Showmen Showdown: The Controversy Over ‘The Lost Ones’
Thespians have a rich history of bickering. My favorite dramatic duel happened in 1830, at the opening night of Victor Hugo’s Hernani in Paris. Hugo, a romantic, had blatantly ignored a number of theretofore sacred theatrical conventions — a plot that takes place over the course of a single day, for example, and in a single location — things that those of the neoclassical persuasion held dear. So dear, in fact, that at the premiere a brawl erupted between the two theoretical camps, classicists hissing and spitting at romantics, bohemians bludgeoning the bourgeoisie with mockeries, food, even fists. The fighting went on for weeks, forcing Hugo to enlist volunteer bodyguards. If this is what you got after a few infractions of Aristotle’s rules, imagine what those classicists would’ve thought of, oh I don’t know, Bare Breasted Women Sword Fighting, or My Fabulous Sex Life?
I tell this anecdote to broach an unfortunate matter which warrants only brief mention on this blog — a percolating dispute between two Washington theater companies over a production of The Lost Ones that I reviewed (quite positively) this week.
The current production comes courtesy of Spooky Action Theater. Directed by Robert Richard Henrich, performed by Carter Jahncke, it’s an adaptation of a short story by Samuel Beckett called Le dépeupleur. Between 1999 and 2004, SCENA Theater mounted several productions of a similar piece, also called The Lost Ones‚ in D.C. and in Europe, directed by Robert McNamara, also starring Jahncke (and at one point showing in the same space it currently occupies, The Warehouse).
McNamara issued a press statement alleging that the concept and several specific artistic elements of Spooky Action’s production were, as he puts it, “pirated” from SCENA’s earlier work.
Unless one of you fine readers has seen both productions, there are no clear answers here, and even then I’m not so sure how clear they’d be. At this point, it’s essentially one artist’s word versus another’s: Jahncke insists the piece is different and new; McNamara finds those claims dubious.
“This is a different production,” Jahncke said to me. “It’s been totally and utterly reworked, and I can only believe that it’s been reworked for the better. Where I was with SCENA, it was incomplete. I don’t spend years thinking about and months rehearsing a piece that’s already as good as it can be. This is an entirely different show.”
When I told that to McNamara, he responded: “I don’t see how it can be any better than what we created, to be quite honest. Things can better after years and years of work. But what I would argue now is that you’re seeing a substandard version of what was created by the SCENA Theater.”
McNamara says he has not seen Spooky Action’s production, nor does he plan to. He has asked Spooky Action for “rightful attribution.” With regards to legal action, McNamara says his theater is “exploring other options.”
While this dispute is a minor blemish on an otherwise extremely convivial festival, it does offer an opportunity to ponder some potentially instructive questions — most interestingly, when a director and a performer collaborate intimately on a solo performance, to whom and in what measure does that intellectual property belong? Is Jahncke being accused of plagiarizing himself? Or just those elements of the production that were not his brainchildren?
4 Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
1:24 pm
I believe it is Richard Henrich.
4:46 pm
Thanks, Brian, for bringing further attention to this thrilling production, as well as to the central question of intellectual / artistic property rights.
Not to “bludgeon” you for your own “blatantly ignoring … theretofore sacred [journalistic] convention” of balanced coverage … Bu-u-ut did I miss your seeking/including comments from Richard [note name] Henrich, either in direct interview (as you did with the other two protagonists), or from Henrich’s cogent press release responding same-day to McNamara’s, or from the program you received at this show?
Contrary to McN’s libelous allegations, Spooky Action’s production program clearly credits the 1974 Mabou Mines production (which originated the mini-figure device used here), and the subsequent Scena production — which also utilized it. Or should I say which Scena “pirated” [McN's word], since McN claims it as his property?
Spooky Action’s program also cites authorization from Beckett estate, which McN alleges was not obtained. Ironically, McN’s false allegations have brought to light lack of evidence that Scena actually acquired such authorization. [Can you say "boomerang," kiddies?]
McN’s bluster of exploring legal or other recourse is laughable. Surely even he recognizes that his admitted deliberate ignorance of whether his charges have any basis would not excuse his unethical and legally libelous claims.
McN’s inaccurate tirades have effectively exposed only his own shortcomings — and brought precious free publicity to this superb Jahncke / Henrich production.
Let the games continue! Wahoo!
4:46 am
fulldisclosurefan –
Without a doubt, I see where you’re coming from — a major player’s voice is missing from this post. But I do think that Carter Jahncke was a more knowledgeable source in this regard, simply by virtue of having been an integral part of both productions, and so I let him speak on behalf of Richard Henrich in a deliberate effort to avoid cluttering the reporting. There are many ins-and-outs of this situation that I omitted — for example, the fact that the literary agency that handles Beckett’s estate did approve all the domestic productions in question (they have yet to confirm this in regards to the ones abroad, though it seems likely they were legitimate too.) Rather than bring the false allegations up in the first place I just left them out. I could’ve tried to recount each phone call back in forth in 2004, or each qualm one party had with the other at some point in their relationship, or the halcyon days when all was poppies and roses; instead I chose to present the crux of the controversy without giving too much attention to allegations that very well may be unfounded. Whether or not you find it appropriate, it was a deliberate exercise in editorial restraint.
And I too thought the show was superb.
Thanks for writing in, and I hope a these folks find a swift and painless resolution.
-brian
1:04 am
For the record – Mr. Henrich’s allegation (quoted by “fulldisclosurefan”) that the Scena Theatre production was not authorized is false. In response to his allegations, we shared our communications with the Beckett Estate and the literary agent with him, as well as obtaining explicit confirmation from the agent that the production was authorized. Unfortunately, Mr. Henrich did make no attempt to check with Scena the substance of his allegations before going public. This note is from Scena Theatre.