581 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by princeton on Jul 2, 2019 15:07:00 GMT
Well there is quite some distance between the two statements, particularly around who refused to meet who. Acknowledging that he will have had less time to prepare than Tori and Sarah, his does take a much more emotive stance which starts to looks like some sort of diversion tactic. And whilst Tori and Sarah have come up with a great idea to turn the experience into a positive thing for other writers - he seem to want to turn it into an onstage performance which seems to be the opposite of what needs to happen - and possibly an implication that he always wants to do things on his terms.
|
|
4,154 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 2, 2019 15:13:55 GMT
No-one spends £5k they can't afford on legal action for fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 15:32:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 15:32:43 GMT
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 15:52:26 GMT
KKA: hey, I tried to sort it out but they wouldn't meet me!
YV: it's a business: we offered them money and credit to go away and they wouldn't play along.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 2, 2019 15:58:47 GMT
Wow. This has become a real mess. It’s easy -having no stake in the matter, and with very little information to go on- to make quick judgements, but I guess we’ll never really know what happened. Not least because this straddles ‘ethical’ issues of good and bad behaviour, as well as purely legal matters. The former is more emotionally engaging but, whether we like it or not, the latter is arguably more important.
Hopefully things are worked out in a way that is acceptable to all parties. And hopefully it doesn’t overshadow what looks to be an interesting play.
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 16:09:10 GMT
From the sounds of it, KKA wanting a public debate on the subject, it feels like there isn't much mood for compromise.
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 2, 2019 16:19:58 GMT
I didn't understand the public debate suggestion at all.
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 16:22:03 GMT
I didn't understand the public debate suggestion at all. Sounded a bit macho and vaguely threatening to me tbh |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jul 2, 2019 16:29:54 GMT
Predictable lawyer-speak, telling us nothing about the underlying facts: "to write a BRAND NEW script," "Idris Elba’s ORIGINAL CONCEPT," "breach of any LEGAL OBLIGATIONS," "original WORKSHOP CONTRACT," "ATTEMPTS BY THE PRODUCERS to resolve the issue", "proposals were made in spite of that fact that the claims by Tori Allen-Martin and Sarah Henley have NO LEGAL BASIS" (a) Under copyright law, a "brand new" script can use the original writers' ideas, as long as it does not replicate the "expression" of those ideas. Therefore, only an examination of all the actual scripts, as they happened, can confirm that Kwei-Armah's script was "brand new;" (b)Elba originated the music, but it's unclear how much of the thrust of the narrative was his "original concept." Depends on the instructions to the writers, and how much of the story they came up with; (c) What in fact were the "legal obligations" that bound both sides? Depends on their contract, and if there wasn't a written one, what was said to who by who; (d) The classification of the contract as a "Workshop" contract is an unproven assertion at this point. The contract itself would say, if written, to what it applies. If the contract is verbal, the words of the parties, documented in letters, emails, texts, etc would be relied on to determine the breadth of the original agreement. Simply saying a contract is a "workshop contract" doesn't make it so; (e) The "attempts by the producers to resolve the issue" despite the fact they assert there was "no legal basis" does not in fact confirm that there was or wasn't a legal basis for them to seek to settle with the first book writers, although it does construct a legal position that if indeed the producers did breach a contract, they took action to mitigate the damages caused by that breach, something a judge would later consider when awarding damages. So effectively, all this tells us nothing about the facts other than whoever wrote this was very VERY lawyered up. And that's the tragedy of confusing cases like these. Whoever can afford lawyers has all the advantage, and time, as those without money are easily ruined by protracted lawsuits, which incur massive costs, risks of more costs, risks of damages, as well as the ruin of reputation, in this case, as well.
Horrible for a progressive theatre like the Young Vic to be so sloppy that they opened themselves up to all this in the first place. There seem to have to so many blown opportunities to resolve this all long before the week the show came out! This tarnishes what sounds otherwise like a moving and exciting show.  |
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 16:47:40 GMT
Someone on twitter has now re-named the YV as Yucky Vultures...Idris needs to respond as he’s been left hanging...
|
|
19,663 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 2, 2019 16:52:20 GMT
You’d think though, seeing as it was a different script for a show that went in a completely different direction, they might have bothered to change the title too?
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 2, 2019 16:54:49 GMT
Towards the end of their article there is a reference to Tori writing a new piece (the implication is that it dealt in some way with this matter and perhaps the trauma of it) and after one small reading of that, was warned not to persist with it. I wonder if that contributed to their wanting to go public - if not only had they lost all claim to this production but also it was going to impact their work going forward. I don't know enough about these things, but quite a few writers on twitter are saying this sort of dispute is much more common in TV/film than theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 17:05:50 GMT
On Twitter,a wag has pointed out that Alfred Enoch is in this show and was also in....How To Get Away With Murder!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 17:08:49 GMT
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 17:09:15 GMT
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Jul 2, 2019 17:16:23 GMT
From the sounds of it, KKA wanting a public debate on the subject, it feels like there isn't much mood for compromise. Easy to say you want to talk when things go public. There should have been frank discussions long before this. He doesn't come out of this well... big boss comes along and trying to take advantage of other people's hard work on the cheap and take all the credit for all the ideas too? |
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 17:20:00 GMT
Baz saying project was ‘took’ from Sarah and Tori is pretty damning...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 17:29:42 GMT
Meanwhile Idris Elba's only tweet today on the subject of Tree was this a few minutes ago
|
|
4,154 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 2, 2019 17:33:32 GMT
Well. That shouldn’t come as a surprise I suppose. But you’d think he’d at least acknowledge that there’s a dispute, since his conversations with parties on both sides appear to be central to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanady on Jul 2, 2019 17:36:51 GMT
Agree that he should acknowledge the dispute...Wonder what some of the actors feel if they have heard about the row today?
|
|
1,561 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Jul 2, 2019 18:07:03 GMT
This makes the Young Vic look terrible. Yes - they put out a statement, but it goes with the narrative of the "big corporation" vs the little people. Look - I love the Young Vic and support them always - they do daring new work and foster an atmosphere of creativity and openness. Some of their shows work better than others but the point is, they take a chance on new work.
All they would have had to do is credit the ladies in something like a new musical by KKA with additional material by Tori Allen-Martin and Sarah Henley.
The fact that he brings up the death in his family only goes against him and his views and says that he wants to shade people's perception by playing the sympathy card. A theater can do what they want and clearly they wanted the show to go in a different direction. All they would have to do is credit the 2 woman and all of this could have been avoided.
|
|
|
|
Post by missthelma on Jul 2, 2019 18:52:47 GMT
This is shaping up very badly. The statement from KKA feels manipulative and immensely childish to invoke the death of a loved one, how relevant was that? Idris Elba is playing a political game and saying nothing about the story but is nailing his colours to the mast quite obviously with his tweet, he would have been better to avoid any comment
It feels horribly reminiscent of those meetings we have all been in when you put forward an idea and get ignored then someone else says the same thing and it takes off. The power dynamic here is obvious both from a gender perspective and what I can only think of as a 'fame' perspective. And the work that the women had put in feels like it has been grossly disrespected. It will be interesting to see how this develops
|
|
2,480 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Jul 2, 2019 19:05:11 GMT
None of the statements since dispute the original statement which came out, just the degree to which it's a changed work
Its obvious what happened: They wanted an Elba/KKA production and pushed out the original creative's so they could have sole credit. It's legal I'm sure but morally, super scummy.
|
|
581 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by princeton on Jul 2, 2019 19:13:03 GMT
Idris Elba is the sole Director of Green Door Pictures - so, in effect, his signature is on the official statement which has been issued.
|
|
