WEBVTT - Edward Albee Requests His Life's Work go up in Smoke (Audio)

0:00:00.200 --> 0:00:03.040
<v Speaker 1>Edward Alby was one of the greatest American playwrights of

0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:06.600
<v Speaker 1>his generation. He won the Pulitzer Prize three times over

0:00:06.640 --> 0:00:10.200
<v Speaker 1>a career that spanned nearly sixty years. His most famous

0:00:10.200 --> 0:00:13.120
<v Speaker 1>play was Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? The play opened

0:00:13.119 --> 0:00:16.040
<v Speaker 1>on Broadway in nineteen sixty two. It continues to be

0:00:16.120 --> 0:00:19.600
<v Speaker 1>revived and was adapted into the films starring Elizabeth Taylor

0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:24.119
<v Speaker 1>and Richard Burton. I actually felt for him, and the

0:00:24.160 --> 0:00:28.080
<v Speaker 1>match scene practical too. For a while. Daddy really thought

0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:30.680
<v Speaker 1>that George had the stuff to take over when he

0:00:30.720 --> 0:00:35.720
<v Speaker 1>was time, and we both thought that When i'll Be

0:00:35.880 --> 0:00:38.600
<v Speaker 1>died last year, he left a will with an unusual

0:00:38.640 --> 0:00:42.400
<v Speaker 1>provision that is somewhat controversial. According to The New York Times,

0:00:42.479 --> 0:00:47.120
<v Speaker 1>the will contains a provision that any unfinished manuscripts be destroyed.

0:00:47.760 --> 0:00:51.800
<v Speaker 1>Joining us is Leor Strahlovists, a professor at the University

0:00:51.800 --> 0:00:55.440
<v Speaker 1>of Chicago Law School. Le Or. There's even a term

0:00:55.480 --> 0:00:59.280
<v Speaker 1>for an artist requesting the destruction of unfinished work in

0:00:59.320 --> 0:01:05.160
<v Speaker 1>a will dead hand control. How unusual is it, Well,

0:01:05.160 --> 0:01:07.400
<v Speaker 1>it's not the typical artist who wants to do this,

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:11.680
<v Speaker 1>but certainly over the course of literary history and um

0:01:11.880 --> 0:01:15.080
<v Speaker 1>the history of visual artists, we've seen this come up

0:01:15.240 --> 0:01:19.760
<v Speaker 1>time and time again. I think the first known historical

0:01:19.800 --> 0:01:25.240
<v Speaker 1>example is actually Virgil's a Need, and obviously um uh,

0:01:25.280 --> 0:01:27.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, we have this recent example of Edward Alby,

0:01:28.040 --> 0:01:33.760
<v Speaker 1>but um Brett Western the photographer had similar motivations and

0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:37.200
<v Speaker 1>similar expressed wishes. And maybe the most famous case prior

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:42.039
<v Speaker 1>to this one is Franz Kasca directing his executor Max

0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:46.200
<v Speaker 1>Broad to burn unread all of his unfinished works. And

0:01:46.200 --> 0:01:48.920
<v Speaker 1>those unfinished works included not only his diaries, which were

0:01:48.920 --> 0:01:52.520
<v Speaker 1>subsequently published, but also The Trial and the Castle, which

0:01:52.560 --> 0:01:57.480
<v Speaker 1>are considered to be COSCA's two greatest novel novels. Certainly,

0:01:57.520 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 1>are you you mentioned that that kaskas some of Oscar's

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:06.400
<v Speaker 1>works were published. Is it unusual for executors to disregard

0:02:06.520 --> 0:02:10.880
<v Speaker 1>the instructions in a will to destroy unfinished work. It's

0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:14.520
<v Speaker 1>not terribly unusual, and I think one reason why is

0:02:15.000 --> 0:02:18.960
<v Speaker 1>there's not really a lot of um court guidance on

0:02:19.000 --> 0:02:21.920
<v Speaker 1>this issue. So this does come up from time to time.

0:02:21.919 --> 0:02:26.400
<v Speaker 1>It comes up with famous artists, but there's really not

0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:30.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot of appellate cases published opinions where courts are

0:02:30.600 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 1>either telling executors that they cannot or that they can

0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:39.600
<v Speaker 1>destroy works of this kind. You'll find dicta in the

0:02:39.600 --> 0:02:43.520
<v Speaker 1>occasional case where a court will suggest that where the

0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:48.760
<v Speaker 1>public's interest in seeing a work of art is significant enough,

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:51.919
<v Speaker 1>then the will can be disregarded. But dicta is about

0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:54.760
<v Speaker 1>the closest. Is about the closest you'll get. You generally

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:57.680
<v Speaker 1>don't have these cases litigated. And one reason you don't

0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:01.720
<v Speaker 1>have these cases litigated is there's not usually any party

0:03:01.800 --> 0:03:04.760
<v Speaker 1>that wants to show up in court and argue on

0:03:04.840 --> 0:03:08.360
<v Speaker 1>behalf of destruction. So the artist might have preferred that

0:03:08.440 --> 0:03:13.080
<v Speaker 1>the works be burned or are thrown out, but usually

0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:17.160
<v Speaker 1>the airs see the value of publication and not a

0:03:17.160 --> 0:03:21.840
<v Speaker 1>whole lot of value in giving voice to the words

0:03:21.880 --> 0:03:24.240
<v Speaker 1>that showed up in the last Will and testament. And

0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:27.320
<v Speaker 1>so my instinct is from looking at the cases and

0:03:27.360 --> 0:03:29.800
<v Speaker 1>really the absence of cases, that a lot of the

0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:33.119
<v Speaker 1>time what happens is these things get written into wills,

0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:38.320
<v Speaker 1>and then the airs maybe decide um that that they'd

0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:42.840
<v Speaker 1>like to see destruction not happen. The executor doesn't particularly

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:45.800
<v Speaker 1>want to set something that might have significant market value

0:03:45.920 --> 0:03:50.440
<v Speaker 1>on fire, and everyone sort of goes away goes away happy.

0:03:50.960 --> 0:03:53.080
<v Speaker 1>You just might have an artist spinning in his or

0:03:53.120 --> 0:03:56.840
<v Speaker 1>her grave. The provision and all these will says, if

0:03:56.840 --> 0:03:59.200
<v Speaker 1>at the time of my death, I shall lead any

0:03:59.320 --> 0:04:03.960
<v Speaker 1>incomplete manuscripts, I hereby direct my executors to destroy such

0:04:04.000 --> 0:04:09.000
<v Speaker 1>incomplete manuscripts. His final known play, Laying an Egg, was

0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:12.960
<v Speaker 1>scheduled for production twice and withdrawn twice by all they

0:04:13.040 --> 0:04:17.359
<v Speaker 1>who said it wasn't ready. Might the executors decide that

0:04:17.480 --> 0:04:21.720
<v Speaker 1>it is not an incomplete manuscript. I think they've got

0:04:21.760 --> 0:04:23.680
<v Speaker 1>a lot of room to do so under the will,

0:04:23.880 --> 0:04:25.640
<v Speaker 1>And in fact, I think the way the will was

0:04:25.720 --> 0:04:29.719
<v Speaker 1>drafted there's actually some ambiguity based into it. So you

0:04:29.760 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>read that first clause, which um is as you describe it.

0:04:33.960 --> 0:04:37.480
<v Speaker 1>It says, if it's incomplete, then the direcutors executors are

0:04:37.560 --> 0:04:41.640
<v Speaker 1>to destroy it. But then there's actually a final sentence

0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:45.240
<v Speaker 1>in that third clause, the destructive provision, and that sentence says,

0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:50.120
<v Speaker 1>the determination by my executors, in their best fiduciary judgment

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:52.680
<v Speaker 1>as to the material directed to be destroyed in this

0:04:52.839 --> 0:04:57.120
<v Speaker 1>article third shall be final, conclusive, and binding upon all

0:04:57.200 --> 0:05:00.719
<v Speaker 1>parties having any interest in my estate. And the way

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:04.920
<v Speaker 1>I read the will. That last sentence is actually in

0:05:05.000 --> 0:05:07.840
<v Speaker 1>some tension with the first sentence, the one you read,

0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:12.520
<v Speaker 1>which directs the executors to destroy anything that's incomplete. So

0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:14.960
<v Speaker 1>what did Albie mean or what did the lawyers who

0:05:15.040 --> 0:05:18.280
<v Speaker 1>drafted this on his behalf mean by that last sentence?

0:05:18.600 --> 0:05:22.200
<v Speaker 1>Did they mean that the executors have complete discretion to

0:05:22.240 --> 0:05:26.039
<v Speaker 1>decide whether something is complete or not that's possible. Did

0:05:26.040 --> 0:05:30.120
<v Speaker 1>it mean that the executors have the ability to decide

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:35.520
<v Speaker 1>that even though something is incomplete, it's got enough artistic

0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:39.920
<v Speaker 1>merit to warrant publication production as a play. Well, to me,

0:05:40.120 --> 0:05:43.159
<v Speaker 1>that's that's not a That's not a strained reading of

0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:45.680
<v Speaker 1>the final sentence and the will either. In other words,

0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:49.160
<v Speaker 1>I think this will's ambiguous, and where that will's ambiguous,

0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:51.680
<v Speaker 1>it's going to give even more discretion to the executor,

0:05:51.760 --> 0:05:54.479
<v Speaker 1>because I think the courts, while they might be willing

0:05:55.040 --> 0:06:00.160
<v Speaker 1>to tolerate the destruction of valuable property um they sat

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:02.400
<v Speaker 1>on an instruction and a will, they're not going to

0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:07.480
<v Speaker 1>do so when the only grounds for destruction is ambiguous language.

0:06:07.520 --> 0:06:10.440
<v Speaker 1>And to me, this language is drafted comes pretty darn

0:06:10.480 --> 0:06:14.279
<v Speaker 1>close to being ambiguous. Lear I'm interested in sort of

0:06:14.320 --> 0:06:17.359
<v Speaker 1>what you think is the right outcome to this this case.

0:06:17.400 --> 0:06:20.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean, is there in your mind any reason, putting

0:06:20.880 --> 0:06:24.640
<v Speaker 1>aside that ambiguity, that Edward all Be as an artist,

0:06:24.760 --> 0:06:29.039
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't be able to say whether or not he wants

0:06:29.080 --> 0:06:32.360
<v Speaker 1>his incompleted works ever to see the light of day.

0:06:32.720 --> 0:06:35.159
<v Speaker 1>So I think, if you I'm not going to fight

0:06:35.200 --> 0:06:40.159
<v Speaker 1>the hypothetical, Let's suppose that this will were drafted in

0:06:40.240 --> 0:06:43.840
<v Speaker 1>an unambiguous way, and that everyone thought that Edward i'll be,

0:06:44.040 --> 0:06:47.400
<v Speaker 1>being of sound mind and sound body, wanted anything that

0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 1>he hadn't finished to be burned uh and and not published.

0:06:52.240 --> 0:06:54.640
<v Speaker 1>In that case, I'd argue pretty strongly that the right

0:06:54.680 --> 0:06:56.919
<v Speaker 1>thing for the executor to do, the right thing for

0:06:56.920 --> 0:06:58.479
<v Speaker 1>the courts to do in the event that there was

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:03.560
<v Speaker 1>litigation between the executive and UM and the airs, which

0:07:03.560 --> 0:07:05.839
<v Speaker 1>is the foundation in this case, I think, would be

0:07:05.880 --> 0:07:08.680
<v Speaker 1>to go ahead and follow Edward Alb's wishes. And part

0:07:08.680 --> 0:07:10.480
<v Speaker 1>of the reason for that is that I think what

0:07:10.600 --> 0:07:14.880
<v Speaker 1>makes an artist great is selectivity. Um, you know, a

0:07:14.880 --> 0:07:19.760
<v Speaker 1>good musician, a good painter, a good playwright, They're gonna

0:07:19.760 --> 0:07:23.680
<v Speaker 1>have lots and lots of ideas and they are gonna,

0:07:23.800 --> 0:07:26.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, stick most of those ideas in a filing

0:07:26.160 --> 0:07:28.600
<v Speaker 1>cabinet somewhere, or leave them on a hard drive, and

0:07:28.640 --> 0:07:32.000
<v Speaker 1>they'll never see the light of day. And usually that's

0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:36.560
<v Speaker 1>to the economic benefit and the artistic benefit of the artist.

0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:38.600
<v Speaker 1>Of course, there's some artists out there who are just

0:07:38.920 --> 0:07:41.960
<v Speaker 1>producing canvas after canvas or play after play, and some

0:07:42.040 --> 0:07:44.560
<v Speaker 1>of it's good, some of it's bad. But in my view,

0:07:44.600 --> 0:07:47.320
<v Speaker 1>the artists that we really remember, the one who stands

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:50.360
<v Speaker 1>the history of time, they tend to publish only a

0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:54.760
<v Speaker 1>small fraction of the raw creation that they come up with.

0:07:55.560 --> 0:08:00.600
<v Speaker 1>And usually, uh, members of the public appreciate the fact that, well,

0:08:00.640 --> 0:08:02.840
<v Speaker 1>if i'll Be put his name on it and decided

0:08:02.880 --> 0:08:05.720
<v Speaker 1>that it was good enough for us to see, then

0:08:06.000 --> 0:08:07.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, by golly, we should we should buy the

0:08:07.920 --> 0:08:10.160
<v Speaker 1>tickets to go. We could talk about this for so long.

0:08:10.200 --> 0:08:13.360
<v Speaker 1>Thank you, Leors for Hilovitz, professor at the University of

0:08:13.440 --> 0:08:14.720
<v Speaker 1>Chicago Law School,