tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8251043500092242623.post5032140224930934777..comments2024-03-25T03:31:09.538-04:00Comments on markrothmansblog: Report Card---"The Front Page".mark rothmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06577361966051927102noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8251043500092242623.post-26830131681791361742016-11-08T23:56:34.357-05:002016-11-08T23:56:34.357-05:00I still think that we were entitled to know that N...I still think that we were entitled to know that Nathan Lane doesn't show up until the one-hour and forty five minute mark.mark rothmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06577361966051927102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8251043500092242623.post-15966723691505562552016-11-08T23:38:50.291-05:002016-11-08T23:38:50.291-05:00What follows is mainly guesswork:
From your post,...What follows is mainly guesswork:<br /><br />From your post, I gather that you were unaware that the original play was - is - two and a half hours long.<br />You know the movie versions, which are 1:43 (1931), 0:92 (1941), and 1:45 (1974).<br />I looked all this up:<br />Hecht and MacArthur had nothing to do with any of the movies, so any cutting of the text was done by the screenwriters (Charles Lederer in '31 and '41, Diamond and Wilder in '74).<br />On page three of the Samuel French edition of the Hecht-MacArthur play, there's a boxed notice regarding performance rights. <br />Two of the four notices read thusly:<br /><br /> - "No one shall make any changes in this play for purposes of production."<br /><br /> - (Abridged)<br /> " ... Both amateurs and professionals considering a production are strongly (italicized) advised in their own interests to apply to Samuel French, Inc., for written permission ..."<br /><br />My civilian interpretation of this is that when the producers of the current "Front Page" decided to go with this production, they were bound by these notices.<br />If the producers wanted to use another script, such as one of the screenplays, they would be constrained from doing so by the first quoted notice - they would have to use the 2:30 original, or no go.<br />Come to think of it, if they wanted to use one of the screenplays instead of the stage play, that would have involved another rights negotiation with the owners of the movies (who probably paid the play's owners handsomely for the privilege of making those changes) and the estates of the screenwriters, over and above those of the people involved with the original play and its production.<br /><br />I suppose that the producers should have informed the customers that they were going to get a 1928 stage play in its original form, and not just a staging of one of the movies - not that would have done much good, given that millennials most likely don't know much about the history of anything.<br /><br />Would I pay $200 to see this?<br />Probably not, but that's mainly because I'm a retiree on a fixed income.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05527404061764217504noreply@blogger.com