Musicals that SHOULDN"T be done in high schools...but have...- Page 7

[WW_LV]

Posted: 12/2/21 at 8:47pm

Well, yeah.  Of course the concerns are for the parents etc.  But it goes much deeper.  What does the school itself sanction and why?

This is ALWAYS a tricky topic I guess because it's very easy to misinterpret the point.

I'm pretty open minded.  I have no problem with the Dead Girl Walking scene done "by the book" instead of the "first kiss" thing.

I have no problem with Spring Awakening.

And they are far more (potentially) controversial / objectionable.

What's the difference?  It has NOTHING to do with what kids see in their real lives.  Obviously they discover p_rn even before HS.  I'm not trying to "protect" anyone.  It's just this – theatrical value and what the school sanctions knowing they are ultimate;ly responsible for how their students are displayed.  And anyone who is involved in theater at that level, I really would appreciate your opinions.

The difference is "does the obvious sexuality contribute to the story”, or is it just "for fun"?  Just because "that's how the grown ups do it".

Veronica losing her virginity in an act of desperation to "belong" is a powerful message that advances a story VERY pertinent to teens.  The issue of poor or no sex education likewise.  I'd support those plays. for HS even though many parents would not.

I assume you ARE familiar with the play Gypsy?  The Minsky scene shows she went from clumsy and unsure when she volunteers to fill in for an absent stripper - to eventually being a very confident star.  An authentic demo of the techniques she used to sexually arouse the men in her audience and make their "spirit climb" is not necessary to make that point.

Or maybe you aren't a parent yourself and you think "let them have some fun".  To be honest, I understand that opinion though I disagree.  As opposed to someone I spoke with who seemed to feel it HAD to be done that way even in HS and I objected because I had issues ).  

I have NO objection to Gypsy as a HS play as long as that scene is modified.  I'll try to explain why (again).

I understand in the context of the play she is NOT trying to arouse anyone in the real audience. But if done like the pro play, we ARE expected to see (and commend by applause) the high school girl's ability to be sexually arousing.  Especially since it's staged as if we are a proxy for the Minsky audience 

It feels wrong for a school to sanction that when it is NOT necessary to make the point of the scene.  It honestly feels creepy to applaud this supposedly naked HS kid who got that way by performing an act intended to (as her song says) make men "feel good" and have their "spirit climb".

And so by literal dictionary definition it's gratuitous (unnecessary, inappropriate, unjustified)

There are a lot of ways I've tried to say this.  In the pro play, my wife and I could watch that scene - obviously designed, rehearsed, and directed for us to see the actor being sexually arousing - and she could turn to me as we applaud and say "that was kinda sexy, wasn't it?"  And I say "yeah".  And that would not only be OK, I suspect the director and the actor would EXPECT us to think that.  Would WANT us to think that.  They WORKED at making it that way.

Now let’s say the HS decided "let's do it the same way!"  So they work at that.  The HS girl takes direction to make her look sexually arousing – just like the pros!  (And I can point to examples where the HS production did just that.)

Would ANYONE think, much less say, "that was kinda sexy?"  Of course not.  So while done EXACTLY the same way, the audience is supposed to see it VERY differently.  Yet the overt sexuality they designed intentionally makes it uncomfortable.  Sure – we move on since it really isn't the point of the scene.  Yet for many it can take us OUT of the play.  Lose the suspension of disbelief that is critical to all plays.  OBVIOUSLY this is “pretend” (ALL plays are!) but we ARE supposed to think of her as Gypsy, not think “OK, she’s a HS kid pretending to be arousing because she has to".  Or worse - the director preferred that and she was afraid she'd lose the part is she didn't want to do it "by the book".

So why do it that way?  And understand, a later search revealed to me it's VERY common for HS to tone it down.  Do you think their plays suffered from that?  Do you think anyone (other than the HS boys) were disappointed or criticized that decision?

 

Updated On: 12/2/21 at 08:47 PM

[Den20]

Posted: 12/2/21 at 9:37pm

As a teacher and administrator in a Catholic high school for several decades, I think there are very few shows that can’t be done. I’ve seen excellent high school productions of Pippin and of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, even with its sort of raunchy references to “courtesans and eunuchs.” Gypsy seems ok to me, too … consider the 1962 film which is definitely PG. What I think I’d start to question    are cases where language has to be altered. How can Spring Awakening be done without cannibalizing ‘Totally F*CKed?’ And changing A Chorus Line lyric to ‘Boobs and Buns’ is silly and condescending, disrespectful to creators, audiences and performances. So I’d stay away from both those shows. But unless the language is inappropriate, a talented cast and a creative director can overcome the pearl-clutching reactions of very conservative theater goers whose delicate sensibilities may be offended. I don’t see any problem with any Sondheim show or any Kander and Ebb. High schoolers are a lot more mature than folks give them credit for, especially theater kids.

. 

[WW_LV]

Posted: 12/2/21 at 10:33pm

Den20 - I appreciate tour response and I agree with you - very few plays that can't be done in HS.  But all of them like the pro versions?  NO modifications?

I guess I simply have to get over the fact that my point regarding Gypsy ALWAYS gets misconstrued.

I don't object to the play for high school AT ALL.

I don't care AT ALL that a HS girl is cast as a world famous stripper. and we commend her finding success in "sex work".  It's the 20s - 30s.  She had no education and few options because her mom forced her into show business in a dying genre.

Though some parents wonder if a HS girl might think “I can escape my overbearing mother similarly with my webcam”

But you literally have NO issue with the Minsky scene being depicted this way:

Bantering sexually with audience members (dads, teachers);

Building anticipation for her "getting naked" as she starts removing her clothes' in full view;

Continuing the anticipation as she finishes behind a curtain with a drumroll and swirling spotlight (a technique that is associated with an attempt to make the viewer anxious for the event it leads up to);

Then a direct focus on the implication she is naked as she struts and sings about wanting men to feel good and have their spirit to climb.  That is, (sorry for the bluntness) but wanting them to - well, get what men get when they are turned on;

Obviously the song has to be sung.  But do we really need to draw attention to what that means?

And then while still supposedly naked we are expected to applaud her ability to appear as sexually arousing as the pro version does after all that buildup.

No issue at all to you?  You think it’s perfectly OK for us to appreciate (in the theatrical sense) her ability to be as sexually arousing as the pro play?  Do you think that authenticity is NECESSARY to show Gypsy found confidence and success?

As opposed to several versions that I saw that ALL ended with her partially clothed to remove that awkwardness when we applaud.  And each of them eliminate ALL the anticipation and had the suggestion this kid is naked kept to a few  seconds (if they had it at all) and not through the entire (mow raunchy) lyrics.  Some didn’t even have her remove anything.  We all know what a stripper does and why.  It adds NOTHING to the actual point of the scenes.  Not at all inappropriate for the pro or community or even college versions.

Highs school?  As I said, many schools recognized what I'm saying

But I guess you think those plays are WRONG for modifying it.  That the message of Rose and her daughters relationship suffers from us not seeing a high school girl stripping like the pro play.


If so , we disagree.

(I have no issue with “boobs and buns” by the way.  The funny thing is if I type out the words here it would be censored.  And for what it’s worth, that song and scene resonates as well with HS kids – it DOES make a pertinent point (how talent alone sadly isn’t enough).  And that point is NOT affected by a simple change in lyrics. 

I simply don’t see the relevant point of an authentically sexually arousing striptease in Gypsy.

Educate me.  Would YOU direct a HS kid to strip like the pro play?  Tell her how to be more arousing like the pro play?  

Updated On: 12/2/21 at 10:33 PM

[WW_LV]

Posted: 12/2/21 at 11:13pm

I'm out; 

I'm seeing a Catholic School administrator doing one of two things:

Either NOT reading with comprehension (I have NOTHING against Gypsy for HS PROVIDED That scene is modified and I KNOW I made that pretty clear)  And I AM ok with plays that have sexual scenes provided they are necessary to make a important point relevant to HS kids

OR this Catholic School administrator would have no objection to the school displaying a student sexually (to applauase)  when it's not necessary.  

I bet the HS kids thought it was funny - "hey, the parents and teachers LOVED Meagan's striptease!  Even our principal!!"

PG13 or not - it's intended for us to appreciate - in the theatrical sense - her ability to be appear sexually arousing.  IF dome like the pro play/.  That authenticity is NOT needed to show she became confident and successful.  As ALSO indicated by several HS that modify that scene.

Today the film would be rated PG13 by the way.  that rating didn't exist in 1962 and movies like Gypsy are the reason why it was added.  But even at PG13 that doesn't make it OK for a HS kid to be displayed - to applause - depicting it authentically when the actual point of her finding confidence and success can be made without that.

I guess this administrator would be right there applauding their student's ability to be just as sexy as any actor in any version of the pro play.  Way to go!!

I happen to draw a line there.  Maybe I'm REALLY out of step.

Actually  I don't think I am.  There are parents here against HS girls cavorting in fishnets and corsets just because the pros do it that way.  I can't post the HS Gypsy examples I find objectionable but I suspect those same people would agree with me.  And i suspect they'd be OK with other examples I could post that that modified it.

 

Updated On: 12/2/21 at 11:13 PM

[Den20]

Posted: 12/2/21 at 11:26pm

Of course there have to be modifications. But remember, ‘Let Me Entertain You’ is performed first as a child’s song … no change in lyric that I can recall when Gypsy does it later as an adult. Even Baby June wants the audience’s “spirit to climb.” As I recall, the only article she removes in her first ‘adult’ performance is a glove. No, I don’t think a high school production needs to show her progression to near nudity, of corse not! But it can show her growing confidence as a singer, a dancer and an entertainer — all of which the real Gypsy was. I wouldn’t have the actor banter with members of a real audience, just an imagined audience. (Not dads, not teachers). My point is, the show can be made to work in high school, and I think the film (which my parents took me to see at our local movie theater when I was around 7) offers a sort of guide. The ‘Gotta Have a Gimmick’ number is about comedy, not sex. Although it’s ostensibly about a ‘stripper,’ Gypsy is kind of an innocent show, more so than Cabaret or Spring Awakening, which obviously came later and are more sexually frank.

But I’m certainly not suggesting that the performance scenes in Gypsy should be sexually arousing in a high school production. In fact, they probably shouldn’t be sexually a rousing in a professional production. 

[WW_LV]

Posted: 12/3/21 at 9:20am

Thank you for this response.  It took a while but I see we are in agreement and apparently always were in agreement.  I’m glad you came back to clarify.

I realize you probably didn't go back and read my recent posts (before yesterday) on this thread.  They are long enough without restating everything in each one.  And I apologize for the length of this one as well.  Hopefully it’s my last.

But I did in fact say that IF that scene is modified, I have no issue at all with Gypsy in HS.  Though I originally did (over a year ago).  I’ve come to educate myself enough to say I have no issue at all with (non-explicit) sexuality in a HS play as long as it's not gratuitous (dictionary definition:  unnecessary / inappropriate / unjustified). 

But to me an "Authentic" Minsky scene is gratuitous in HS (but not for the pro play or community theater).

As you say and I said differently several times - "(the scenes) show her growing confidence as a singer, a dancer and an entertainer — all of which the real Gypsy was. "  Although I chuckle at the euphemisms often used in describing her act.  She wasn’t just any singer, dancer, entertainer.  She WAS a stripper!  (Or ecdysiast as she says in the Minsky scene).  A sex worker.  Nothing wrong with that in her case, but to avoid saying that makes it seem like it’s something we shouldn’t say out loud.  If we have to avoid calling her a stripper, then for sure the play is wrong for HS! 

But the point of the scene is as you describe, and “forcing” us to watch and applaud a HS kid performing that scene as overtly sexual as the pro play is NOT necessary to make that point.  Not necessary for the pro play either but not inapproiate in that setting to have the audience watch and appreciate by applause her ability to be arousing as the director and actor obvious intend for us to see IF done “by the book”

Quick summary of how this came up to me - in searching for something unrelated, I was surprised to learn Gypsy was done in HS.  I looked for opinions and comments and the results of that search included one (and only one) YouTube example.  It was as I describe a couple posts back and I felt that was over the line.  I got into a discussion on this (different board) and through that realized I made an erroneous (and VERY unfair) assumption that ALL high schools did it like that one.  So I was against it for HS at first.  Subsequent YouTube searches indicated many (most?) HS modify it as I also described earlier.  It was then I finally realized that modified, that scene and therefore play as a whole was perfectly OK for HS.

Despite that, many people felt it was wrong for HS no matter what.

But I still wonder just how the parents who are familiar with the play are informed as to what they are going to watch the high school girl do?  I think that's pertinent since in the play the scene is NOT like the movie at all.  In the movie, it's obvious we are watching her perform for a burlesque audience.  The play doesn't even TRY to mimic that.  Instead it uses a common technique where the real audience is now part of the play and acts as a proxy for the Minsky audience.  So in a sense, the HS kid is stripping for our entertainment.  Which though “pretend” is likely to make parents and teachers uncomfortable.  As such, I felt it necessary to tone down the overt sexuality of the pro version.  (BTW there are several pro and community theater versions on YouTube as well and that scene is intentionally highly suggestive – which again is no issue for that setting in my opinion).

Though even if somehow the HS staged it so we AREN’T the Minsky audience, it’s still uncomfortable to watch and applaud a HS girl being THAT sexually arousing as entertainment.  It’s sure different than applauding “Wherever We Go”!

BTW - as I said before; in 1962 there was no PG13 rating.  Gypsy today would be PG13.  I'm not judging at all but I found it curious that your parents took you to see Gypsy when you were 7.  Weren't you the least bit curious why that lady was taking her clothes off in front of all those people?  I realize I don’t know if you’re male or female BTW though I don’t think that makes a difference.

Again, that movie version is VERY different than the stage version; in fact I've gotten the impression that fans of the play have negative opinions about the 1962 movie.

Finally - I think you missed the intentional irony of the song “Let Me (Us) Entertain You”.  Sondheim wrote that knowing it would take on a very different and raunchy meaning when Louise/Gypsy sang it while sexually arousing her audience.  It's NOT a coincidence that the innocent sounding lyrics when she and her sister were kids now has a VERY risqué meaning.

EDIT - I'm wrong in that someone else wrote it, not Sondheim.  But my point is still valid.  The double meaning of the lyrics is intentional, not coincidental.  And the "lyrics" include all the bantering as well leading up to the payoff - which nearly every HS version I saw eliminated.

Edit to the edit - 
Sonheim DID write the lyrics. And the double meaning was intentional. Showing the irony of Louise - as a stripper - finding the success Rose dreamed of for her and June when they sang it as kids.

________

You see - the irony is that Rose devoted her life trying to make her kids into show business stars.  Then accidently the less talented daughter finds HUGE success in burlesque.  The song emphasizes that irony.  It's not only intentional, it's VERY clever.

As are the lines delivered later -

Rose:  You’re nothing but a cheap stripper!

Louise/Gypsy:  I’m not a cheap stripper!  I’m the highest paid one in the business!

 

Anyway I'm glad to see we are in complete agreement.  Much respect and thanks to you for clarifying that!

Updated On: 12/5/21 at 09:20 AM