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