul language. It's just an everyday slang word, meaning "interact," right?
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
![[Smile]](smile.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)
