<p>The problem is that we really don't know the full facts and context. Based on what has been posted, I would not be particularly disturbed - at this point - if it were my daughter. Obviously, if the repeated rehearsals of the scene with a female in the male role were gratuitous and done for the salacious purpose of observing a girl on girl kiss, that's one thing. On the other hand, there could be legitimate production, educational and artistic growth purposes served by having a female play the male role. What I would focus on if it were my daughter is her reaction and perceptions and really pinning down what about it made her feel uncomfortable. It could be that given the full facts and context, she had good reason to feel uncomfortable. It could also be that it was no more than discomfort about kissing a girl onstage, which would present different issues. If the latter, then it would be important to help my daughter work through those issues. </p>
<p>I think the important thing, as parents of kids involved in performing arts, is to assist them in developing the skills and a process to work through these issues in an analytical manner and reach decissions based on a full understanding of what a scene or role is really all about rather than based on generalized feelings of discomfort or perhaps unrealized prejudices (as was postulated by another poster). If our kids can do this, then they have the freedom to grow as artists while still preserving the integrity of important life values. </p>
<p>And I agree with the last 2 comments that if what this is about is simply a girl-girl kiss then it is indeed a sad commentary. Particularly given that it is arising in the context of a summer MT program. One of the greatest benefits my daughter derived from her summer programs was the ability to look past someone's gender or sexuality and to become organically comfortable with a wide diversity of differences. It all became totally irrelevent to the work being done.</p>
<p>It has often been said that a good actor is one who has had a variety of life experiences to draw from, a good imagination, an ability to identify with their feelings and has a strong sense of who they are. We can not have a strong sense of who we are if we are expected to be adults at the age of 8 and that is what many parents today are asking their kids to do. People who think that exposing their kids to adult tv, movies and plays when they are young children in an attempt to help them understand "the real world" are doing a huge disservice to their kids.
Unfortunately many parents measure themselves by how many activities they cart their kids to & how much "training" their kids receive rather than how much time they actually spend TALKING to their kids about what they value. Kids NEED down time, time outdoors and time having relaxed meals with their parents much more than they need this artificial "real world" exposer. Parents can use adult material that is portrayed in tv and movies as a spring board for discussion about these topics, but most are no where near when their kids are watching "The O.C." Their tweens are modeling themselves after these characters and thinking that they are "less than" if their own lives are nothing like the lives of these characters.<br>
In my opinion the best way to prepare for a career in acting is to have a balance childhood that offers an opportunity nurture curiosity, form opinions, values and an IMAGINATION!
Most of the college websites advise applicants to choose characters from monologues that are near their own age. Tarhut somehow thinks that anyone can do this kind of acting. Evidently the directors of these college programs disagree. Asking students to play roles that are clearly beyond their age and life experience is artificial at best. To "be" the character and to create the illusion, you have to have some reference points to the characters feelings and values. The OP was about the kind of material that was appropriate for kids to be doing in a PRE-COLLEGE setting. I think that is definately something parents need to ask before sending their child. Use your gut, it's something that actors are often asked to do! If you're going to spend the money, know what you're buying.</p>
<p>P.S. When my D was Kim in Miss Saigon recently the director did not ask that she and the boy that played her lover kiss from the very beginning. He had enough respect for the actors to know that they needed some time to get to know one another a little bit and that at 17 & 18 years old, with their peers watching, this would be a tough couple of scenes. Later, after they had done it several times & he was satisfied with how it all looked, he skipped over it and moved on to other important scenes during rehearsals. Sometimes a long look, tender touch or pause can have just as much affect as a badly performed, uncomfortable looking kiss.</p>
<p>Sarahsmom, did the OP say that her daughter was being asked to play someone much older than herself? I agree with your points above in general (about 8 year olds not being exposed to adult material, the importance of imagination, and so on), but I am confused about how it relates to the question posed by the original poster. I am assuming (perhaps wrongly!) that most parents here would find nothing much objectionable if their daughters were asked, (in a precollege setting) to kiss a young man as part of a play or musical. (Or vice versa: a young man being asked to kiss a young woman.) The OP was worried because his/her D was being asked to kiss a girl and was apparently uncomfortable with it. Let's keep in mind that, in general, a PRE COLLEGE program is not for the youngest teens; it's <em>typically</em> for kids between their junior and senior years of high school, though once in awhile, some kids who are between sophomore and junior years do attend. As an aside, last year my own D attended a very reputable Shakespeare summer program where they pride themselves on doing Shakespeare as Shakespeare did himself:): in other words, boys not only play males, but also take the roles of girls (and in this case, girls play females and males, though that obviously didn't happen in the Bard's time). My D, who played both a woman and a man (in love with a woman) in one production, found it an amazing acting challenge and opportunity. She has a blast, as did the other kids in the production. As far as I know, none of the kids were uncomfortable, and neither were the parents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Tarhut somehow thinks that anyone can do this kind of acting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? First of all, I don't even know, based on what you said, what "this kind of acting" even means. Clarify, please.</p>
<p>Secondly, your definition of what makes a great actor is the sort of definition one uses for on-camera work these days. It's not the definition used by the Brits, who, IMO, kick American butt in acting. (Note: It IS important to understand certain things about yourself, but only in relation to a baseline, and it's most useful in helping to understand others.)</p>
<p>The best definition I've ever seen of acting talent is that it consists of three parts: concentration, energy, and empathy. If one has large amounts of all three, one can be trained to be a stunning actor.</p>
<p>NMR, You are right, if the kiss was boy/girl, it probably would not have been as big an issue, but in my opinion that fact that it was a girl PLAYING a boy and that the director was making them kiss was just weird. WHY do it at all? It was in poor taste in my opinion. What was the director's motive, to make them feel uncomfortable, push the envelope?
The OP later brought up the point about what material was appropriate for teens etc. and Tarhut talked about the idea that "anyone could play someone their own age, sex etc."</p>
<p>Tarhut, I read thru all of the posts before writing. Sorry if I miss quoted you. No time to find the exact post. As you know, there are many schools and philosophies in acting. I believe in taking a little bit from all the "masters" and that there is no one true method of teaching it, but in my opinion we develop empathy, it's not just something we can have. It takes life experience and a strong sense of self.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As you know, there are many schools and philosophies in acting. I believe in taking a little bit from all the "masters" and that there is no one true method of teaching it, but in my opinion we develop empathy, it's not just something we can have. It takes life experience and a strong sense of self.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, and some of those schools and philosophies produce Paris Hilton. </p>
<p>As for empathy, there is strong neurological evidence now that, like general intelligence (G), there are some who are more gifted at it than others. Like abstract thought, it can be developed with technique, of course, but some people will simply never be able to go as far with empathy as others (an extreme example is the sociopath).</p>
<p>Finally, I don't know if you misrepresented me, because I don't know what you thought I was advocating.</p>
<p>Sarahsmom said: <<in my="" opinion="" that="" fact="" it="" was="" a="" girl="" playing="" boy="" and="" the="" director="" making="" them="" kiss="" just="" weird.="" why="" do="" at="" all?="" in="" poor="" taste="" opinion.="">>
I don't see why having a girl play a boy is "in poor taste." As I said in my post above, at the American Shakespeare Center, girls/women play boys/men and men/boys play women/girls all the time, and, certainly, in Shakespeare's time, women were generally not actors, so men had to play women. (Think Romeo and Juliet, with both halves of that famous, ill fated couple being played by men! Do you think audiences then thought it was "weird"? :))</in></p>
<p>
[quote]
NMR, You are right, if the kiss was boy/girl, it probably would not have been as big an issue, but in my opinion that fact that it was a girl PLAYING a boy and that the director was making them kiss was just weird. WHY do it at all? It was in poor taste in my opinion. What was the director's motive, to make them feel uncomfortable, push the envelope?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, heck, there MAY be lots of reasons for doing it (not that we have any real info or any of us have read the script). Or it may be a perverted director, but I think that's pretty rare. More likely, it's some frustrated high school/college teacher (or even professional director) who thinks the highest form of art is the bizarre (see "The Goodbye Girl"). I can just see someone like that thinking, "I need a way to let the audience know that the bond between these two girls is so close that she fantasizes about her friend while kissing a boy!"</p>
<p>These sorts of directors are a fact of life, unfortunately. Stay in the business long enough, and you'll end up doing Hamlet as a blindfish or something.</p>
<p>Actually, it could be an attempt to push the envelope. I know many kids who display talent but are unable to push through their inhibitions so that we can actuallly see it. Some of these kids suddenly get that AHA! moment and break through, but most don't. I once saw a director cast a sweet little girl as a slut so that she would learn to walk, talk, and think in that direction. She did the actress a favor. It's pretty tough to read well for a slutty role in the future if all your movements, instincts, and even your way of thinking tend toward naivete. This girl now has a better chance of getting more work because she understands how to do this sort of thing.</p>
<p>NMR, It is not in poor taste for a girl to play a boy because you don't have enough boys in your program. This happens all the time, but I do think that it is in poor taste to then put in a kissing scene. I just don't think that it was necessary and I would question the directors motives. My point is that there are many tasteful ways to stage these kinds of intimate scenes without being distasteful and disrespectful of young people's feelings.</p>
<p>Tarhut, Interesting point about having a sweet girl play a slut. I sometimes have kids do a theatre game in which they observe the different ways that people walk; a hip center, a head center, a chest center etc. They decide what kind of "center" their charactor has. If they play two different characters in the same show (we often have small casts) then I ask them to have a different kind of "walk" or "center" for their two different characters.</p>
<p>NMR, The original post said nothing about it being a Shakespere play and having boys play girls etc. is done in all boys schools all of the time, but I have never seen them as the boys to make out! I don't see George W. and his class mates at Philips Academy making out, but I could be wrong.</p>
<p>Sarahsmom, I understand that this was not a Shakespeare play. I was just using that as an example of what was done in legitimate theater in the past and is being done, now, by actors at American Shakespeare Center and their associated educational programs. Also, one kiss does not, imo, qualify as "making out." :) (In addition, I am not sure what you mean about George W. Bush and his classmates ... forgive me for being obtuse! :)) Of course, we don't have enough information about the original poster's D's precollege program, the play being staged and the director to really make valid judgments about this, in the end, though it sure has been a lively discussion. I am just sad that people think two girls kissing is such a monumental and "weird" thing!!</p>
<p>Tarhut, sorry for the multiple posts, I keep getting called away from my desk. I was referencing post #35 when I said that you seemed to think that it took little talent to play a teenager.
I think that you are absolutely right that some people are much more able to have empathy than others. I see it all of the time. I also believe that some people are really just born actors. A kid who went to school w/my D had never acted in a single play until he was a junior in h/s. He's now studying acting at NYU and is a marvelous actor. He has energy, concentration and empathy, but he's also had a very full an well rounded childhood. Who knows? He only applied to two schools and got into both.</p>
<p>Sarah:</p>
<p>Here is exactly what I said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I stand by that quote. Those roles generally require practically nothing of the actor except showing up on stage and saying lines and singing (if required). A steady diet of those roles makes for bad actors (see "Molly Ringwald" or "Jerry Mathers").</p>
<p>Tarhut,</p>
<p>I don't disagree, but I also know that colleges direct applicants to play characters close to their own age when choosing their audition monologues. I'm not suggesting that 16 yr. old girls only play ingenues. I'm just saying that I've never seen a 16 yr. old play a 42 year old well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
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.
[/quote]
[quote]
I stand by that quote. Those roles generally require practically nothing of the actor except showing up on stage and saying lines and singing (if required). A steady diet of those roles makes for bad actors (see "Molly Ringwald" or "Jerry Mathers").
[/quote]
To state the obvious, Shakespeare and others have some ingenue roles that require a bit more than "showing up on stage and saying lines and singing." :) Of course, they don't require the range it takes to play the some of the older roles ... They were written for young boys, after all. Then, there's playing them and really PLAYING them. As a case in point, check out any number of Hollywood ingenues stumbling all over Ophelia and then watch Lalla Ward play her on the 1980 BBC version. Yes, they played her, but not like that! Actually, a friend and I are reprising our Rosalind and Celia roles from senior year in h/s this summer. It's hard to tell as much about myself, but it's absolutely AMAZING how much better my friend is playing her lowly ingenue role after two years at a conservatory. Of course, we've both had to kiss a lot of girls (and smelly schlubs) since then. :)</p>
<p>But, yeah ... Back to the original topic ... My belief is that you should embrace anything that goes on in acting class/precollege/etc. that makes you uncomfortable. You really grow from that stuff.</p>
<p>Sarah:</p>
<p>Not necessary to play out of your age range. There are a number of roles for 20 somethings or even teenagers that go way beyond juvenile lead stuff.</p>
<p>fishbowl:</p>
<p>Well put and valid. I'm not saying that very skilled people can't play juveniles better than unskilled people, and it's the rare young person I've met who even knows the basics of Shakespearean scansion. I'm also not saying that a very skilled musician won't play three-guitar-chord music better than an unskilled one. It's just that practically anyone can learn to play three chords and strum, and a steady diet of three chords is likely to retard one's artistic growth.</p>
<p>Fishbowl, amen. Glad to see you back here. What you say is always worthwhile. And I especially like your advice about embracing that which makes you uncomfortable being a pathway to growth and development as an actor. I think that is what acting teachers are talking about when they urge students to take risks.</p>