I was reading the Week in Review on Playbill, and Robert Simonson (his usual bitchy self) took the Broadway production of "After Miss Julie" to task because Patrick Marber was credited as the author. Now, "AMJ" is an adaptation of "Miss Julie" which was written by August Strindberg. Apparently, that's acknowledged, but the bigger name on the poster is Marber's. Simonson also mentioned a production of "Creditors" currently playing where Doug Wright is given authorial credit over Ibsen.
The question seems to be this: At what point does an adaptation become different enough to be considered a completely new play? Or at least new enough to merit the adapter getting more credit than the original playwright?
First, I think you have to consider that there are very few "new" plots. So many plays are riffs on other works. Nobody would say that Tracy Letts should give Eugene O'Neill credit for "August: Osage County." It's a work that's influenced by other works, but not BASED on them.
While we're on Eugene O'Neill, he's given total credit for "Mourning Becomes Electra" even though it's based on the Oresteia. It's so loosely based on it, however, that it doesn't seem unfair for Mr. O'Neill to take most of the credit--plus, you know, he's Eugene O'Neill. So there's that.
That being said, "AMJ" and "Creditors" are both direct adaptations. They even use the titles. It's also important to mention that they're not translations. When dealing with foreign playwrights, a lot of the time the translator (Stoppard, Hampton) can get a good chunk of credit, but only because most of the time the play lives or dies on the translation.
Even then, however, a Chekhov play is a Chekhov play. People love Christopher Hampton's translations of Yasmin Reza's plays, but at the end of the day, Reza still gets all the credit.
Then again, she's alive--Ibsen and Strindberg aren't.
I'd have to say that if you're going to take a title and most of the plot of the play, you have to let the original playwright have top billing.
Simonson makes a good point. How would Patrick Marber like it if a hundred years from now somebody loosely adapted "Closer" and put Marber's name on the bottom of the playbill.
...Hm, what age will I be in a hundred years?
The question seems to be this: At what point does an adaptation become different enough to be considered a completely new play? Or at least new enough to merit the adapter getting more credit than the original playwright?
First, I think you have to consider that there are very few "new" plots. So many plays are riffs on other works. Nobody would say that Tracy Letts should give Eugene O'Neill credit for "August: Osage County." It's a work that's influenced by other works, but not BASED on them.
While we're on Eugene O'Neill, he's given total credit for "Mourning Becomes Electra" even though it's based on the Oresteia. It's so loosely based on it, however, that it doesn't seem unfair for Mr. O'Neill to take most of the credit--plus, you know, he's Eugene O'Neill. So there's that.
That being said, "AMJ" and "Creditors" are both direct adaptations. They even use the titles. It's also important to mention that they're not translations. When dealing with foreign playwrights, a lot of the time the translator (Stoppard, Hampton) can get a good chunk of credit, but only because most of the time the play lives or dies on the translation.
Even then, however, a Chekhov play is a Chekhov play. People love Christopher Hampton's translations of Yasmin Reza's plays, but at the end of the day, Reza still gets all the credit.
Then again, she's alive--Ibsen and Strindberg aren't.
I'd have to say that if you're going to take a title and most of the plot of the play, you have to let the original playwright have top billing.
Simonson makes a good point. How would Patrick Marber like it if a hundred years from now somebody loosely adapted "Closer" and put Marber's name on the bottom of the playbill.
...Hm, what age will I be in a hundred years?
Comments
Post a Comment