Posted: 6/22/17 at 3:54pm
UncleCharlie said: "You're just jealous your mom can't take you now.
I love you.
"
Posted: 6/22/17 at 4:02pm
perfectlymarvelous said: "givesmevoice said: "LightsOut90 said: "this is such a dumb stunt, when I saw it in London there was an entire class of 8th year student behind me and they were entranced by it "
Aren't most 8th graders at least 13?"
Year 8 in the U.K. would be 12/13 year olds. "
in the US, 8th graders are 13/14 years old. so an 8th grade class wouldn't be barred.
Posted: 6/22/17 at 4:25pm
gypsy101 said: "perfectlymarvelous said: "givesmevoice said: "LightsOut90 said: "this is such a dumb stunt, when I saw it in London there was an entire class of 8th year student behind me and they were entranced by it "
Aren't most 8th graders at least 13?"
Year 8 in the U.K. would be 12/13 year olds. "
in the US, 8th graders are 13/14 years old. so an 8th grade class wouldn't be barred."
Yes I know, I'm American, but this person was talking about UK year 8s.
Posted: 6/22/17 at 8:08pm
I see it as good insurance. Having worked for Avenue Q as front of house we try to make sure those coming with children who seem to be under 13 know what they're getting into. Most do but there are a few who once in a while leave very angry or decide to not come back after intermission because of the songs in act one. As for 1984, it sounds graphic enough from what my friends have told me that I don't blame them for cutting off the problem.
Posted: 6/22/17 at 8:33pm
I always think it's crazy that most shows that are more adult in content or staging don't use age advisories or restrictions. I know with my play Porno Chic (that is coming from the UK to NY next year) we have always made sure we have had an age restriction on (15 and over) and that won't change for NY. Sometimes some shows are just not meant for kids.
Posted: 6/25/17 at 4:28pm
based on this article http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-broadways-1984-audiences-are-fainting-vomiting-getting-arrested-1016534 the provenance of the restriction is Birney and Sturridge.
Posted: 6/25/17 at 5:29pm
The parent of the SEVEN YEAR OLD child is an a$$hole for bringing them. No one vomited or fainted when I saw it. It wasn't that great.
Posted: 6/25/17 at 5:46pm
Margo319 said: "The parent of the SEVEN YEAR OLD child is an a$$hole for bringing them. No one vomited or fainted when I saw it. It wasn't that great.
"
You don't know what their reason was (and sometimes people's reasoning is very valid), and if the child wasn't a disturbance then bringing the kid is the parents' own prerogative. They should know what their child is able to handle, and could have left at any time should they have gotten distressed.
Updated On: 6/25/17 at 05:46 PM
Posted: 6/25/17 at 5:47pm
Lot666 said: "Bettyboy72 said: "So 13 year olds can see Harry Potters nuts and watch him stab horses but 1984 is too much. Okkkkkkk. Whatevs."
I saw both Equus and 1984, and I would've been comfortable taking a minor to Equus but I would not take a minor to this production of 1984. While 'Muricans are curiously prudish about nudity/sexuality, they're generally blasé about exposing children to violence.
One saw very little of "Harry Potters nuts" in Equus (blink and you missed it) and the depiction of horse-stabbing was highly stylized and far from literal (cage-like sculptures made of chrome pipes approximated the shape of horse heads). On the other hand, 1984 depicts the lengthy torture of a man in extremely literal and graphic terms.
I wouldn't take a minor to either of these shows. That nude scene in Equus was pretty lengthy and sexual. I wouldn't have a problem taking a minor to a show if the nudity were brief, non-sexual, or humorous, but I recall it being quite gratuitous and also remember him beinging on top of a nude woman and describing their sexual experience. That would be considered innapropriate even outside of the US.
That being said, the gratuitous violence in 1984 is something that I wouldn't take a minor to either. Also, the show is terribly tedious, IMO. Minors don't need to be exposed to shows with gratuitous violence or nudity. There's enough shows on Broadway without it.
Posted: 6/25/17 at 7:02pm
I don't think the lack of age restriction implies that Broadway is nothing but happy bunny Disney fare. And the stuff in that article about how it's representative of how lame and ineffective (paraphrasing) the art of theatre has become is laughable.
Posted: 6/25/17 at 7:34pm
I just read the article that was posted by Hogan. For anyone who has seen the show, what is your take on it.? I found these reactions from people mentioned in the article to be a little "too much". I mean...fainting and vomiting?
Posted: 6/25/17 at 8:55pm
newintown said: "Typical bourgeois American prudery about "protecting" children from reality. Heck, I know people who call 19 year olds "children."
"
I sell theatre tickets for a living and you wouldn't believe the number of times I have this conversation:
"It's a grandmother, mother, and her grandchildren."
"How old are they?"
"23 and 19."
"Oh so four adults then?"
One time recently I started mentioning Aladdin or Lion King as options. Then I found out the daughter was 50, not 15.
Posted: 6/26/17 at 12:34am
Can someone please describe (with the spoiler tag) the final torture scene? I'm curious about the staging & what the big deal is.
Posted: 6/26/17 at 10:01am
GeorgeandDot said: "That nude scene in Equus was pretty lengthy and sexual. I wouldn't have a problem taking a minor to a show if the nudity were brief, non-sexual, or humorous, but I recall it being quite gratuitous and also remember him beinging on top of a nude woman and describing their sexual experience."
I saw Equus twice and I don't remember Mr. Radcliffe "beinging [sic] on top of a nude woman and describing their sexual experience". You and I apparently have very different definitions of "gratuitous".
Posted: 6/26/17 at 10:01am
Updated On: 6/26/17 at 10:01 AM
Posted: 6/26/17 at 10:10am
HogansHero said: "based on this article http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-broadways-1984-audiences-are-fainting-vomiting-getting-arrested-1016534 the provenance of the restriction is Birney and Sturridge."
"Throughout the London transfer’s previews, attendees have fainted, thrown up and screamed at the actors from their seats."
It seems a bit hyperbolic to suggest that this sort of reaction has occurred "throughout" the previews. I was at the first Saturday evening preview and did not see or hear of anyone fainting, vomiting, or screaming at the actors.
Posted: 6/26/17 at 10:22am
LesMiz24601 said: "Can someone please describe (with the spoiler tag) the final torture scene? I'm curious about the staging & what the big deal is."
Winston is taken to "Room 101", which is depicted as a stark space with high white walls and bright white light. O'Brien (in a suit) and his team (in white jumpsuits and gas masks) strap Winston into a chair and connect electrodes to him, and it is suggested that high voltage is applied several times (the entire house goes dark and there is a very loud "electrical" sound accompanying each application). O'Brien then instructs his team to forcibly remove teeth from Winston's mouth (again, the house goes dark and Winston shrieks). As the "reprogramming" continues, O'Brien has them chop off the ends of Winston's fingers (similar blackout and screams). Finally, O'Brien coyly taunts Winston about his greatest fear and then a metal contraption containing rats is brought out and affixed to Winston's face. As O'Brien explains, the rats are hungry and when a panel is removed they will run to his face and begin gnawing on him. This last tactic proves too much for Winston and he surrenders his independent thought and emotion and embraces Big Brother.
Posted: 6/26/17 at 10:30am
"I saw Equus twice and I don't remember Mr. Radcliffe "beinging [sic] on top of a nude woman and describing their sexual experience". You and I apparently have very different definitions of "gratuitous"."
They both got naked, he got between her legs and simulated copulation, saying (in response to Dysart's question) "I put it in her." Of course, he didn't "put it in her," but that's not relevant - the point is that he was sort of on top of her and he was thrusting his hips, simulating the act of intercourse rather graphically (albeit for just a few seconds).
Posted: 6/26/17 at 11:12am
So called American prudery of the past has been replaced by an awareness that people would find unbelievable nowadays. I have enough friends who teach students as young as kindergarten who say the things kids say and do nowadays is anything but out of the book of prudes. Sheltered they are not.
It's not about being prude. It's about being appropriate and aware of developmental limits. And a second grader who talks about watching violent and/or sexually explicit movies or TV shows is not appropriate, developmentally or otherwise.
And before someone says they're not talking about elementary age kids, they're talking about teenagers I say this. I understand that. What I'm saying is exposure to this kind of thing is happening at much younger ages than you want to believe. And that doesn't make the USA what I would consider a prude country. Just the opposite actually. America is far from being a prudish nation anymore.
