<p>Today's NY Times has a story for theatre kids, their parents, and anyone else interested in theatre as a vehicle for expression and education. It's about a post-"Grease" furor in a small Missouri town that led to cancelling "The Crucible" in favor of "A Midsummer Night's Dream." We've previously gotten into cultural/moral squabbles on this forum. I don't want to revive those, and I don't mean to criticize small towns or anyone's values. I just think this is worth reading and considering. Here's the link: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/national/11fulton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/national/11fulton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>Thanks for posting - interesting reading.</p>
<p>Very scary.</p>
<p>Do drama teachers prepare rationales for presenting certain plays? I used to teach children's literature at the college level (to future teachers) and taught that to prevent censorship, a prepared rationale and communication with parents can help enormously. A rationale analyzes the work itself and why that particular piece of literature needs to be taught in that class. A rationale of why Grease is a good musical or why The Crucible is good play to be taught to those drama students at that high school would support the teacher's decision. I think a good rationale would really boost support for performing The Crucible. One interesting thing about preparing a rationale is that the teacher is forced to examine his or her own choices. If I were preparing a rationale for Grease I might have a difficult time of arguing it is a necessary "text" for high school students, but it would make for good discussion. One of the points a rationale must cover is the theme that a text presents. A major theme in Grease is that it's better to be "wild" and do "naughty" things than to be a good girl like Sandy. I think that theme would be more valuable if it linked going against society with a more admirable trait such as creativity or leadership (I think more could have been done with the leadership aspect of Danny, but then maybe others think that Danny's leadership is linked to his own individualism). Anyway, what I'm trying to say, I guess, is that censorship is a scary (to quote Chrism) path for society, but to fight against it educators need to do their own homework. While the folks who want to ban plays and books in their own communities frequently focus on details like language or costumes, administrators can back up their teachers more easily if the teachers provide them with prepared rationales which clearly show how important the play is to the education of the students.</p>
<p>Geez. I wonder how they'd react to "Tartuffe." LOL I hope the visual arts teacher isn't showing kids Michelangelo. I can hear 'em now ... "Them people is nekked!" It's pornawgruffy! Yew cain't show that ta younguns!" :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I grew up mostly in small towns, I'm Christian, and my so-called talent was "discovered" at church. It annoys me to no end how small groups of people exert themselves in such a way that they make the rest of us look like idiots to the rest of the world. Then again, I suppose that's just another aspect of the First Amendment.</p>
<p>I thought it was scary, too. Just a handful of people have forced these changes. The asrticle points out that Grease is the #2 most performed musical by high schools, and Curcible is the #2 most performed drama, so they can't be offending THAT many people. The teacher shouldn't have to justify why these are valuable (and you don't do a musical based on the story and the moral, these things don't have a lot of redeeming value in musicals- - you do it based on music, dancing, etc so kids can get the theater experience.</p>
<p>The idea behind a rationale is not to "justify," if you are referring to the rationale concept. Rather, it forces the teacher to examine if that text is truly the best one for the situation and then provides backup ammunition to his or her principal when the complaints come in. And, for the record, most cases of censorship in our schools today do come from 2 or 3 people (in some cases ONE person) making a complaint. Without rationales to explain choices and to give support to the "argument," principals too often buckle to these demands. Why shouldn't drama teachers make decisions which are well thought out and not just based on whim? The music and dancing are obviously VERY important in musicals, but they ARE stories also. Some musicals, like Miss Saigon, have weighty stories and themes; others, like Anything Goes, less so. Obviously a rationale for a musical could include why the music from that choice is important to these kids, etc. For example, when our high school did Chess, the director talked to the parents about the importance of the kids learning about the Cold War era, the type of music in Chess and how it fits into the history of the musical, and so on. If our kids were going to major in MT just to learn to sing and dance as mindless performers, they wouldn't need to learn acting or the history of musicals, for example.</p>
<p>There was also a small town in Colorado that fired a teacher for showing parts of Faustus.</p>
<p>I don't really find the reaction in that town scary, I just find it sad. It really is a shame that so many people are so closed-minded.</p>
<p>mtmommy, at the arts high school my D attended, there was always a 'rationale' written for each production (and that school does 40 productions a year!). Each may not have been as extensive as what you describe but it certainly was done as part of the drama department's research of each play prior to obtaining the rights. I don't recall ever hearing a complaint about any production and that wasn't because they did 'safe' shows. :) </p>
<p>I don't recall ever hearing any objections to any h/s shows in any of the places we've lived. It is an unfortunate situation where one or two individuals can have the power to cause a school administrator to make a decision as is evidenced in that article. Theatre and the literature from which much of it is derived is, and should be, a vehicle to expand horizons, to instruct, to educate and to inform, as well as to entertain, both those who perform the show and those who view it. </p>
<p>Just as a postscript, about Grease. I can't believe that Grease causes any controversy in today's world. The town we were living in 15-20 years ago did Grease as their spring musical, with nary a problem. The elementary schools in the area were invited for special performances just for them. It truly boggles the mind what some find objectionable to the extent that they don't want their children to even hear/see/learn/discuss it. It's not a conducive atmosphere in which to learn when that type of censorship rears its ugly, unreasonable head.</p>
<p>I hope those people never see a production at my school. Five minutes into 'Hair' and they'd be having a stroke.</p>
<p>Besides the censorship, which is really so sad and all, but the process of doing so based on three complaints with no public hearing? No rationale from the department or school to back up their choice? They even say that the Crucible is read in the curriculum there! It sounds like they "caved in" because they didn't want "controversy"....so, like rather than stand up for their decisions, they just let three people decide for the school. THAT itself is quite scary.</p>
<p>(my child has been in both Grease and The Crucible....while both were adult productions, I have seen both put on by youth theater as well)</p>
<p>There was a similar problem at my son's high school last year. He directed A Thousand Clowns, and there were complaints about the language. Then the drama teacher had given some kids permission to do Cannibal, the musical. After the complaints about A Thousand Clowns, the principal insisted on reading the script. He forbid them to do it, and they were even on the local news. Then the drama teacher decided they would do the Crucible. Well, after that, there were so many complaints, the class hasn't even done a play this year. The teacher as well as the principal are afraid, I guess.</p>
<p>The music teacher, rather than drama teacher, controls the all-school musical, and she only will let them do G-rated musicals, and there aren't very many. It is very sad. </p>
<p>Yet, across town, another school has a strong director and has done A Chorus Line, Caberet, and this year, Chicago.</p>
<p>Can't wait to see what is going to happen with our "Nunsense"-not there will be much left with all the "cuts" that are being instituted! Honestly, the evening news should be much more disturbing to people than these High School shows!</p>
<p>I found it interesting that the superintendent in the Times story said of "Romeo and Juliet," "it would be difficult to say that's something we would not perform." Hmmm, I don't know...14 years old? true love? suicide? He might want to rethink his position.........</p>
<p>As for the idea of rationales that mtmommy discussed -- that may seem like an impingement on artistic freedom, but it probably makes good "business" sense.</p>
<p>I agree with those of you who described the situation as sad as well as those who described it as scary. It's sad for the people who are directly involved and scary for its broader implications. And Lulu'sMomma, good point that people should be more disturbed by what they see on CNN or in their daily paper than by what they see talented, dedicated, hardworking kids doing on stage in cooperation with talented, dedicated, hardworking teachers. Those kids could be making FAR worse choices about what to do with their time! But I think too many people are more comfortable wearing blinders than they are opening their eyes. To venture further into cliche-land, nobody ever moved forward by circling the wagons; but then, the idea of moving forward...of possibly changing...gives some people the willies.</p>
<p>I emailed the story to my D in Santa Fe, knowing she'd be very glad that her HS was not like that. They did "Grease" her sophomore year, and while some people who brought young kids were a bit taken surprised by some of the themes, there were not to my knowledge any serious complaints. And I think that if there had been, they wouldn't have gone anywhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, very true! The classics are quite often smuttier than contemporary drama. Maybe someone should suggest Aristophanes' Lysistrata to the principal. After all it is a classic...</p>
<p>Thinking back to the shows I did when I was in school/youth theatre/community theatre, almost all of them would probably have been cancelled had I lived in such a community. We've had sex, drugs, (rock and roll too actually), teenage pregnancies, child abuse, teacher-pupil relationships, people being trampled to death, etc. etc. The most we've ever changed in a show was taking out swearing if the actor wasn't comfortable saying it. To say something is innappropriate without having seen it?! I despair! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>And interestingly enough, the director of most of the plays I did back home that have sex, violence, or other "inappropriate themes" is a lay preacher. Makes me rather skeptical about blaming religious people in general - some people just use things as excuses to hide behind.</p>
<p>And let's remember that in Midsummer Night's Dream - a woman sleeps with a "donkey". :)</p>
<p>I find this a very interesting discussion because it must be very difficult for schools to select 'appropriate works' that challenge the students acting, the community, and an audience. My D is at a 4-12 arts school that does 5 major dramatic productions a year. (sometimes more and occasionally less.) I don't know that there has ever been a censorhsip issue about selections, but I would say sometimes they have not always made the best age appropriate selections. This year the junior high drama was "Dark of the Moon" which was a very odd selection as most of the kids performing it did not really understand much of it and did not really enjoy it.
The school also has audience issues - many of the schools that brought their students to dark of the moon had know idea what they were getting into. A few years ago the school did Ragtime. It was a wonderful production but sold very badly. There was also a lot of discussion around change the racial slurs and should all be changed or just "the N word." In the end all stayed but my D who was in 6th grade at the time and part of the Harlem ensemble increased her vocabulary.
But it is hard to know what schools do, this was a bold choice for a school but sales wise it really backfired. The trend now seems to be major musicals for a family audience (that sell) and then smaller productions that are more cutting edge.</p>
<p>I feel so lucky to attend high school where I do. We did The Laramie Project my freshman year, and didn't censor a word. I can't imagine Grease being that offensive, and I find it ironic that they're banning The Crucible, which teaches open-mindedness and to not ban things simply because they don't seem 'right' at first glance...I also find it odd that juniors at the school were reading the Crucible in English class, but weren't allowed to be in it or see it....</p>
<p>On the other hand, this incident is strangely reminiscent of when my community theatre did Once on This Island. the Town talked about banning it because of the racial predjudices it talked about, and for about a month, there was no annual summer show--we eventually were able to rehearse and perform the show, but with the alternate script that MTI offers.</p>
<p>Theatre is an amazing tool for teaching and sending messages to the general public. If you want to educate a group about a particular matter, you use theatre or music or dance--something that engages the audience at large. The current "rules" for what can and cannot be produced at the high school level are outrageous. I wish more people would understand the importance art-and theater in particular-plays in everyday life.</p>
<p>I am thrilled to live in my town! We have done some "questionable" plays like Chorus Line, Robber Bridegroom and Bat Boy...The director did tone down a few things but went ahead with those productions. Granted, some parents complained but our school decided to place school ratings on plays (e.g. Rated PG-13 by School Officials) instead of censoring.
Also, a few years back my son played the evil Dentist in Little Shop of Horrors...and he wouldn't harm a fly in real life. I feel that if we decide too take our younger children to these performances, we open up a door of opportunity to discuss real-life situations with our children for example, "Maybe it is not such a good idea to stay with an abusive relationship." OR conversely, "Do not abuse your loved ones..."
Children will find out that bad things happen in life. We can't censor evil out of everything. We have to give our children who will soon be adults the skills to deal with things that they surely will come across at one point or another.</p>
<p>In my daughter's school she is on a 15 person committee made up of students, parents, teachers and the principal that review upcoming material to be performed. This was started after complaints about various one acts and shows performed. The committee has been very successful and has turned around some of these complaining parents when they are in a room, reviewing the context of the play and they feel they have some say in what will be perfomed (not that I think they really should have). I hate that it has come to that. The few certainly do ruin it for the many, but this has at least enabled her school to still perform these shows without banning them! They recently did Grease and the Crucible by the way which were both awesome!</p>