Urinetown Casting (and then a rant, lol)

[CJWesselman]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 4:49pm

I have a friend who was recently cast in a production of Urinetown and when he told me who he was (Old Man Strong) I congratulated him and started talking to him about what he'll be doing in the show and so forth. I brought up 'Snuff That Girl' and the role of Hot Blades Harry (traditionally played by the same actor,) but then he stopped me and informed me he wouldn't be playing that role in this production. Apparently, somewhat due to all the recent legal actions involving productions of the show cookie cutting the sets and choreography, the director of this production decided to double cast the show as one of many moves to try and make the show very different than anyone's seen so far. So, basically, instead of having one moderate sized ensemble playing both the poor people and the extra cops/Caldwell's crew you have two different tracks of ensemble members taking them on. This in itself made me, well, not mad...but made me think a lot and ask a lot of questions.

All legalities aside, are there truly some shows that nailed it the first time around and 'shouldn't be ****ed with,' so to speak? Lots of productions of A Chorus Line feature some form of the original staging and choreo (including a production done by this same place just a year ago) and it seems just because that's part of what ACL is. Do some shows just work best with original intentions in mind? And if this is so, where do you draw the line ethically about "cookie cutting" a show? While it may save time designing the show, the meat and bones of learning the show and all the hard work in getting it up and running is still there. And how much does time have to do with it? Different takes on Sweeney Todd weren't as widely accepted within the first 10, 15 years of it's original production but the current revival thrived on it's own with a totally different take on the show. I'm not doubting that there are different ways to do any show, but the question in this case is more about Urinetown specifically.

Is it, in the integrity of the show, okay to do it as close to the original without violating copyright laws?

Is it too soon to be taking wild thematic stabs at a show that's still so young and fresh in people's minds?

Does a move like double casting the ensemble roles ruin anything in the show or for those actors taking cuts in stage time and experience playing multiple roles?

Any other thoughts?

Just curious. lol. Thanks!

[Jon]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 8:37pm

Ummm... maybe it was also an attempt to cast more people in the show?

You can do the show with a cast of 100 if you want.

I've never seen script for a musical that says "the roles of ___ and ___ MUST be played by the same actor" or "you are FORBIDDEN to have any actor play more than one role".

Even on Broadway in INTO THE WOODS, they changed the doubling of The Narator and The Mysterious Man in the original when Dick Cavett took over as Narrator.

[Horton]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 9:13pm

that is interesting about ITW

I mean sometimes its necessary (ie City of Angles)
But i think it was just done that way on Broadway for financial reasons, so I dont see any harm.

[eb412]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 10:25pm

wow thats a great question. it is weird that the director would be nervous about doing the same casting because many scripts tell you how the original casting was done to help...I think this question of cookie cutter shows is a very interesting issue and one that will probably never be resolved. I love to see a show recreated, but yes shows have distinct qualities other than its music and book. Isn't it underestimating the choreography to say that it isn't an essential and distinct quality of the show? Just because it was not written down does not mean it is not part of the show...Your example of a chorus line was perfect and there are many other shows to go along with it...i encourage companies to redo choreography and try to make it there own (especially if the original was too hard or too easy) but at the same time...do you want to rip off your audiences thinking they are seeing one thing and giving them another? Sets and costumes also add to show and give its distinct look. Should Annie not wear a curly red wig and red dress because it will be copying the original? I guess what I am saying is that there other components other than book and score that make up the show. It seems unfair though for choreographers, designers, etc though to have their work used if they do not want it to be used. Maybe people should have to pay royalties to use people's original choreography or design. I suppose it would be hard to inforce but people do shows illegally all the time because u can easily find a script and kareoke or sheet music. Shows should give credit to choreographers and designers and give them money when their work is used...it seems only fair to both parties. People get to do the show the way they want to, and people are acknowledged and rewarded for their work.

[timote316]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 10:33pm

Having Old Man Strong and Hot Blades Harry played by the same actor doesn't really add anything artistically to the piece, so it really makes no difference either way.

[CJWesselman]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 2:02am

eb412, thanks for putting it pretty much like I wanted. lol. it's very much an idea of holding the choreo/costumes/etc in just as high regard as the book and music, which with a show like Urinetown I do.

Thanks also to everyone else who's posted too....I realize how, well, not foolish, but how I didn't think a few of those things through. obviously, sorry, another reason for the expansion in casting is to give more people a chance to be in a show. i should have mentioned that point. but I guess that creates a whole other issue. sure, you could do it with 100 people, but surely that would hurt it (as I feel it does with merely 10 more people.)

Oh well. When it all boils down, it really becomes more an idea of opinion and taste than fact. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'd love to see a production of Urinetown done differently. I'm not against it, either. But it's a show that's very near and dear to me and I'm just being defensive. Thanks for the imput so far, everyone!

[benjamin_barker]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 4:01am

I think that the fear of cookie-cutting is kinda ridiculous! I mean, obviously it's exciting to see a different revival (ala Doyle's Sweeney Todd), but - as someone upthread posted with regard to Annie - when is it ridiculous?

Is it crazy to stage the rumble in West Side Story similarly to the original choreography? Is it soon going to be wrong to have waltzes in A Little Night Music or have a turntable in Les Miz?

Certainly, I would love to see originality in as many revivals/productions of musicals as possible... but in one respect, the musical in its complete state IS the artform: not just the libretto, but the staging, choreography, design etc. And sure, we can't necessarily recreate that magic, but to say that only the libretto is grounds for a revival is ridiculous, I feel!

[ckeaton]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:38am

I believe I know what production we're discussing...

In the case of this production, there isn't a "fear" of cookie-cutting. Early on, and prior to casting, (the rumor is that) there was specific notice given from MTI (publishing house Music Theatre International who leases the rights to the show) that there are lawsuits being considered for intellectual property violations in regards to other productions. So, it isn't just a creative decision to be different... It was in essence demanded.

We can be sure that the show isn't being cast that way to give more actors the opportunity to act. This isn't community theatre, and with the current state of arts funding, budgets are tight. Casting with more actors is more painful than casting tracks with multiple roles, I'm sure. And as a side note, from the names I've heard, the cast is going to be fabulous... some great Broadway names.

The theatre in question is a leading, professional AEA/SSDC house, so there's no fear that the integrity of the production will be sacrificed. Personally, I can't wait to see what our director does with the show. I can guarantee that it will be a wonderful interpretation of the material.

With regards to the theatre's production of 'A Chorus Line', Danny Herman was brought in to choreograph the show based on his involvement the original production, and Bob Avian recieved a credit on the title page and posters for original choreography, etc. This presumably because the choreography in 'A Chorus Line' is part and parcel to the legend that it is. It just DEMANDS high kicks and top hats.

'Urinetown' on the other hand doesn't require a rolling stairway to make it 'Urinetown'. It is PURE theatre, a winking tribute to the art form that we all love. I think we should look forward to seeing it in any form, and I highly suggest you see any production you can.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:46am

>> Apparently, somewhat due to all the recent legal actions involving productions of the show cookie cutting the sets and choreography, the director of this production decided to double cast the show as one of many moves to try and make the show very different than anyone's seen so far.

That sounds like a directorial decision more than anything else, TTTT. I know DisneyCo goes absolutely ballistic and even has a clause in all BTAB contracts specifically forbids anything that comes close to looking like either the movie or the stage play, but it's all but unenforcable now, given the number of productions out there. About the best they can do is spot check and then take whatever legal action they feel is necessary as a preventative.

But to tell a theatre they CANT double-cast a role? No licensing house would do that: some theatre companies are in such dire financial straits that they HAVE to be able to double cast if they're going to take on a production of any size.

No, this just sounds like the director getting paranoid for no reason.

[Jon]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:52am

You can't use WEST SIDE STORY as an example. A complete choreography guide is provided and you are EXPECTED to stage the Rumble the same way. Even if you don't use the original choreography, you are still required to put "Originally directed and choreographed by Jerome Robbins" in the program.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 11:06am

Not for "no reason" SeanMartin. Because someone at MTI warned. You can bet that someone will be taking a look-see.

[teddyp2]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 11:18am

Totally agree...MTI will not care, but the hack B'way team that stole the show from the fringe team will be there. You can pretty much bet if they sh*t on thier own B'way cast member they will sh*t on everyone else.

[Jon]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 11:22am

Let's get our terminology straight:

Having one actor play two roles = "doubling" (as in Old Man Strong/Hot Blades Harry)

Having two actors alternate in the same role on different nights = "double casting" (as in the children in Les Miz)

Having two actors each play a different role (even though on Broadway one actor played both roles) = something perfectly fine for which there is no name. There is nothing wrong with NOT having the same actor play Twimble and Womper in HOW TO SUCCEED... or the same actor play Mr. Wilson and Pawnee Bill in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN. In professional theatre, it would be ridiculous to hire two different actors. In c0ommunity or school productions, you want to involve as many talented performers as you can.
Updated On: 1/13/07 at 11:22 AM