nicksmtmom

Love the discussion...

Just to clarify, my kids go to a Catholic high school, and we all have a very big belief in Christian value and traditions.

That's why I thought JeffandAnn's question was a good one...I think it is a little disingenuous to say that "oh it's just theatre and everyone knows those aren't our values so I shouldn't care what roles they choose."

For instance, a high school should not consider Equus or Spring Awakening. Can you imagine if a middle school suggested doing the full rendition (not a school edition) of lots of musicals...even Grease..cute musical with catchy music...not appropriate for middle schoolers to be in or to watch.

So we can't really pretend it doesn't ever matter...

On the other hand, as soozievt and some others have said, we would miss a lot of good stories if that subject matter was never covered. Even our perocial high school leaves in some of the language (Grease is still a good example) to be true to the story.

That being said, I don't judge the people who do remain true to their values and only do "clean" things...nothing wrong with the other side of the coin. There are authors who will only write "clean" inspiring stories. I love those, too. Or songwriters who purposely only write upbeat lyrics. How wonderful.

But, I do see how we can't ALL do that or life would be a little un-real and one dimensional. And I feel you can present adult matter without compromising who you are as a person. But it is something to always think on carefully, as SYDSYM did.

Not just one good answer...

alwaysamom

nicksmom, I don't see anyone saying that. I think the discussion is an important one but it's one mainly for those who are pursuing theatre as a career, not high school or middle school students. High school kids are minors and the amount of input parents have in what their children do, in theatre productions or otherwise, makes a certain amount of sense, in context. My comments, which I imagine are those to which you are referring, are for college students and grads who are planning on pursuing theatre as a career.

There aren't many plays that don't include some characters who would be objectionable on some level to someone, although it seems as though the nudity/sex issue always prevails as the problem, not characters who are murderers, abusers, gamblers, generally unlikeable roles. If actors make the decision to limit their options in that way, their chances of making a living as an actor are virtually nil. As I said, this is an incredibly difficult business in which to earn a sustained and good living solely onstage. It just doesn't happen for most people who are willing to pursue their desire for acting, that's a reality, and to further limit yourself in this way makes it almost a certainty that it won't happen. And that really is the bottom line for a career, right? Being able to pursue your career while having the ability to support yourself?

There shouldn't be any reason that an actor whose faith is important to them, cannot keep the two separate, as sydsim has mentioned. I know many who have done this successfully.

sassystage

This discussion confuses me a little since I don't see a lot of high schools or youth theater doing sex or nudity. Do many colleges?

If we're just talking about characters with questionable values I don't know how or why you would want to avoid those. They're the most interesting. I guess you could work for Disney.

jeffandann

Glad I started this thread, lot of interesting comments. I would of course not support my high school daughter doing sex or nudity at her age. As far as language, I'm starting to understand that's part of the job, although I think there's extremes there that can and should be avoided, at least at her age. And for the types of characters, this year she was the a juror in 12 Angry Jurors and went on this bigoted rant, which of course she'd never do if not on stage. Actually had me and a lot of her friends hating her for a few moments. Which I guess means she did her job well!

jeffandann

Oh, and my daughter would LOVE to work for Disney. It's one of her goals in fact.

keepingcalm

I find this an interesting discussion because with my D we when she was young we used decisions about what to audition for or not as points of clarifiication for her about our values and hers. D some commercial and industrial work in middle school and from 10 on theatre work outside of school, so there were many chances to talk about auditions. She did Ragtime for the first time in 6th grade (this was school production because she was in a 4-12 school). There was a great deal of discussion about language in the show, eventually they kept it all in and talked with the kids about it's context and the range of racial slurs, it was an educational experience appropriate for school. Some parents pulled their kids, most didn't.
We have never told D she could not audition for anything, although I actively discouraged Grease which I find personally a horrible message for young women, but we did ask her to consider the overall themes of the shows, how do they fit with her values and would these themes or particular actions/scenes be difficult for her to reconcile. Asking her to be sure she could separate herself from the part. We figured these were the skills she needed to learn if she was going to pursue an acting career.

We probably had more discussions about commercial work than theatre, because they were both more abundant (at least the auditions, not necessarily the casting). Things like, should she do Bible camp industrials (we do not believe) or political adds for candidates we oppose? Sometimes her choices surprised us, but I always felt she was making a decision based on her sense of self and values, not just money.

Now as a college sophomore, I am confident she has a strong sense of her own values and where her "performer self" starts and ends, which is one of the things I am eternally greatfull for her early theatre experiences for.

nicksmtmom

alwaysamom...I was really not talking to anyone in the group, and I am sorry if I came off that way (pretty obvious why I am not a professional writer...I have trouble getting my "tone" across).

What I meant was, of course we all consider appropriateness when our kids take on a role...I know it is just theater, but we can't say that our own moral "thermometer" doesn't come into play. It's just that we all may "draw" the line at a different spot in the sand.

I agree with sassystage that most high schools keep it "age appropriate" but everyone has their own definition of that word. One of our local high schools did Urinetown...there was a pretty big stink (sorry) about that one, with lots of moral people on both sides of the debate.

Even in college, the VERY FIRST play I went to see at my son's new college was "Angels in America"...I had not heard of it before, and I was sickened by some of what I saw as unneccesarily graphic scenes...a man with aids purposely going to a park to infect someone, and the "act" being played out on stage with pants partially pulled down. Not with nudity, but still...

Was that necessary to the plot? Or was it just edgy and for shock value? When I contrast that with the way aids is covered in Rent...the two do not compare. I would hope he would choose one and pass on the other, even if he is in college. (He was not in the show, so luckily did not have to choose, but someday he may)

alwaysamom

nicksmom, did your son's college do both parts of Angels in America? I'm a little surprised that you'd never heard of it. It's a fabulous play that won back to back Tonys in the early 90s, part one produced in one year followed by part two the next. It also won the Pulitzer, and then the Drama Desk both years. The HBO film production of it was much acclaimed with a star-studded Hollywood cast, it was a show that everyone was clamoring to do. I imagine that your son was familiar with it. It certainly deals with issues in its social commentary that are uncomfortable for many, so your reaction is probably not unique but it's one of the most important pieces of theatre from the latter part of the 20th century. Tony Kushner is a good example of a playwright who produces thought-provoking work. Another of his great successes is Caroline, or Change. Different issues than Angels in America but no less powerful in its exploration of social issues. I highly recommend it!

dramadad

I thought about this thread last night. My high school daughter came in last night from going to see the opera "Dead Man Walking" and mentioned the first scene was intense, with a nude male and female in it. My wife and I were pretty surprised, as this is not the norm for our community. I guess that's what I get for not looking into the subject matter beforehand. She handled it fine though.

As for working for Disney, they are all about the villains! I always say Disney loves to scare the heck out of those kids.

kjgc

I'm sorry, I don't know how to make the next two paragraphs look like a quote from someone else... but they are:

"Even in college, the VERY FIRST play I went to see at my son's new college was "Angels in America"...I had not heard of it before, and I was sickened by some of what I saw as unneccesarily graphic scenes...a man with aids purposely going to a park to infect someone, and the "act" being played out on stage with pants partially pulled down. Not with nudity, but still...

Was that necessary to the plot? Or was it just edgy and for shock value? When I contrast that with the way aids is covered in Rent...the two do not compare. I would hope he would choose one and pass on the other, even if he is in college. (He was not in the show, so luckily did not have to choose, but someday he may)"

The short answer is "yes" that scene is necessary to the plot of the play. It does not need to be done graphically, and if memory serves wasn't on Broadway. "Angels in America..." is one of the best plays of the last half of the twentieth century. It is an important play about politics and is considered a seminal piece of literature. That scene is difficult to watch. It should be.

I don't bring this up to stand on my soapbox. I bring it up because this is an excellent discussion regarding the work. One aspect of theatre is entertainment. But many times the reasons we tell stories are so that the audience can experience things they might not otherwise understand. Actors do that by embodying a character and bringing the world of that character to the audience. If you believe that the stories we tell (and by "we" I mean those of us who work in the art form) are too strong, too graphic, or too something else I would argue that you may be missing the issues at hand.

The simulacrum presented on stage is often quite entertaining. But there is an audience that craves more and deserves more. I was drawn to the theatre so that I can bring the beauty of plays like "Angels in America" to the audience. To tell that story, to ask the audience to discover those metaphors, that language, live those lives.

I've managed to do most every large, happy musical written. I enjoy the mindlessness of "Anything Goes" and the depth of "South Pacific." But sometimes, forcing the audience outside of the comfort zone -- well --I think that's a good thing.

Students will be asked to do this. No, the vast majority of undergraduate programs will not allow nudity on stage. But some do. And there are shows out there that almost require nudity. But the sheer vulnerability of seeing a live actor naked in the right moment is stunning. And that vulnerability is very often the point. Sure, sometimes it is about the sex, but I hope to avoid those moments on stage. And by and large, so do most audiences. If nudity for the purposes of sex sold tickets on Broadway, it would be on Broadway. (Goodness knows there was a time it sold quite well on, in and around Times Square before the Mouse took over.)

Actors can hold on to their morals and values and still portray characters that are not like them. That's why it's called acting. If something isn't possible for them to do, then don't do it. But they do need to begin the journey of discovery that tells them when to say yes and when to say no.

nicksmtmom

They just did Part 1, and I had not heard of it before I went (my son is a walking MT encyclopedia, so no doubt he knew all about it.) After the play, I asked some people about it, and obviously found out it was highly acclaimed.

I guess some things are personal preference, but I walked out after intermission, not because I was overly shocked but because I thought it was truly a bizarre play...I had trouble following the plot, and I was really bored. And some of it was just over-the-top weird. Plus, I really did have a problem with some of the edgier stuff...not because of the subject matter, but in the crude way it was presented. It sort of turned my stomach, and not in a thought-provoking way just in a was-that-really-necessary way. If I had known it won Tony's would it have mattered? Meh... I am sorry if I sound small minded...I am not a prude, I just didn't like it. And I pretty much like everything (except South Pacific) Maybe I should rent it and give it another try.


I was talking to my husband about this thread last night, and he sort of summed it up in a funny way...."Hey, somebody's got to play Hitler." Well said.

kksmom5

Great post kjgc.

Out of all the productions my daughter has been involved with, the two that she states have meant the most to her have been THE LARAMIE PROJECT and RENT. She wrote a few college essays about how those shows affected her (for the good) . . . this was also a quote that she referenced in a couple essays . . . thought it was kind of fitting for this thread:

"The word theatre comes from the Greeks. It means the seeing place. It is the place people come to see the truth about life and the social situation. The theatre is a spiritual and social X-ray of its time. The theatre was created to tell people the truth about life and the social situation." - Stella Adler

kjgc

nicksmtmom, not everyone liked "Angels...". In fact, many critics disliked it intensely. No Tony matters to me, nor would it to you. What matters to any audience member is the experience they are having with the play. You clearly didn't have a good experience in the first 75 minutes, so you left. It is a difficult play to be sure.

But our job as faculty is to teach the art form. Making someone cry or tap their toes really isn't that hard. But making people think, truly take them on the journey and sustain that journey from start to finish. That takes an artist, with craft, discipline and talent. Training is about craft, talent and discipline and to achieve those things we need to take the students outside of their comfort zones. Nobody can understand where they are unless they leave that place. Everyone needs to understand where they are willing to go, and where they cannot go. They need to define themselves as people in order to define themselves as artists. That's not an easy journey. But it in many ways begins to separate entertainers (and I don't use that term in the pejorative) from artists.

"When you come into the theater, you have to be willing to say, "We're all here to undergo a communion, to find out what the hell is going on in this world." If you're not willing to say that, what you get is entertainment instead of art, and poor entertainment at that. -DAVID MAMET

takeitallin

Whiile we are not a religious family, we do have strong moral values and try to impart them to our kids. That being said, I have always felt that an actor's ability to take on a role that is completely contrary to their normal character is such an amazing ability to possess. I don't think it would be appropriate for a high school or middle school to take on a play that has obvious sexual or inappropriate content. I know that a lot of high schools and youth theater do Grease- pretty inappropriate when you listen to the content- but I like to think that these kids are thinking human beings and have developed their own sense of right and wrong by then. My D was a prostitute in a Regional production of J&H her senior year- she gave up her senior musical at her high school for that opportunity. A couple of people did comment that it seemed to be an awfully mature role for her (the next youngest cast member was 22) but my D was a very mature high schooler and has very strong moral values. We felt she could easily handle it.

One lesson we did learn- both she and her younger brother were in a Regional production of Ragtime when they were 14 and 8; her as immigrant ensemble and he as the little boy US and ensemble. Of course this show contains the very offensive "N" word, and his teacher called me to say that he was singing at school and saying that word. While we had sat down with him to explain the show and the history behind it, I guess we never specifically told him NOT to sing certain songs. Anyway, fortunately the school knew about the show and also knew we would never condone such language or ideas, and after we all explained why he should limit his singing, it was OK (although VERY embarassing!)

I think every actor has to define his/her own limits. I guess it is always a bit startling to parents the first time you see your child in a role with shock value, but I put it in perspective by recognizing that my D is a very strong and mature person with good values, and that if she chooses to take on a role, she does so on a professional basis.

soozievt

takeitallin, my daughter played Lucy (the lead, also a prostitute) in Jekyl and Hyde when she was 16. She was a Kit Kat Girl in Cabaret when she was 12 in a high school production and again at age 17 in an adult production. When she was 19, she played the lead in the mainstage musical at her college, which was the premier of a new musical called Only Children, in which she played a 12 year old girl who was turning tricks and she was nude on top and had simulated sex on stage. She was in an adult production of Grease (played Frenchy) right after she turned 16. When she was 15, she played Anita in West Side Story which includes the rape scene. When she was 19 or 20 in college, she was in an original workshop and the cast elected to start the show off where everyone was naked at first (not the entire show). Recently right around her 23rd birthday, she played a virgin in the premier of a sort of rock opera, called Stop the Virgens in NYC and in the final scene had to splatter fake blood all over her white costume.