Playwright Life Update Continued

In the previous update, I mentioned that I was still waiting for word from Samuel French regarding their licensing of Pygmalion for productions.  Their webpage gave no insight into exactly what they were licensing, so it appeared in some way they were attempting to be the sole licensor for all productions of Pygmalion.  This did not seem right as the original text of Pygmalion is in the public domain.  The original play by Shaw was published in 1913 and copyrighted in the United States in 1916.  As a general rule, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain (with very few exceptions).  Accordingly, I needed to know exactly what Samuel French was claiming.

I received their final confirmation late last week.  From their reply, they acknowledge the original text of Pygmalion is "no longer under copyright and may be performed without submitting a request" through their site.  They did caution that some versions of the text are still under copyright as they have additional material provided by Shaw (which I was aware of).

Further, I noticed yesterday that they have removed Pygmalion: A Romance in Five Acts by Shaw as a title which you could request a license from their site.  They still sell the script, but are no longer claiming a license in the work.  That is a swifter action than I expected and am grateful to see that it has been changed.

This removes the last question mark in front of Thou Fair Eliza.  With UIL approval and the confirmation that Samuel French has no claim, the stage is set, pardon the pun, for the upcoming production.  Very exciting.

Now all that remains is the long waiting game for the copyright approval.  Will keep you posted.

Playwright Life Updates

Wanted to pass along a couple of brief updates on the playwright process, with developments that have occurred regarding the first script.

First, a couple of weeks ago, Jamie completed the process of cutting Thou Fair Eliza into a one-act version and submitted the cutting to the University Interscholastic League for approval for use in this years One Act Play competition.  Thursday, September 20, 2018, Jamie received approval for the play.  This is a big step, particularly for an unpublished play.  Thankfully, she can proceed forward and does not have to select a new play.  It also means I'm considering going forward with a copyright on the one-act version, to have a preferred cutting protected (useful in Texas, particularly).

Secondly, we had noticed that Samuel French was licensing Pygmalion: A Romance in Five Acts by George Bernard Shaw, even though it did not have its own script, but was rather sending customers to a Penguin Books version.  Odd for the script issue and odd to have a license on a script with the base text in the public domain, unless they are licensing a specific revision later copyrighted.  I've been in contact with Samuel French, but am still waiting on an explanation of what their license purports to cover, specifically.  Their answer could propose a problem if they are claiming everything (improperly, though I might add).

Interesting developments all and the copyright application is still working its way through the system.  It's a waiting game, and I've never been too good at waiting patiently, virtue it may be.

I'll pass along more as I know it.

Public Domain

I've been spending a lot of time contemplating the public domain.  The public domain refers to that body of literature, of art, of music, of film, of any creative work where no intellectual property claim can be asserted.  The works we have determined belong to everyone.  Generally, these are older works, the classics.  Ones where the author or creator has been dead for a very long time.  Songs like Amazing Grace.  Plays by Shakespeare, Moliere, Oscar Wilde.  For other works, failures to renew older copyrights often led to works ending up in the public domain earlier than their creation would have required.  Like the original Night of the Living Dead or the Corman Little Shop of Horrors film.

Generally, the public domain is a useful tool for new artists.  It allows them to pull from familiar works to create new derivative works.  All of the songs that have been set to Amazing Grace or the various adaptations of the song.  A lot of modern Christian music benefits from the ability to freely take old hymns and adapt them in new ways.  Further, sometimes you get new and unexpected sequels, like Death Comes to Pemberley by P.D. James, a 2011 sequel to Pride & Prejudice.  Because Pride & Prejudice was in the public domain, James was able to use all the existing characters and settings created by Jane Austen to create a new work.  The public domain likewise enabled Seth Grahame-Smith to take the original text of Pride & Prejudice, remove select portions, insert a few new ones and create Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

I've been thinking about it a lot, as the first two plays that I've been working on make heavy use of public domain material, or at least material that is hopefully in the public domain. Thou Fair Eliza as an adaptation of Pygmalion leans heavily on the original 1913 script being in the public domain.  This enabled me to use a similar technique to Seth Grahame-Smith, condensing the existing material and removing certain characters altogether, while inserting new bridge scenes and expanding on others. Further, it allowed me to include portions of Ta-Ra-Ra Boom-De-Ay and the Robert Burns poem Thou Fair Eliza within the script.  There is a little fuzziness on the issue due to later revisions of the play by Shaw that were copyrighted as well.   Regardless, all works by George Bernard Shaw will fall into public domain in 2020.

The End of Civil Discourse presents a different challenge.  Are there any intellectual property rights implicated by the spoken word content of the televised debates?  If so, whose property would it be?  ABC's, Vidal's and Buckley's?  Or is the content part of the public domain?  From what I can find, it seems to be public domain as the content of the "news" or unscripted discussion is not protected, but the broadcast itself is.  Meaning, I couldn't show the actual taped debate, but I could have someone say the words they spoke.  If I can settle that issue, the next I need to tackle centers on likeness rights.  Fun times.

It's trickier than you might think.  After all, "Happy Birthday to You" was under copyright in the United States until 2016.

* - Obligatory note for this post.  This post does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create a legal relationship where attorney-client privilege could attach.  You cannot rely on this post for any legal proceeding you may have, please seek your own independent legal counsel for that.  This is just my ramblings on the writing process.

Why Adapt Pygmalion?

As I've indicated before, while I started this blog for many reasons, a primary driver was to get in hours of practice just writing.  Jamie is looking to do Pygmalion for one act play, but wanted to have an adaptation to address some of its shortcomings.  I have wanted to try play-writing before, and saw this opportunity as a challenge.

In doing so, the issue becomes why adapt Pygmalion at all?  What needs to be adjusted or updated for the play to freshen it for modern actors and audiences?   In my attempts, I've come to these few reasons:

1. Agency - The story of Pygmalion is firmly Henry Higgins' story, not Eliza's.  While most people would largely view My Fair Lady, the musical adaption, the other way around, the play Pygmalion hews firmly to the Pygmalion of myth, focusing on a "creator" who falls in love with his "creation."  Eliza, as a character in Pygmalion, is in many ways a prop.  For most of the play, she has things happen to her, not things that she causes or initiates.  This is partly due to point number two below relating to scenes that are missing, but also due to the era and social structures of the time when George Bernard Shaw was writing.  Much time in Pygmalion is spent discussing who is responsible or who will be responsible for Eliza.  Professor Higgins?  The Colonel?  Her father, Alfred Doolittle? Or Freddie, a suitor?  And while we do finally get to peer in to her psyche in Act Five with many great lines that she has, even her discussion of her future is couched in these terms.  Further, her thoughts are largely only revealed to show the impact they have on Henry.  Thus, a goal of this adaptation is to make this much more Eliza's story.  To put her in control of her fate and to show her contribution to her change.  The text is there in Shaw's original script.  It just needs to be embellished.
2. Show, Don't Tell - one of the greatest sins in visual storytelling is to tell the viewer something instead of showing them something.  To provide an information dump to bring the viewer up to speed on what happened, instead of letting them see it unfold.  This arises in largely missing necessary and desired scenes in Shaw's Pygmalion.  For instance, Shaw has no scene in which Eliza learns elocution.  There are no "Rain in Spain" type scenes in Pygmalion, though these are well remembered in My Fair Lady.  We see the effects and are told that the lessons happened, but we do not see it occur.  Likewise, the original version of the play did not have the ball.  Again, we saw the after effects and were told that it happened, but we did not see the ball itself.  This was added after a 1938 film, but can be omitted in different versions of the print run.  And while these scenes might not be absolutely necessary in the strictest sense, they are desirable for story flow.  So, we are looking to add this type of connective tissue back into the story.
3. Greater Roles for Women in General - one of the hardest things that Jamie and other school theater teachers often have to deal with is plays with sufficient strong female roles.  Most often in school theater, you have a greater number of female students that participate than male.  Yet, most of the great plays have a higher number of strong male roles compared to female.  Even in plays like Pygmalion which are often considered "female" plays, since the title character (and lead ostensibly) is female.  In Pygmalion, though, only Eliza and Mrs. Higgins could be considered great roles.  Mrs. Pearce, Mrs. Enysford-Hill, and Clara are present, but are small roles.  Our goal is to slightly enlarge these roles to make them greater reflections of parts of Eliza herself and to make them more integral to her development.

Hopefully, we can achieve these goals in a way that integrates into Shaw's text in a way that is not too obvious.  It's something I need to finish by the beginning of August, as we'll have to submit the play for approval by mid-August.  We'll let you know how it goes.

It's also a very interesting process, as I'm adapting the full play and keeping at the five acts. Jamie is going to have to take the end adaptation and cut it down into a one-act version.  It does not fully enter into the process as I'm changing and adding, but it is a consideration in the back of my mind.  A unique challenge.

From there, I'm itching to try my hand at adapting the Buckley-Vidal debates into a Frost/Nixon style play.  And who knows, after that, maybe something wholly original.

One line at a time.