The Artful Jurist

A friend recently shared with me a post from a theater listserv or bulletin board. The topic had to do with what a dramaturg actually does. If you're not familiar with the term, a dramaturg is someone who's supposed to work with a playwright during the early stages of a new play's production to help that author better craft the play for its performance.

I don't begrudge those who like working with dramaturgs. But, as a playwright, I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical of them. I fail to see the necessity for what amounts to a professional kibbitzer. (Isn't it the director's job to work with the playwright to make a better performance?)

Anyway, the post my friend sent me was composed by a dramaturg who described her role as one who is "an advocate for a dialectical process of meaning-making among people."

Uhhhhm, okay...if you say so.

But here's the part of that dramaturg's post that really troubles me, not only as a playwright but as a lawyer. She wrote, "I think that we get into the problem of the 'intentional fallacy' if we think of ourselves as somehow trying to realize a playwright's 'vision'--it assumes that the author is the source of all possible meaning."

Well, there's no disputing that theater is a collaborative process. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many playwrights who would agree with the statement that their vision of their own play isn't the source of the play's meaning. And, while I don't claim that a playwright couldn't benefit from someone else suggesting a new interpretation of the work, I'm very leery of anyone who comes into the process to revamp a play into something that has a meaning other than what the playwright intended.

The problem is one of authorship. The law is quite clear that one doesn't become a collaborator just by making some suggestions. But there have been court challenges where people who helped authors revise their works have later claimed joint ownership of the final product. The case involving the musical Rent was just such a case that ended with the script doctor reportedly getting a settlement payment from the estate of the late Jonathan Larson, who's credited as the work's author.

As a playwright, I don't want to be the next person who has to share proceeds or credit with a person who's supposedly been hired to help me polish up my play. So I'm disinclined to work with a dramaturg.

As a lawyer, I recommend to any playwright who wants to (or is forced to) work with a dramaturg that you first get an agreement in writing with that dramaturg to spell out exactly what that dramaturg will and will not get. It's not enough just to have that clause in the production contract with the theater company. Unless the dramaturg's working as an employee of the company, that company can't enforce its agreement with you over the dramaturg. So my advice is to get the dramaturg's signature on the agreement, or tell that dramaturg to go advocate a dialectical process of meaning-making with some other person.

Just a suggestion to fellow playwrights.