Urinetown

Erin Holloway
James Berry
Krista Michalski
Gabrielle Tayek
March 6, 2008
Urinetown

Upon hearing the name of the play Urinetown, most are immediately turned off. After all, who wants to see a play named after a bodily function? However, once one delves a little deeper the true meaning of the play becomes clearer. Even thought there is much more to Urinetown than pee, some still find it hard to believe. The play was deemed inappropriate in two cases, once in Wisconsin and the other in Pennsylvania. It is important to know the background of the play and its authors, its rise to Broadway, Urinetown’s plot, and its insignia before diving into the subject of censorship and deciding whether or not it was warranted.
Urinetown may be one of the most original ideas for a Broadway play. How did such an idea come up? The author of the play, Greg Kotis, has had a wide range of experiences in the play industry. He graduated from the University of Chicago with a degree in political science and then found out his passion for plays. He has also authored other plays including LBJFKK, Love Me, Aftertaste! and most recently Pig Farm (WiKi). Prior to creating Urinetown, Kotis was noted for trying to achieve performing thirty plays in sixty minutes; however, this idea never really took off. While traveling with his theatre troop the Neo-Futurists in 1995, his decision to take an extended vacation across Western Europe ended up changing his life. Budgeting only a couple hundred dollars to take to several capital cities, a major problem was encountered when he realized that using the restroom would be a major expense. He was already sleeping in train stations and eating cheaply, but with an additional fee for taking a trip to a public restroom, Kotis found it nearly impossible to cope. In the book Urinetown, Kotis states of the situation, “I have never been able to just pee in the bushes…nor do I do well under the hostile gaze of restaurateurs who know a bathroom free-loader when they see one” (Kotis XI). It was this major dilemma that sparked the idea for Urinetown. Kotis says that it was then that the “notion of a city where all public amenities in town were controlled by a single malevolent, monopolizing corporation came to [him]. And not only would the corporation control all the public bathrooms, but being malevolent and monopolizing, it would somehow ensure the prohibition of private toilets, thus guaranteeing a steady flow of customers to its overpriced comfort stations” (Kotis XI).
After returning home to Chicago, Kotis wrote the story into a book and then enlisted the help of his old friend from college Mark Hollman to turn the idea into something more tangible, a musical. The first song Hollman wrote was Penny Pennywise’s “A Privilege to Pee,” and that is when the show came alive for Kotis (Kotis XII). However, writing the musical was not an easy task. Hollman was working as an organist in a church at the time, so the two met every Sunday after Hollman had finished playing for the church services to come up with the songs and music. This process went on for three years. Of making the play and the music Hollman said he approached it as a satire, “but also wanted to approach it seriously from a songwriting point of view…Greg was more skeptical of traditional musicals…I worried initially that we were coming from two different directions. But in the end, Greg came around to loving the form, and I felt comfortable with the satire” (Fox). Hollman and Kotis both say that the liturgical music can be heard the some of the pieces (Fisher).
Finally in 1999 Urinetown was introduced in the New York International Fringe Festival. It was known to be the free-for-all in theatre, where chaos ensued because over one hundred productions would be going on trying to get as many people to see their plays as possible. Kotis remembers it as a last resort, but their only choice to get their play off the ground. The theater could only fit 150 people and the orchestra consisted of Mark Hollman and his piano, but somehow the show was deemed a success. The seats were filled to capacity during every showing and the audience loved the show (Kotis XV).
The Fringe Festival did exactly what it was supposed to: got Urinetown noticed. Kotis and Hollman were convinced to sign on a director in John Rando. His credits include Broken Glass, A Thousand Crowns, Dance of the Vampires, The Wedding Singer, and most recently he signed on to work with Greg Kotis again on Pig Farm. The next year was spent reworking the play and hiring some new cast members. It was not until the year 2000 that the play would get the boost it really needed. Kotis remembers when Mike and Lauren Dodger wanted to sign on as producers. He recalls that “they liked the material. They liked the title…It is difficult to understate the miracle of their enthusiasm. In a Broadway landscape that had become increasingly risk adverse and corporatized, here were two players with solid reputations offering to roll the dice and see what fate awaited those who chose to produce the unproducible play” (Kotis XXII). Urinetown finally opened Off-Broadway in May of 2001. After doing incredibly well there, it was ready to take on the big time. Urinetown was set to premiere on Broadway on September 13, 2001. However due to the attacks on September 11, the opening was postponed until September 20, 2001. Kotis remembers the crowds were small, but week after week they continued to grow. “Houses were full, then slow, then full again. The show survived, prospered, and as months ticked off, we drew even closer to awards season, even becoming a contender for the most coveted statuettes of all” (Kotis XXVII).
Greg Kotis went through so many different steps to get his idea off the ground. Even though it was doubted by many, with a lot of heart and help from others, Urinetown became wildly successful and forced people to look beyond the name. Beyond the title is a story of corruption and greed that overpowers a town and its citizens.
The musical Urinetown is a comedy musical that pokes fun of capitalism by using a small nonfiction town. The play opens with the narrator, Officer Lockstock speaking about a twenty-year drought that caused a water shortage. Because of this drought, people opt for public restrooms instead of private toilets. A private company, the Urine Good Company, has complete control over all of the public restrooms. With their authoritative power, they charge citizens to use the restrooms. If citizens cannot or do not pay these charges, they are sent to Urinetown, where offenders are sent, but never return (Wiki).
The protagonist of the musical, Bobby Strong, works at one of the poorest urinals in town. He works as an assistant for Penelope Pennywise. One day, Bobby’s father, Old Man Strong, is unable to pay to use the restroom and asked Pennywise if she could let him go. Pennywise rejected his plea so he urinates on the street. Soon after, Old Man Strong is arrested and sent off to Urinetown.
After having his father sent off to Urinetown, Bobby is very upset, but this magnifies as he realizes the CEO of Urine Good Company, Caldwell Cladwell, wants to increase the restroom fees even more. Because of this, Bobby leads a group of rebels who kidnap Caldwell’s daughter, Hope. They take her to a secret hideout in the sewers where she and Bobby eventually develop a relationship.
Throughout ACT II, the rebels continue to hold Hope hostage in the sewers while the police and Cladwell look everywhere for her. While the rebels have Hope in the sewers, several of them get upset and try to kill Hope. Luckily, Bobby prevents them from killing her and goes on to remind the rebels of their real purpose in kidnapping Hope.
Pennywise found the secret hideout and told Bobby that Cladwell wanted to meet at Urine Good Company headquarters to plea for Hope’s safety. Bobby agrees to go meet with Cladwell under the agreement that if Bobby is harmed, that Hope will be killed.
When Bobby arrives at Urine Good Company headquarters, Cladwell offers him a suitcase full of money and full amnesty to the rebels as long as Hope is returned and the people agree to the new fee hikes (Wiki). Bobby gets upset and refuses the offer because he feels the people should not have to pay any fee to use the restrooms. Upset by this, Cladwell orders Bobby to be sent off to Urinetown which really entailed having Bobby getting thrown off the roof of the headquarters building and killed. Shortly before his death, Bobby learned the truth that Urinetown does not truly exist. Anybody sent off to Urinetown is simply killed, hence the reason nobody ever returned.
Little Sally, who was often with Officer Lockstock, ran back to the sewer after Bobby’s death and revealed the truth about Urinetown. After hearing this, Pennywise exposed that she is really Hope’s mother. She goes on to tell Hope that Cladwell and her were together at one point. Pennywise is upset with Cladwell and the way he was running Urine Good Company and killing those who were sent to “Urinetown,” so she convinces Hope that she is on the rebel’s side. Pennywise leads the rebel’s revolution against Cladwell and Urine Good Company.
Together, Pennywise and the rest of the rebels capture Cladwell at his office where Hope orders her father to be sent to Urinetown. The rebels go on to kill him by throwing him off the roof.
After Cladwell’s death, the Urine Good Company was renamed to “The Bobby Strong Memorial Toilet Authority,” where the people are able to pay without fee (Wiki). There are no restrictions on the restrooms.
However, this happy lifestyle where all of the citizens are free to use the restrooms unconsciously is short-lived. Shortly after the fees were terminated, the water supply became scarce once again. The drought becomes so bad that much of the population dies from thirst which makes citizens question which way they should really run their small town to keep their people alive.
With all the controversy surrounding Urinetown, it still managed to pull in many theatre awards. At just the 2001 Tony Awards alone the play received ten nominations (Best Musical, Best director of a musical – John Rando, Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Musical – Nancy Opel and Jennifer Laura Thompson, Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Musical – John Cullum, Beat Performance by a Featured Actress in a Musical – Spencer Hayden, Best Book of a Musical – Greg Kotis, Best Original Score Written for the Theatre – Mark Hollman and Greg Kotis, Best Choreography – John Carrafa, Best Orchestrations – Bruce Coughlin)! That is a major feat in the theatre industry. Yet, ten nominations at the Tony Awards was only a small percentage of the plays total nominations. At the 2002 Drama League Awards the play was nominated for “Outstanding production of a Musical, John Cullum (Distinguished Performance), and Spencer Kayden (Distinguished Performance).” At the 2001 Drama Desk Awards the play received a total of nine nominations. The nominations consisted of Outstanding Musical, Featured Actor in a Musical (Jeff McCarthy), Featured Actress in a Musical (Spencer Kayden), Music (Mark Hollman), Lyrics (Greg Kotis/ Mark Hollman), Book (Greg Kotis), Director of a Musical (John Rando), Choreography (John Carrafa), and Orchestrations (Bruce Coughlin) (Sibkin). To go along with the rising nominations from Urinetown, the play was not only nominated for six awards at the 2002 Outer Critics Circle Awards, but also took home three of them (Outstanding Broadway Musical, Outstanding Director of a Musical – John Rando, Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical – Spencer Kayden)! Yet these weren’t the only three awards the play took home. At the 2002 Lucille Lortel Awards, the play (not only nominated for eight awards) took home two more victories in the form of Outstanding Musical and Outstanding Choreography (John Carrafa). With all the awards being won in 2002, the play hoped to pull out a Tony Award in which they were previously nominated for ten, but took home zilch! Well this year turned out to be different for Urinetown, in which the play took home 3 Tony Awards! 2001 nominees John Rando (Best Director), Mark Hollman (Best Original Score), and Greg Kotis (Best Original Score/ Best Book of a Musical) all took home victory in 2002 (Urinetown Official Site).
Other than Spencer Kayden, Greg Kotis, Mark Hollman, and John Carrafa, there was also Gregory Gale and Jonathan Bixby. Who are they you ask? Well these two gentlemen also took home an award from Urinetown. Yet they took their award home in a different fashion. These two men took home the 2002 Irene Sharaff Young Master Award for Best Costume Design. It seems as though everyone involved in Urinetown was getting a piece of the pie. With all of the awards stated previously, there were still more awards won. If you were to take a guess you would definitely be right on who took them home. At the 56th Annual Clarence Derwent Awards, Spencer Kayden snatched another trophy to go on her shelf. At the 2001 Obie Awards Greg Kotis and Mark Hollman took home the award for Best Lyrics. Yet they weren’t the only ones taking home an Obie Award. The Award for Best Choreography went to John Carrafa (Sibkin). In total, Urinetown stunned the theatre world. With little expectations from many, the play proved to be among of the best.
Although many accolades and much praise have gone the way of the creators of Urinetown, with success usually comes failure. In this case failure to show the audience the true meaning of the play is the issue. Audiences around the nation are confused as to the meaning of this play. Parents and other adults live in fear that allowing younger patrons to view the play may lead to corruption. Potential adolescent productions have auditioners who have even been quoted as saying, “I decided not to audition because it doesn’t seem suitable for younger viewers. My family didn’t see it as a good thing.” For this reason and others like it, there have been several instances in the U.S. in which the play and/or its’ title were banned from the stage.
The two largest cases concerning the banning of Urinetown occurred in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The first, in Pennsylvania, banned use of the title in flyers, advertisements, or signage for the play. The second, in Wisconsin, banned the production of the play altogether in fear that it would not be suitable for children. This seems to be an interesting case as the play is not focused specifically on urine but the government controlled amenities and a lack of freedom in regards to the most private matters. The play’s author describes it as, “a satirical comedy musical that poles fun at capitalism, social irresponsibility, bureaucracy, corporate mismanagement and petty small town politics,” (Urinetown: The Musical 1). In some opinions the description of the play under this context may prove better reasoning for a ban than use of the word urine. In a world where Animal Farm is banned from the International Theatre Festival because it is “too explicitly anti-Soviet”, one could reason that a play mocking the nature of our own social system would be worthy of banning (Goodman 1). The play is based off of ideas acquired by the writer who, while in France, experienced the decision-making process of paying for lodging or paying to use the restroom. Knowledge of this and the play’s inspiration may also persuade others to think that the play has underlying anti-Socialist themes and, mocks and exploits the little freedoms citizens have in their countries.
However, this has not been the case. As stated earlier the banning of Urinetown has mainly been due to its’ racy title and assumed content. In November of 2006 the Erie Cathedral Prep high school drama club was banned from producing any tickets, pamphlets, or fliers that contained the word ‘urinetown’. The mandate for such actions was brought down by Erie’s Catholic Bishop, Donald Trautman. Bishop Trautman proclaimed that he had no objection to the play itself but was concerned with the title being publicly connected to the all-male high school. The play’s director, Father Michael DeMartinis knew under copyright laws that it was illegal to change the name of the play so he exclaimed that he had the, “Unenviable task of producing tickets, posters and programs that didn’t use the play’s name.” While turnout for the play was still great, censorship of the title made it much harder to attract crowds to a show that traditionally uses its’ name in the mainframe of the playbill (Expelling 1).
Another, much larger and more controversial censorship of the play Urinetown came about in the small town of Stevens Point, Wisconsin around the same time in November of 2006. At that time the school district and more importantly the superintendent of schools commanded the immediate halting of the high school’s production of the play. It was believed that the show’s “satirical and ironic humor was not appropriate for younger audiences” in a school system that educates children in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Superintendent Bette Lang believed that, “It’s important to remember the younger audiences and when we showcase our students, we should showcase them to as broad a range as possible.” She believed that the production of such a play as Urinetown would be okay to show to high school aged students and adults but again would not be suitable for younger audiences (Expelling 1).
Opposition to this stance was taken by members of the high school’s theatre department staff, students, and local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The school’s theatre director Greg Chelcun believes, “Students should not be limited to productions like ‘Carousel’ and ‘You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown’. Putting on plays that challenge the actors and the audience is an important aspect of theater.” This sentiment was uttered by members of the cast as well. Resounding opposition came from students who believed that the school board underestimated the intelligence of the students, staff and community. They also questioned the school board’s support of the arts in their hesitation to put on a “new, groundbreaking musical” (Expelling 1).
The largest and most notable criticism of this issue came from the 9,000 member Wisconsin chapter of the ACLU. Executive Director of the Wisconsin ACLU, Christopher Ahmuty, contradicted the Superintendent’s decision by saying he hoped the district will find a way to let the show go on for the sake of the student’s own growth and the first amendment, freedom of speech rights for the citizens of Stevens Point. His largest concerns stemmed from the fact that the district does not present musicals to younger students unless their parents bring them to the evening performance. Under this context the ACLU members were concerned, “The district may be using the standard for age appropriate materials as a pretext.” They were worried because, “The Superintendent should not censor a play that is age appropriate for the students putting it on and the vast majority of community members, who voluntarily attend the performances.” This concern immediately evoked the thoughts of first amendment violations and the students’ and communities’ freedom of speech. Despite much opposition the play was never allowed but the ACLU assured they would not forget or terminate their investigation into this controversy until all sides had discussed the issues at hand (School Board’s 1).
After examining all parts and pieces of Urinetown, it is clear that there is much more to the play than waste. While some refused to delve into the true essence of the play, others saw the piece in its true satirical form. Urinetown is about corruption, but with an imagination. Kotis and Hollman’s work was censored without much of a valid reason, but luckily it was still able to prosper, and doing so, it allowed the Broadway world to take a break from all the seriousness and have a little fun with the subject of pee.


















Works Cited

"Awards.” Urinetown: The Musical’s Official Website. 7 Feb. 2008 .

This website is the official site of the play. It explains the origins of the play as well as its’ themes, characters, and productions. It was used in this purpose to cite the accolades of the play, in particular the Tony Awards which are the most prestigious of all Broadway plays. It was the core site from which the rest of the awards section was written and played a key role in developing this part of the paper.

"Expelling "Urinetown" (Pun Intended)." Cocking a Snook! Independent and Irreverent Parents Take on the Universe. 30 Nov. 2006. 1 Feb. 2008 .

This site was very beneficial in beginning the process of finding information on the banning of Urinetown. Up until finding this piece it was hard to find specifics on the cases pertaining to Urinetown. This site, though opinionated, provided solid details, facts, and quotes on the cases that were used in both the presentation and the paper. It was a good starting point and very beneficial for finding more sources on the topic.

Fisher, Philip. "Greg Kotis- Political "to the Extent That Hand-Wringing is Political"" The British Theatre Guide. 2005. 11 Feb. 2008 .

This interview was not extremely helpful because I had the book which gave me much more insight. However when Kotis mentioned that the liturgical music influenced their composing, I found that to be very interesting.

Fox, David A. "Golden Showers." City Paper. 13 Nov. 2003. 11 Feb. 2008 .

Fox's interview with Mark Hollman was useful because it allowed me to get a first hand perspective from him. The book only used Kotis's point of view so I enjoyed hearing from the composer about the process of making the music.

Goodman, Walter. "Stage: 'Animal Farm,' in Baltimore." New York Times. 21 Jan. 1986. 10 Feb. 2008 .

This piece was used to compare Urinetown to the controversy that has surrounded other politically under-toned plays and books. It was important to emphasize the true meaning of the play Urinetown which was not previously addressed in the presentation. Understanding the play's background and themes leads to the correlation between that and the censorship issue.

Kotis, Greg, and Mark Hollman. Urinetown the Musical. New York: Faber and Faber Inc., 2003.

This source was especially helpful because I was able to hear directly from the author about his experience. He was able to offer much more detail than I would have been able to find anywhere else, and with the introduction, I was able to understand the entire process of creating the play.

"School Board’s “Urinetown” Failure." American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin. 21 Nov. 2006. ACLU. 1 Feb. 2008 .

This site was important for collecting more information on the opposition of the ACLU to the banning of Urinetown in the Stevens Point School District. It provided multiple references to the case and specific thoughts by those most involved, including the Executive Director of the ACLU in Wisconsin. A lot of the quotes on behalf of the ACLU that were used in the paper came from this source.
Sibkin, Toby. "Urinetown History and Awards." 7 Feb. 2008 .
This site presented a list of other awards the play has won besides the one’s found on the musical’s main website. It was useful when uncovering the more prestigious independent awards musicals can win. It played an important role in highlighting the more positive aspects of the play’s affect on society.
"Urinetown: the Musical." Wikipedia. 2001. 1 Feb. 2008. .
This website gave an overview and plot description of the musical by Greg Kotis, Urinetown. The site not only provided valuable information about the plot, but it also offered in-depth character analyses for all major characters. It also gave brief thematic statements for several of the events throughout the play. Since this was a satirical musical, it had a lot of representation throughout the play which was described by this source.