Limits on Directors

College Majors Musical Theater Major
21

<p>jytte, I'm glad to hear that your D is finding a way to handle her current situation. That shows a certain sense of maturity, which you should be proud to see in her. I do think, and I mean no offense by this, that if you are hyperventilating and having sleepless nights, you are overreacting to this. I hope you can find a way to feel better about it. :)</p>

<p>I guess one area where we disagree is when you mention "all the quality older plays out there". I'm curious what all these plays are and why they're better, or different, for that matter, than current ones. Maybe you could mention some that you have in mind? The funny thing about this year's Tony winning musical Spring Awakening, which is one of the most controversial to come along in a LONG time, and whose subject matter includes, sex, abortion, masturbation, nudity, suicide, sexual abuse, and all involving teenagers!, is that it was written in the 19th century and was actually written about 13 and 14 year olds! It truly is unrealistic to expect that college students will not be faced with challenging material before they turn 21. If we were to adhere to that rule, probably the majority of kids now on national tours, and many on Broadway, including probably half of the Spring Awakening cast, wouldn't have jobs. :)</p>

22

<p>In my mind, there is a huge distinction between young professional actors who make a choice to audition and accept a role as a part of their chosen careers, and an educational situation where a scene is assigned. Also, I see a big difference between college and pre-college, which was the original situation. </p>

<p>In a pre-college setting, it is possible that students would be 16 (or possibly even younger). The old legal phrase used in education is "in loco parentis" - in place of the parents. If a pre-college program is drawing students of diverse backgrounds, from diverse areas of the country, I think they need to be mindful of the differing values of their students, and the parents of those students. My personal take would be that they should not be doing material which pushes the boundaries on "acceptable". However, if they choose to do so, I think they should have a disclaimer in their registration process that states that the material they include to use may be considered offensive or objectionable to some. </p>

<p>If, after she's out of school, my D accepts a role that requires nudity, or something else I might consider objectionable, it will be her call to make that decision; it will be my call as to whether or not I wish to see her on stage like that, or if I would find it too uncomfortable. </p>

<p>I don't consider myself a prude. I've been to 2 shows in the last 2 months that included nudity - one I knew that going in - the other was a surprise. One was very good, the other was brilliant. One, I'm guessing the nudity is standard, but it could have worked without it. The other, it was such an integral part of the piece that it couldn't be done any other way. My D saw both shows - one with me, one on her own. At the one when we went together, they asked her age as we were entering the theatre. (they treated it as an R movie rating) I may have taken her when she was 16 - but I would have been aware of what I was taking her to. I would NOT have willingly paid money to send her to an educational experience at that age to perform in a nude scene, or a scene as described in the original post.</p>

23

<p>Anyone applying to U Mich this year should copy this thread for their file! This was the topic of one of the essay questions last year. Alwaysamom should be a writer as well as a college coach!
I too enjoy being challenged by a production, but sometimes I like something just for fun. For me, there are limits to what I believe is appropriate for h/s students. I get tired of the heavy content of many of todays shows and I think that many times the same messages could be delivered more tastefully and effectively. Most h/s productions are attended by families and certainly the families of the actors would like to see the show. Young family members are greatly effected by the nutty rehearsal schedules of their h/s sibs. They naturally want to see the show!
If a play is to have any plot at all it needs conflict but you can have conflict conflict w/o opening showing people having sex or using drugs. Oliver! I think that h/s shows should target families for the audience. The Music Man, Seussical, Anything Goes, Bye Bye Birdie and The Sound of Music would all be appropriate for families. If I had the MTI list in front of me I could list many more. We all have boundaries. I don't need to watch a show like Spring Awakening to discuss any of those topics in my home. I have three teenagers and we HAVE and continually discuss thoes topics. That's my point, I guess. I don't think that it's Broadways job to get these topics rolling with my teens. It's mine.</p>

24

<p>Thank you MusThCC, what you have said was very similar to what I was thinking and was going to say. If an actor choses to audition for a part that requires kissing another person (of any gender) they should be prepared to do it. However to have no knowledge of the requirements and be told to do it, particularly in a program that you are paying to participate in. My D did Cabaret at 14 and the director prior to final casting talked extensively to us and to her. He made his final decision after he had worked with her in another production. It was an educatred choice on everyone's part.
I am not considered prudish at all, but I would be very unhappy if my D was forced to take part in a situation, that she was not informed of beforehand, that she felt was against her better judgement in a pre-college program.
I also disagree that an actor cannot be successful if they have things they will not do - nudity, homosexual scenes, hetrosexual scenes... for what ever reason. There are many shows on broadway and in regional theatres that do not require this. It maybe a theme of a show or present in a show but not all actors will engage in these actions.</p>

25

<p>keepingcalm, you are misconstruing what I said. Here is my quote:</p>

<p>" If an actor is never challenged, they will not grow, learn, or ever be truly fulfilled or successful in their craft."</p>

<p>I didn't refer to the items you did , although, I do think that actors who would refuse to be in any play which includes any 'nudity, homosexual scenes, or heterosexual scenes' is going to likely be spending even more time unemployed than actors already are! </p>

<p>I had the feeling when I first saw this original post that the true issue here was the same-sex kiss and it appears that I wasn't wrong. It's a kiss, it's not a sex scene. I'm not sure why people get so up in arms about this issue, I've never understood it. Too many people in the world are too closed-minded when it comes to this issue, I don't know if it's fear of the unknown or just plain old discrimination or what. The thing is, if your child is planning on making the theatre world, or any area of the arts really, their future and their career, they are going to have to face not only issues such as this one raised about one scene in a play at a summer program, which in the big scheme of things presumably is pretty insignificant, but the fact that they will be living, studying, and working with gay kids for the rest of their lives. If they are unable to do this, then they're going to have a real problem, because a large percentage of those involved in the theatre world are gay, and that will include casting people, directors, stage managers, agents, techies, musicians, producers, and fans, in addition to the actors!</p>

<p>This is all part and parcel of a life in the theatre. Although I do understand that perhaps a new, or uncomfortable, challenge may be difficult to a high school kid, particularly one who is far from home for probably the first time (back to the OP), I think this discussion has broadened, which isn't unusual here at CC :), and I think that the discussion is an important one, not only for the kids who are thinking about this life in theatre, but also for their families. Do you (the general you!) have difficulty with your child playing the role of a murderer? Or a liar? Or a cheat? Or a villain? Or someone who is evil? Someone who commits suicide? It seems that we never hear parent complaints about these situations, but it always seems to come up when there is something related, even tangentially, to sex. Before this becomes an essay, let me just say that there are VERY few plays that include nudity or sexual behavior to the extent that is even close to being equal to what you'll see currently on television. Very few shows have any type of advisory for the audience, so I'm curious MusThCC what the two shows were that you saw.</p>

26

<p>Please put Oliver at the beginning of the next sentence on my post. I should have read it over but was called away from the computer. I don't like the 20 min. limit placed on editing, but I guess haste makes waste! I never said I was a writer!</p>

27

<p>Haven't posted in a while, but this topic is near and dear to me, so here goes.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If you're going to be an actor, make a decision about whether or not you're going to be an actor or a hack who likes to ham it up on stage for the yucks and applause she gets from family and friends. There are a lot of community theaters that will let you scratch your itch if you just want to be a ham. There's no artistry required in hamming.</p></li>
<li><p>IF you're going to be an actor, understand that your job is illusion, and your art is in creating illusion as well as you possibly can. That might mean playing a homosexual when you are not, or a heterosexual when you are not, or a lizard, or a horse, or prostitute, or stripper, or any number of characters YOU are not. That is not the point.</p></li>
<li><p>If you're going to go into a pre-training camp, it's reasonable to assume that you are actually serious about acting. If you're not, it's a good time to find out. If you're not, leave. Find another career. You will not be happy as an actor.</p></li>
<li><p>There ARE abusive situations, and you must learn to recognize those. If a director wants you to come to the first audition naked, that's abuse. There's no good reason for that. There IS a legitimate reason to see you naked if the part calls for it, but only in final callbacks.</p></li>
<li><p>High schools, in my opinion, have a duty to present edgy plays because, presumably, some of the kids in those plays will seek a career in the performing arts, and it is those plays that provide the best training for modern productions. One will not learn much about performing "Chicago" by doing "The Sound of Music." If it's a small-town high school where all fo the kids are going to end up working for the local pulp mill, that's different. See "hamming" above.</p></li>
</ol>

28

<p>There is a big difference between a high school/community theater production and a pre-college theater workshop. Many participants in the former are there just for the social or fun aspects of the show. Participants in the latter are there because they are contemplating a career in the performing arts. It is a very difficult career, and not suited for everyone. If you have any doubts at all, better to find out now than after 4 very expensive years in college. After all, we're not talking about nudity or simulated sex here -- a same-sex kiss is pretty low on the offensive scale.</p>

<p>Often kids will react very emotionally at first to a situation that turns out to be minor. It sounds like this was one of those situations. And believe me, I know how it is to have a sleepless night when you think your child is unhappy! </p>

<p>This thread has gone way past the initial issue into an interesting discussion about the relevance of modern theater. For pure entertainment, I really enjoy shows like Mary Poppins and Beauty & the Beast -- but really ground-breaking theater SHOULD push the limits and challenge us. Shows like Spring Awakening, Rent, etc. may not be your grandmother's cup of tea, but they will be a very big part of our children's future.</p>

29

<p>Alwaysamom - the show that I saw with the age advisory was Take Me Out. On the coasts, it may not be necessary to have that - in the Midwest, I think it was probably a fairly prudent decision. Loved the show, loved the production - but unless you and I watch vastly different TV programming, it certainly exceeded what comes over my airwaves.</p>

<p>My D has played a lesbian, and a child who was the victim of a molester, which while not overly graphic, was certainly not tame either. And I saw both shows. I would take her grandma to one, but not the other. But, once again, these were roles she was paid to play, and her choice to make, and performed over the age of 18.</p>

<p>I still believe the difference is not in the material - it's in the setting. If a company chooses to produce a show, the local community is the paying public and will support the show or not. In a pre-college educational setting, the parent is the paying public, and shouldn't be blindsided about material. </p>

<p>Should high schoolers be pushed as actors? Absolutely! But - most HS students can be pushed plenty in material that some would consider more "traditional". </p>

<p>Does "edgy" theatre have a place? Absolutely! But - I don't think a high school performance camp is that place.</p>

30

<p>MusThCC, I would agree with you about an advisory for TMO, but I wouldn't restrict it by age. I would make the information available, either on the ticket selling website, or the box office, or additionally in the lobby, but age-checking is something I've never seen happen in a theatre. I saw TMO three times in NYC, once off-Broadway and twice after it switched to the Walter Kerr, and then again in Toronto, twice, as a family friend was playing the lead. It is a beautifully written piece of theatre, I love Richard Greenberg's plays. All of my Ds saw it (as did my 75 year old mom!), in both cities, and the youngest was probably 15 the first time she saw it. Oh, and you'll notice that I did say "VERY few", I didn't say "no". :)</p>

<p>Although I don't disagree with you entirely on the issue of the pre-college educational setting and selection of material, I truly wish that the OP was willing to share what program it is that we've been discussing. There's been a lot of discussions here on CC about various summer programs and I don't recall this particular issue arising in previous years, which surprises me.</p>

31

<p>MusTHCC:</p>

<p>I don't mean to be mean, but I've read this board for a long time now, and it strikes me that most parents simply don't have a clue about the performing arts business. This is natural. The most common thing I hear parents say about their talented children is "I have no idea where THAT (meaning talent, drive, love of theater) came from! There's certainly none of that in my family."</p>

<p>By the time a kid hits 18, there are already actors that age making a living in New York and LA. Talent agents in LA are hungry for young talent, but take older clients (meaning mid-20s talent) far less often unless there is a solid track record of booking. Theater is different, of course, because being successful in theater, in the long run, generally requires better artistry than on-camera work does.</p>

<p>There is no time to coddle 17-18 year olds. At that age, if they're serious about on-camera work, they'd better be willing to work long days at their craft and launch for LA pretty darn soon. If they want to make it in theater, they'd better be willing to work long days for many years until they're good enough to compete.</p>

<p>This is a simplification, of course. I'm simply trying to make the point that these "poor little precious darlings" are legally adults or very nearly adults, and treating them like children is only likely to retard their growth.</p>

32

<p>Tarhunt brings up an interesting point. A student of mine recently moved into NYC to pursue his career. He just turned 19, and has led a very sheltered life till now. For example, he's uncomfortable around gays -- says he never met a homosexual before! (Well, that's simply not true. A number of his high school friends were gay, but he never realized it.) There are a lot of show that he feels he cannot audition for, because his family will be offended by the content. That list includes Cabaret, Evita, Rent, Jesus Christ Superstar, Brighton Beach Memoirs, Hair, and many many more. This very talented individual is now struggling with emotional issues that should have been resolved several years ago. We do have a tendency to infantilize our teenagers, and I think it does them a disservice.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
I don't mean to be mean, but I've read this board for a long time now, and it strikes me that most parents simply don't have a clue about the performing arts business.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would concur; however, if your intent is to lump me in with the "most parents", you would be mistaken.</p>

<p>
[quote]
By the time a kid hits 18, there are already actors that age making a living in New York and LA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely. And, what I have already stated was that was a decision for them to make - but a totally separate one from an educational setting.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There is no time to coddle 17-18 year olds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fully agree that 17-18 year olds don't need to be coddled. In my mind, there is a significant distinction between the process and the material.<br>
I believe that kids (or parents of kids) reading this board need to realize that there are others out there who live, eat, breathe MT 24/7. I believe that to be successful in the ever-more-competitive college audition process, and the real-life theatre audition process, they must do all they can to train and prepare. They need to know that it is NOT an easy process - that doing it as a profession is not like doing HS or community theatre shows. They need to be going into it for the right reasons - if I hear one more kid make a comment like "when I make my Tony acceptance speech," I think I may well gag. If that is their definition of success as an actor, they are more than likely going to be miserable with their career choice, or be searching for a new career within a few years. They need to know that, unless they cross over into film work, the likelihood of them supporting themselves through an entire career without second jobs is remote at best. They need to be doing it solely for their love of it - if they can support themselves doing it, marvelous.</p>

<p>
[quote]
these "poor little precious darlings" are legally adults or very nearly adults, and treating them like children is only likely to retard their growth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Possibly it is because of my location - in that vast space between the 2 coasts. Most likely, the fact that I am probably one of the older posters on this site colors my views as well. I've never thought of myself as being conservative. The issue here isn't what may or may not be personally offensive to me. It is a question of parental standards. The poster doesn't refer to which program, but many of them take students in grades 9-12. A rising freshman could be 13-14. That is nowhere near to being very nearly adults. I would also see a difference in material presented in a scene study class, or a script analysis class as opposed to a public performance piece which was assigned to them, as opposed to auditioned for.<br>
I don't think expecting an educational institution to be sensitive to the diversity of backgrounds of their students and parents equates to treating high schoolers like babies or retarding their growth.<br>
And, again, it's a question of communication between the school and the parent. If their information states that parts will be assigned, and some of the plays may contain mature subject matter or language, this becomes a non-issue. Parents may decide the program is valuable enough to pursue anyway, or they may choose to take their training $$$ elsewhere. </p>

<p>Onstage - I agree that your student's case is a sad one - but once again, I see it being a totally different issue. </p>

<p>
[quote]
We do have a tendency to infantilize our teenagers, and I think it does them a disservice.

[/quote]

Unfortunately, we must just disagree on this one - I feel exactly the opposite. Spring break used to be a college phenomenon - now it's high school. Ditto trips to Europe. But these are consumer issues - if you have the money and want to - do it.
I feel that we push our young people harder, faster. For some parents, I think, unfortunately, it's a game of oneupmanship. Drive the fastest car, live in the biggest house, have the most accelerated student. I realize I sound like I should be talking about the days when I walked to school 6 miles in the snow, but I don't think resisting the notion of always pushing more, better, younger is infantilizing teens. I would like to think it is more following the natural progression of life. I would counter that many people are "adultilizing" teens and children.</p>

<p><em>End of soapbox</em></p>

34

<p>Chiming in here (even though no one asked me! :)). I would posit that our society does both: it pushes our kids and teens to be too grown up, too fast, AND, at the same time, it infantalizes our kids/teens. The consumer culture and competitive parenting practiced in some social classes (middle class and up, I guess you could say), combined with the very sexualized media/entertainment industry/advertising world, do result in kids growing up (in some ways) really quickly and, some would say, too quickly. This weekend, an editorial in my city newspaper talked about this with reference to children's clothing -- especially that of young girls -- being scaled down versions of what their older counterparts are wearing, and how those little camisoles, platform shoes, etc. sexualize 8 and 9 year olds. Back when I was a little girl, we just threw on a dress or pants and went outside to play! I don't think most of us cared how we looked. :) Yet, today, it's not unusual for a 9 year old to worry about looking "hot," and I have read some studies that reveal that a startling percent of girls that age are on diets, because they worry they are too fat. :( I doubt most of us would consider this a positive development. On the other hand, it seems to me that there is also the opposite element (often practiced in the same households) of parents micromanaging their children's lives in a way that was not so present when I was growing up. I work at a university, and have heard of parents who call their kid's cellphones each morning to wake the kid up for class each day, not to mention parents calling professors to question a kid's grade. (They call it "helicopter" parenting.) I am sure most readers here would agree that those are things that college students ought to be handling themselves. Forgive me if this has gotten off topic; it's just a very interesting discussion! To copy MusicThCC, <em>end of my rant.</em> :)</p>

35

<p>I think what's getting mixed up here is "popular culture" and "stage training." I don't have an ideological axe to grind over popular culture. I do have an axe to grind over stage training. I know some people think the kids who mouth atrocious lines to a laugh track on the Disney Channel can play Hamlet or Hedda the moment the reach the right age, but it's not so.</p>

<p>Fulton High school in Fulton, Missouri banned The Crucible because some people were offended by an earlier production of Grease!!! I'm not making this up.</p>

<p>The EASIEST thing for any young actor to play is a juvenile lead or ingenue. Most people with a thimbleful of talent can play these roles in their sleep. Of course, these roles are also the most competitive in the professional theater, because there are so many people who can do them and because there are so many young people who haven't yet given up on the profession. If you want to teach kids how to play juveniles/ingenues, all the frilly material that's requires very little of the actor except for knowing where to giggle is perfectly fine.</p>

<p>Hmmm. It just occurred to me. I should be encouraging this approach. It gives the kids I know a leg up on kids whose most challenging role was Joe Cable.</p>

36

<p>What a fun discussion this has turned out to be! We've really branched out from that original post. But let me just say that my comments about "infantilizing" did not refer to spring breaks, driving fast cars, or any of that "consumer" stuff. I'm talking about insulating teenagers from the real world, to the point that they are unable to deal with it when they enter college and/or the workplace. I'm sure we all know young people who go absolutely off the deep end when they leave home -- alcohol & drug problems, promiscuity, inability to maintain a routine or hold onto a job. And these aren't always kids with a history of problems! In many cases I feel it can be traced back to an over-protective homelife -- parents who didn't discuss these issues with their kids because it was considered inappropriate. Kids need to know about these things, and 13 or 14 is not too early to begin discussing them. And I think it does relate back to the original issue -- a young girl who didn't know how to handle an uncomfortable situation. Teens who are accustomed to discussing -- and maybe debating -- issues with parents, will be more likely to speak up when confronted with a director who may be pushing the boundaries past what is acceptable.</p>

37

<p>onstage, you are so right! When I was a newspaper reporter, I interviewed a very smart educational psychologist who talked at length about just what you reference above: kids who are so insulated from the real world (mainly because their parents are so afraid of it) that they melt down when they go away to college. Not only do they lack basic skills (such as how to do laundry, how to schedule themselves, how to use public transit to get places, etc.) but they also are frightened of everything because their parents were, too, and passed that along to them. As a result, a surprising number of kids away at college for the first time freak out and end up coming home, or, as you noted above, turn to alcohol, drugs and so on to cope. The psychologist said something such as "In many cases, these kids have been beautifully educated in the academic sense. Their parents just forgot or neglected to educate them about the real world." Let's not let that happen to our kids, folks.</p>

38

<p>onstage you are right parents an and should discuss these things with their kids if they are going into theatre since they will run into it in productions and with other actors and the life in general. But if your child is across the country at a pre-college program it is difficult to have this discussion with them. However lets not over generalize that all families need to discuss these issues for their kids to be successful in college. </p>

<p>ANd as an aside- I find Grease an objectionable play and questioned Ds desire it to do it this summer. I find the transformation of Sandy to be a "bad girl" in order to get the boy rather repulsive. I have spent yers with D and other middle school age girls trying to convince them that dong anything to get the boy to like them is not necessary. It is not that I am prudish but feminism in the US has suffered enough blows that we don't need to completely revert. OK. I'll get off my soap box on this one - it is just a particular pet peeve.</p>

39

<p>Unfortunately the world has changed a great deal since we were kids. There are lots of dangers and pitfalls out there that our children have to face at a very young age. But I think the biggest danger is ignorance. Just because we inform our children about issues in the real world doesn't turn them into precocious monsters, and doesn't mean they can't have a wonderful, rewarding and fun-filled childhood! To quote a song from my younger years, "teach your children well" -- and they'll make the right decisions and choices when they're ready to take their first adult steps. Keep them uninformed, and they won't know how.</p>

40

<p>keepingcalm:</p>

<p>I think this is a case in point for what I was talking about. It really doesn't matter what you think of Grease. The fact is, Grease is performed rather often and if you're an actor and you want to freakin' WORK, it's a VERY good idea to know how to do as many different styles of dance, singing, and acting as you possibly can. Folks, this is a BUSINESS. It happens to be a business where one has to interview for a job again, and again, and again. It behooves one to get as good as possible at as many "types" as possible so that one can get as much work as possible.</p>

<p>To me, training programs should be about helping you to actually get work. If you don't work, you're not an actor. You're a wannabe.</p>