an Email I received
Dear Juilliard Mafia,
We are writing to warn you about a development at the
O'Neill Playwrights Festival, a situation so serious
that we can no longer recommend that you send your
scripts there, and hope to discourage you from
mentoring or assisting them in any way. The problem
is this - from now on, the O'Neill Board is determined
to demand a percentage of the playwright's subsidiary
income IN PERPETUITY from any play accepted for
presentation at the O'Neill. This means that for four
days of rehearsal, and a presentation with actors
using scripts, you will owe them a permanent
percentage of your income from that play. This is so
patently unfair, and so clearly against their own
mission statement, that we can only assume they have
lost their minds, or perhaps decided to think of
themselves as commercial producers instead of the
generous, helpful organization they used to be,
devoted to playwrights and their work.
They tried to demand this participation from two
writers this summer, but were thwarted by efforts by
the Dramatists Guild, and the agent for two of the
writers, John Buzzetti. Both writers said they would
pull their work if this provision was attached and the
O'Neill backed down, saying that since no warning was
given, it wasn't fair to ask for the percentage. But
last month they announced they would be demanding the
percentage from the writers whose work was accepted
this summer.
We urge you not to submit your scripts to the O'Neill.
We urge you to talk to your agents about this, and
not participate in any way. We are afraid this is the
beginning of the end for an institution we have all
admired and cherished. This is part of a disturbing
trend in "development" organizations, where
playwrights are increasingly expected to pay for
their productions, in spite of the fact that
those organizations raise money and get grants
claiming that they exist to help playwrights. More
and more, it's looking like those organizations exist
to support themselves, not their writers. In this
regard, beware of any contest that charges you more
than $15 to apply, because that's about what readers
are being paid these days.
Over and over again in class, we urged you to get over
feeling grateful, and defend yourself in situations
where you sense you are being taken advantage of. So
this is just us saying it again. Do not give your
work away, and do not pay somebody to produce it, and
do not grant rights that are excessive. Do not
encumber your work with percentages to people who
think they deserve them just because they recognized
you were good.
Please pass this information along to anyone you think
could use it. The only way to impress on the O'Neill
the insanity of what they are doing, is to deny them
the plays that they need. Many of us have tried
talking to them, and they are not listening. So we
are taking this step, and encouraging all writing
teachers in America to contact their students in the
same way.
All our best,
Chris Durang and Marsha Norman


6 Comments:
Wow.
Don't know what's crazier - what the O'Neill is doing, the tone of the letter or that it was written by Durang and Norman.
Wow.
Thanks for posting this. I got the email as well. I'm *so glad* I got it before I sent my work out.
O'Neill had a problem back in 2003/2004, which I covered for my theater column. I don't know what the deal is with them. Maybe somebody over there thinks they should get a raise.
Seriously, $35 submission fee to read my work? Sheesh.
1. That's insane.
2. O'Neill readers don't get paid anything, so the idea that your submission fee goes to readers at all is, well, wrong. Sadly.
3. While, in terms of the O'Neill, I think the letter's right, it isn't always correct to say that development should garner no rewards. I know a dramaturg who's been developing a musical, with the writers and a director, for a year and a half. When it gets a life, he gets nothing. And yet it never would have been in a position to be produced with out his (sizeable) input. Of course, you can't give everyone a piece of the pie, and this isn't the same situation as an institution giving four days and two readings, but it's just another side of the issue. A very fuzzy, tricky issue that, for purposes of strengthening the argument against the O'Neill's move, might have been oversimplified by the letter.
Hey Adam,
Theaterboy is currently reporting on this one and trying to get to the bottom of it...
http://theaterboy.typepad.com/theaterboy/2006/10/drama_at_the_on.html
The info he is getting is a tad different.
I've been told by Wendy Goldberg that this is not true - that this was briefly on the table in May 2006 but then quickly pulled. Whether one believes that version of events - or that it was pulled in response to this outcry - it's no long the policy at the O'Neill.
The person in charge of fundraising at the O'Neill is incompetent and should be fired. While the larger probelm is a dearth of arts funding, she is not up to the task, and I think that the blame for these perennial large-scale embarrassments to the OPC can be largely be laid at her feet.
Jaime brings up an important point. are freelance dramaturgs expected to work for free? Or would they get sub rights from the playwright. I think if the playwright brings in this person to help, the playwright has some obligation. If they belong to a theatre, then they are perhaps salaried. It's hard to say. I know there are director and companies that want sub rights. If there was only more money for everyone perhaps this would be less of a concern.
Post a Comment
<< Home