| re: SO TRUE: not all for the better | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 04:27 pm EST 11/14/24 | |
| In reply to: re: SO TRUE: not all for the better - EvFoDr 03:47 pm EST 11/14/24 | |
|
|
|
| The first sentence was referring to, generally, the heirs to creative people, who are tasked with making decisions regarding to the creative work after the death of the artist. Then I went on specifically to CABARET. Kander is the only original creative person on CABARET who is still alive, right? I imagine that he does have a say in alterations to the work, but probably no more so than whomever is in charge of the Ebb and Masteroff estates. Maybe there's an agreement in place that says that heirs defer to whomever is still alive at any given time. I have no idea. But the greater point I was trying to make is that the original creators were very liberal in allowing cuts and alterations to CABARET starting with the film and carrying through to the 1987 revival, the 1998 revival, and now the current revival. I imagine that that will continue through revivals in future, unless Kander, Ebb, and Masteroff have left/intend to leave detailed instructions on what will and will not be allowed. When I wrote that CABARET had never been presented on Broadway the same way twice, I had actually forgotten that the Mendes production came back for a year or so. It ran so long originally that somehow my brain just ran it all together. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: SO TRUE: not all for the better - EvFoDr 03:47 pm EST 11/14/24 |
| Next: | re: SO TRUE: not all for the better - Erik_Haagensen 04:00 pm EST 11/14/24 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.012539 seconds.