<p>Yes, Keepingcalm, you're right that it's difficult to have these discussions long distance. That's my point -- it should be an on-going process that starts at an early age -- and not just to succeed in college -- but to succeed in life.</p>
<p>P.S. -- have to agree with you about Grease -- not much positive content in that script!</p>
<p>Tarhunt it is a business but there are many businesses in the world and that does not mean our children or actors have to be devoid of ethics or personal morals. It is not quite a free-for-all that we are sending our children into. Yes, they should know what plays mean and what they may mean to others and then make a choice about whether working in a job would or would not be acceptable to their personal standards.
My D will not do commercial work that is religious (summer bible camp type things) because we do not believe. The one time she was very uncomfortable and it was problematic for her to portray and ask others to to"come to jesus" (yes that was what the industrial was about) when she did not believe. She felt she would be offending those who did believe. She could do the part, she did do it once, but she did not return since she found it problematic. Maybe this will hurt her in the long run but I certainly hope that we are not saying that because acting (or anything else) is a business we should relinquish personal responsibility, morals and choice just for the job.</p>
<p>This discussion has really caught my attention. Notmamarose's argument that society does "both" to young people sums up my position very well. Beyond that, though, I have a lot of sympathy for Keepingcalm's point about maintaining ethics. I believe I understand Tarhunt's position that if your main goal in life is a life on the stage, that the best way to get there is ANYTHING that is required. Nevertheless, it is certainly not the role of a parent to encourage the child to put ambition ahead of finer qualities. It's great to help your child achieve his or her goals, but his or her character will suffer if that goal is put ahead of all else. Note: I am NOT talking about a decision to be take a role which requires nudity or a lesbian kiss. I am talking about an attitude to life and decisions.</p>
<p>I am just wondering if Keepingcalm's D did or did not do that production of Grease?</p>
<p>Onstage
She did not do Grease but it was because she wasn't cast and was invited to go to Florida with another family in the middle of rehearsals. They were season auditions and she was cast in High School Musical which is also close to the bottom of my list of musicals to see/do because it is so insufferably insipid.</p>
<p>Gee, I see I made a typo and maybe it's too late for me to fix it. Ah well. It is supposed to be: "talking about a decision to take a role." Sorry!</p>
<p>keepingcalm:</p>
<p>Of course there is always some point where one will have to refuse to take a job. Porn comes to mind. Religious films? Well, I know a woman who is one of the top costume designers in the world and she got her start doing continuity on Sun Pictures even though she's an atheist. Work is work. </p>
<p>As for ambition, let's get real here. We're not talking about becoming a star. We're talking about eating. I will say it again. If your daughter or anyone else thinks it's a good idea to turn down work, or not audition for work, because of offended sensibilities, she'd be best off not going into acting at all. I'm absolutely serious. It's not the place for her. </p>
<p>I have a daughter who is currently in a B'Way show, a son who is beginning to catch on in LA (but that can change any moment) and a career of my own on stage. I'm not a tyro at this. Believe me. Some people would be much better off getting an MBA and then doing the occasional community theater show.</p>
<p>I do understand that people have to work and currently D has the luxury of living at home with parents paying the bills so eating does not enter into her figuring- however, as a parent of a maturing, thinking child, I think this is an important luxury that we offer her. Time to determine her own beliefs and convictions and what choices there really are to make. Maybe at 18 (my D is still only 15) she will decided that acting won't be the job for her, but now it is more important for her to have time to determine who she is and what she stands for rather than selling herself to any job. </p>
<p>I guess my feeling on all this is that as developing actors, pre-college and maybe older need to have time to develop their own standards with the guidance of adults. They should be helped to understand who theatre and acting does not mean abandoning or not developing their own morals. Some of your post read, to me, but maybe not your intention, as having and developing personal morals and standards is antithetical to being an actor.</p>
<p>I did ask her last night about whether she would do stage scenes that required her to kiss another girl, or being nude on stage. her response - If it's part of a job, its part of the job and would do it. I may not like it but you get over that.</p>
<p>Good for your daughter! It sounds like she has a better head on her shoulders than her mom/dad. </p>
<p>You know, you're just not getting it. You just don't understand what it's like to be in the business. You don't appear to understand, even, what acting is.</p>
<p>Acting is an art form of illusion in which one creates said illusion with one's body and voice. In this sense, the body and voice become tools in the way that paints and canvas are tools for the painter. The question for the actor must always be: "How can I use my tools to best create the illusion I seek to create?" Good actors learn very soon to separate their tools from "me" to the degree possible. (Note: There is a counter movement, especially in the on-camera world, to always be "me" regardless of the character and situation in question. I believe this is the equivalent of Elvis on Velvet to the graphic arts world.)</p>
<p>The question you're posing appears to be: "When does one decide not to lend one's artistry, and the tools of that artistry, to a production." Everyone must make that decision at some point. I draw the line at work that is bigoted (if it's modern and aimed at recruiting other bigots), takes advantage of the poor (infomercials for easy credit, for instance), and pornography (though I've never been asked to be in a pornographic undertaking). I do that knowing that my gesture will be useless and meaningless, because someone else will do what I didn't do.</p>
<p>You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that all work that, in any way, objectifies women is not suitable. On that scale, Grease hardly registers. You will find that almost all of Shakespeare, Moliere, Restoration, Greek, Roman, melodrama, Shaw, etc. have SOMETHING that the most ardent feminists will find offensive. Heck, you'll be hard pressed not to find something offensive in modern musicals such as A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Oklahoma, South Pacific, and the like.</p>
<p>Here's an example. A friend of mine related an experience she had with a Mormon woman who was playing Maria in The Sound of Music in a professional production. The Maria complained all the time about her husband, who objected strongly to her kissing Captain Von Trapp on stage, and who wanted her to never go on stage again, opting for the traditional Mormon role of homemaker.</p>
<p>My friend's take (she's a woman) is the same as mine: If you want to be an actor, be an actor. If you want to be a Mormon, be a Mormon. But don't complain to me when the two conflict. That's YOUR choice!</p>
<p>Most people set bars on what they will and won't do. You seem to want to set the bar so low that waitressing is the only option.</p>
<p>Let's get back to basics here. To quote the original poster:</p>
<p>"My daughter is in a pre-college theatre program. Just had their first rehearsals. Her character has to kiss another girl. Director wants it full on the lips.</p>
<p>"The person she kisses is actually a male character, but for some reason, in this particular scene only, it's played by a girl."</p>
<p>Does this not creep you out a little? Maybe I'm the only one it does.</p>
<p>mdt:</p>
<p>Doesn't creep me out at all without knowing more facts. I can think of a number of reasons for why this was done that are perfectly harmless. I can also think of a number of reasons why this would be done that would reveal a severely disturbed director.</p>
<p>When I was young, I had to kiss another young man on stage. Neither of us was gay. We sat down, talked about it, and decided that if we were going to do this thing, we weren't going to be telegraphing to the audience: "We're really just actors doing something we've been told to do, and we're really uncomfortable with it." We decided to go for it big time to maintain the illusion that we were about to become lovers.</p>
<p>Welcome to the world of illusion.</p>
<p>So jytte2 better get the facts, right? In case her high school student is in the hands of a severely disturbed director?</p>
<p>mdt:</p>
<p>Jytte doesn't have a clue about theater. Her original post asked why kids should have to do this at every rehearsal and whether actors should have to do something that makes them uncomfortable. Whoa!</p>
<p>If it were my child, I'd know what's going on with about three questions. I'd also approach it figuring a 90%+ chance that there's nothing amiss. But if it were a child of mine, they'd all be so well trained and experienced before going to this kind of camp that they'd know how to evaluate it and deal with it on their own.</p>
<p>You know, you're just not getting it. You just don't understand what it's like to be in the business. You don't appear to understand, even, what acting is.</p>
<p>Since you know nothing about me or my background that seems to be very bold statement. YOu have bandied cedentials, our family may or may not choose to do this.</p>
<p>Good for your daughter! It sounds like she has a better head on her shoulders than her mom/dad.
Furthermorethe reason my child has a good head on her shoulders is because she has had parents that have engaged her in the world, made clear what are stance is and let her make decisions, within reason for a minor, for herself.</p>
<p>I did not say I would let her do Grease, I expressed my opnion to her about it but I didn't say don't do it. I didn't say it wasn't suitable, I think it is stupid and sends a terrible message, I also said to her that it has great dance scenes that I thought she would enjoy (I didn't mention this at first as it wasn't relevant).</p>
<p>My child may chose to be an actor as an adult as she has been as a child. However, she will most certainly be a person and a citizen, and therefore I keep in my mind that I am raising a person. A person who will need to know who she is herself and then make decisions for herself based on her knowledge of herself. You have working children who I am sure you felt you raised the right way, and probably did. I am raising my child to make thoughtful and though through decisions and not just do what you are being told at all costs.</p>
<p>This was turning into a very interesting discussion until the personal shots started. C'mon, that's not what this Board is about and certainly doesn't promote a free exchange of ideas and dialogue.</p>
<p>While no one should dispute the importance of a teen/young adult developing a system of values that guides them in a variety of life decisions, including what work they accept, Tarhunt does have a point that it's critical for an actor to distinguish between a role they are playing and who they are in "real life". There are a ton of roles involving characters who engage in a wide variety of behaviors that one would not find appropriate in their personal lives. Often these are the more interesting characters to play because the actor gets to explore elements of the human condition that make us uneasy, afraid, or even repulse us. If the conduct is an integral part of the character and the story being told and the staging and direction for the scenes in question are conducted in a way that appropriately balances the sensitive nature of the behavior with the integrity of the story, then there should be no issue. That's why it's "acting" and not just "being yourself" (as I think was stated in a prior post).</p>
<p>Participating in a summer program can be a great way for an asprising high school actor to learn this in a safe environment. These programs should be a place to stretch your boundaries and limits with educational and peer supports in place. My daughter participated in summer programs at colleges with conservatory programs when she was 16 and 17. Much time was spent in acting studio breaking down walls and building the trust and confidence essential to risk taking. She had the opportunity to live and learn with a diverse group of students - hetros, gay guys, lesbians, bi's of both genders, racial, religious and socio-economic diversity. She greatly benefited from these experiences and developed the capacity to comfortably play scenes as an actor that she wouldn't engage in in her "real life". It's a process that thereafter served her well in a variety of roles where she found her self in romantic (and to varying degrees intimate) scenes with opposing actors (one in particular) who in "real life" she would have preferred to stick her finger down her throat and puke than to even kiss. Hopefully your daughter and you can view this challenge in her precollege program as an equally worthwhile learning opportunity.</p>
<p>This was, as MichaelNKat says, a very interesting discussion. I appreciated the openness of the OP and understand that it's possible to reflect upon an original thought and grow, as no doubt she has. Not everyone has been involved in the business; some posters are starting out with young pre-college kids and are challenged as they begin to understand the concepts so well described by Tarhunt. I agree that alwaysamom should write a book (what style! what content!). I especially appreciate that even with very strong ideas of her own, she was open to MusThCC's distinctions between pre-college and other productions (two pages ago). The case of the OP's student is not about material, though, and I am guessing the reason a girl was playing the part of a guy occurred because there were more male parts than male actors, but of course, this is impossible to know from where I stand. I understand, though, why the OP would not list the program. What saddens me is the personal attacks. Please. Stop. If you are fortunate enough to know much more than others, share generously - and be kind.</p>
<p>OP: "The person she kisses is actually a male character, but for some reason, IN THIS PARTICULAR SCENE ONLY, it's played by a girl." Emphasis added. Doesn't sound like it's due to a shortage of boys.</p>
<p>oh - I missed that - see, I don't know why it happened - but regardless - the conversation it opened up, including your input - is illuminating although we cannot know why this situation occurred given the information we have - though it still might be to give a female student an acting opportunity in that scene.</p>
<p>As interesting as this discussion is, I cannot help but posit that this thread would never even have taken place had the OP's daughter been told she had to kiss a young man, rather than a young woman. Am I the only one who finds it a little sad that, in 2007, a girl-girl kiss on stage creates such a big issue?</p>
<p>NotMamaRose:</p>
<p>I agree that the discussion probably wouldn't have become so heated if it had been boy-girl, but my experience with my own children and with parents at their schools is that any sort of reference to the fact that human beings are sexual beings can stir more than a bit of controversy in some circles. I've been fighting these battles for many, many years now. It has become almost impossible, in many communities, for high schools to mount anything more controversial than "Narnia" (for instance) because of offended sensibilities of a vocal minority.</p>