posted
I love OSCs books, and I love reading his political commentaries and reviews, even when they say things I don't necessarily agree with. But his latest Uncle Orson Reviews Everything article really struck a nerve.
First off I am a guy. You could have probably guessed that from my name, but I figured I'd throw it out there. Second I was very involved in Drama club throughout high school and I still go to every play they put on, even though I'm in college now. I'm even going out with one of the Actresses. Now then, on to my points:
quote:"It's the curse of drama classes in every college and high school in America: ... at tryouts there are five times as many females as males."
This is false. In the drama department at my high school, the numbers are just about even. Sometimes the guys even outnumber the girls. Of course there are some plays that draw upon the girls more heavily then the guys, but the numbers still don't come close to a 5:1 ratio. While I'm sure OSC's statement works for most high schools in America, it does not work for all. This might just me being nitpicky, however it needs to be said for my later points.
quote:"Meanwhile, any guy who can actually speak clearly enough to be understood will be cast in terrific parts."
I suppose this is why I got casted as an extra in the first play I was in and then worked hours on end better preparing myself for the next play, in which I got a role just a bit better than an extra. Guys need to work at acting just as much as girls do in my high school, and I'm sure its the same way in most high schools across the country. I know my old drama teacher would rather cast a female in a male part or switch the role from male to female than cast a bad male actor in the part.
quote:"The result is a play called Bubble Gum. It's set at a slumber party of 14-year-old girls. Nine girls at the party, plus one younger sister, the mom, and a dog named Bouffant -- also played by a girl."
Ok, I can understand in the cases he talked about writing and using plays with more female parts. However, writing an ALL girl play is not the answer. He said girls outnumber guys by 5:1. That means, an ideal play should have one male for every 5 female parts. That means that two of the actors should be male. How hard would it be to change the sister to a brother, the mother to a father, or at least cast the dog as a male? One or two plays might not be seen as a big deal, but it could discourage guys from trying out for later plays. It could even be seen as sexism. Is it really worth it to deny aspiring actors stage time just because some actresses didn't get roles in other plays?
For those of you who are exhausted, I'm now on my last point.
quote:"Because the play is so short -- only 45 minutes, which is almost ideal for educational theatre -- we have made it a double bill."
He was worried about the stage time females have in these plays, but then he makes the solution a short play. Also I have to disagree with the optimal time for a high school play. The ideal time is about 1.5 hours in my opinion. This gives enough stage time for all the actors, short enough time to keep the interest of the audience, and enough overflow time, as most audiences will allow a 2 hour play. Any longer than that is pushing the envelope.
So I want to here from others and there views on this subject. It's a really touchy subject, and even though I trust you guys, please do not flame anyones opinion. If you disagree, give your reasons. And thank you to anyone who bothered to read down this far.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, congrats to OSC on another dramatic production; wish I lived closer to Greensboro.
Now I'll give my reasons for disagreement.
It's great that at your HS, Nathan, there are plenty of male actors; but I think that is not always the case. In cases where the girls in drama outnumber the boys, a play with more female characters makes sense. Surely it would be a mistake to ban all plays with any male characters from HS, but I don't think that's OSC's proposal. His proposal is to have *some* plays with mostly, or all, female casts, for HS drama clubs that are mostly female. There are already plenty of dramas heavily weighted toward male characters, especially those related to military service. This should round out a HS drama teacher's options -- not force the teacher one way or another.
That is, we needn't go to extremes. Adding Bubble Gum to the repertoire doesn't mean eliminating The Odd Couple or Twelve Angry Men.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card's commentary on male to female actors certainly fits the Theatre program where I went to College. I was a stage manager with only a slight propensity toward acting, but I knew the most talented actresses who could barely get any decent role in an entire season of mainstage performances, while men who were merely mediocre I'd see on stage three or four times in a season. As the one running the auditions, I'd see first hand how the numbers are staggeringly out of whack.
posted
In every theater group I've had experience with since my teens (~30 years and 4 states) my experience tracks with OSC's. There are always far more girls and women who want to be involved in dramatic productions (especially musicals) than boys and men. I think your experience is the exception, Nathan.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your replies. First to all three of you, I know my experience is different then most. It probably has a big part to do with where you live and the school administration. But what I meant was that while OSC was right in most cases, he should not have said "every college and high school in America." That is simply a false statement.
I also know that in some places the males without talent do get major roles while females with much more talent get left out. Again that is not the case everywhere though.
I am also not saying that in the place where females outnumber males there shouldn't be plays with a MAJORITY of female actors. However I don't think there should be a play that is all female, as drama club is coed.
I would love to discuss this more later, but I have to go right now. Feel free to comment more.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why Scott R's play "Richard Nixon and the Thirty Elephants" has never actually been performed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nathan, I'm sorry that your high school was left out of Card's "all high schools" comment. But just because your example is an exception doesn't mean he lied. It was just easier to say "all" than "a vast majority with a <1% exception rate".
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think OSC is making this into a neo-affirmative action program; he's producing something new by taking advantage of an inequity in a certain field of entertainment.
His job, as a playwright, is to think of fresh ideas that can be translated into a script, and then into a stage production, all the while being an entertaining performance. When writing a play, one has to consider likely budgets, casts, and other factors, not working to find a "diverse student body."
Card isn't trying to solve a problem (the problem that boys are more reluctant to cast), he's avoiding it, by creating a production with all girls. The core of the matter is not gender equity, but pulling off a fun play with fresh ideas, using resources available. And considering that a large supply of male actors are a more unstable commodity, what Card did was make a production that made use of the most reliable resource.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Just because a writer SAYS something in their own memoirs (for instance, Uncle Orson Reviews Everything) Does not automatically mean everything in them is 100% accurate all of the time. A good example of when people say something to make a POINT that isn't ENTIRELY accurate would be:
Mom: Eat your food! All the Children in Africa are STARVING to death! Be thankful for what you have.
Now, my mom said this to me, SEVERAL times. Does it mean that each and every single minor in Africa is starving? No. But it is an inherent truth that starving is a problem in africa and therefore I should eat my food.
Now let us put this into context of each and every one of your problems with Orsons dictation and his idea for an all girl play.
1. Does it really MATTER that your school happened to have a lot of guy actors? No. What does matter is the epidemic of young males becoming less and less excited about school activities in America to the point where, as far as most adults and school-goers can see; any well spoken bloke out of the freshman class can get a lead role.
Perhaps the versa can be said for other schools, but when you want to make an ARGUMENT for your case and show your OPINION, you tend to show majority information without mentioning the exceptions to the rule. Such is what OSC did. What you did was bring up a SINGULAR instance against his claim, which does not prove his statment wrong, it merely makes the point that there is no such thing as an absolute.
If you didn't know there are no such things as absolutes in life except death, then you are very odd indeed.
And if you did know there were no such things as absolutes in life except death, why would you make a post refuting such things? It's silly!
2. Since we have covered your first 2 points together, (see aforementioned "any-guy-can-get-a-part" statement) your third is the most absurd among them. You Automatically assume situations in all areas are mathmatical in nature, also that situations in all areas are fair. Assumptions, as you know, only make an small donkey out of you and myself. You because many people have to smack their foreheads in shame of the impulsive statement you made (as I hope that this was more of a sudden rant than a long thought out disertation to the inherent ill-thinking of OSC) and Me because I have to almost flame you (though I do it only in the most constructive of ways) and look rude and incosiderate in order to explain the inapropriate assumption.
That said on assumptions, making a play is not like making a cake, you do not plan for a specific person or a specific set of people UNLESS you, the playwriter, choose to do so, and then it is not a bias, but merely an artistic, or logistical choice. OSC created this play to remedy a very simple problem: Too few boys, not enough girl parts in plays.
The solution is neither sexist, nor biased, it is merely fact. If situation A occurs, you use solution B. Remember that this world is not short on plays to render on the stage, if all else fails, perform Shakespeare.
3. Your own words:
quote: The ideal time is about 1.5 hours in my opinion.
This is neither relevant nor makes a point towards your case and therefore should be omitted in arguments against the statement. Unless you are an acclaimed or practiced Play-writer with a multitude of books, seminars and lessons behind your opinions then they remain just that; opinions. With no basis in fact or statistic you fail to persuade to your belief.
Whereas, as a writer of several plays, books, seminars, screenplays, ect.. OSC has a library of understanding of the elements that make a good story, on-stage or off. Time is an important tool, too long and you lose your audience, too short and you lose story. Knowing your audience is as an important tool in choosing a play a choosing your actors.
Highschool is not the place to do long boring or "thoughtful" plays. Neither is grade school or middle school. Honestly, unless you are in a cultured and "Fop" area with a deep interest in historic and classic arts, the longer and more muse-oriented plays are best left be. People come to colorful, bright, up-beat and well known theatrics. Also, in our fast paced and quick to lose interest society we need things that go by faster or let us get up and go to the bathroom often. Plays in context to youth must adhere to it's audiences needs; attention getters, humor or good story telling and a short but purposeful length. This is simple logic of consumership.
So creating a 45 minute play is not WRONG, nor is it something you should point out as an error. A play can be any length, with any number of characters of any sex. That is the beauty of the play.
In Summary.... if you had sat down and thought a moment about all of the previous arguments you made against OSC's editorial commentary, you may have begun to realize the, perhaps not childish, but certainly impulsive, nature of the comments. They were all valid truths to you, as are most opinions. However that does not make them the basis for argumentation, nor do they make good conversation and debating prospects.
If you intend to judge anothers works, I suggest looking at all reasoning behind the statement first, before faulting it. You may find simple logic that does not need to be refuted. More intelectual folks will get the simple conversational fallacies inherent in the dialouge and simply over-look them as Societal markers of our age, while the rest will say that the opinion is wrong and move on to the next paragraph. Eitherway, no discussion is neccessary.
Thank you for reading.
(Long time lurker, first post, and very happy to finally make my debut)
posted
Huh... I bet that post makes you feel really smart-Ish... Why lurk? A forum is about sharing your onion with others and having them agree or disagree... I like your style though... It comes across as very Demonsthes-ish, in a kind of dastardly, in-your-face kind of way. Feel free to chop up my comments, I would enjoy a battle of words! Lol! love, CGP Posts: 93 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it is an inherent truth that starving is a problem in africa and therefore I should eat my food.
Are you sure you want to use this example? Because it's kind of nonsensical. After all, whether you eat your food or not has no impact whatsoever on people who may or may not be starving in Africa.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* Instead you could not buy more food than you really need and send the money you saved to hunger relief in Africa.
Eating more after you're already full is wasting food just as much as throwing it in the trash would be.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clandestineguitarplayer: I like your style though... It comes across as very Demonsthes-ish, in a kind of dastardly, in-your-face kind of way.
Great idea! Let's have everyone pick a fancy pseudonym and take a Demosthenes position on something!
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it is an inherent truth that starving is a problem in africa and therefore I should eat my food.
Are you sure you want to use this example? Because it's kind of nonsensical. After all, whether you eat your food or not has no impact whatsoever on people who may or may not be starving in Africa.
You are probably correct, though my logic said "Don't waste good food, even if it's not something you LIKE to eat, a child would do well to be thankful for what he/she has and eat it, rather then be picky when there are those out there who would relish the chance at ANYTHING to eat."
But I appreciate your letting me clairfy the anecdote.
And on the subject of my attitude;
quote: It comes across as very Demonsthes-ish, in a kind of dastardly, in-your-face kind of way.
I have to say I am quite flattered. To be compared to such a character, though I humbly disagree. I spent several years in highschool and now college perfect the art of BS and argumentation. That is to say I am a member of the Forensics Association (NFL and Phi Rho Pi) and it has been the activity of the past 6-7 years of my life to spend most of my Friday's-Sunday's speaking, debating and researching top political and economical as well as pop cultural topics in order to provide a strong and efficient rebuttal to any contention.
That is to say, I learned how to argue well, sound smart and confuse those who didn't agree into submission.
Where-as the Demonthesian style was no where near as blunt and anecdotal, focusing more on peoples feelings and the outright common-sensical nature of the inacuracies of society.
But I appreciate that you would like to debate with me sometime.
However, to correct you (Clandestineguitarplayer), the posting did not make me feel "smart-ish". It merely proves to me that I've still got what it takes to refute with the best of them. As to why I lurked - most of what I believe gets said before I have time to post, and being redundant is not only idiotic, it can often make the one re-posting what everyone else has said seem foolish. I realize a few of my points were touched on earlier, but this is one of my greatest pet peeves; argumentation without context and research. Had Nathan B. provided either of these, he may have gotten away with his statement (minus a few personal opinion refutations) but as it stood, he gave us no grounds for agreeing, and left himself wide open to be taught a hard lesson in discussion and refutation.
Sometimes you have to come out of the shadows and say what needs to be said. But now that I have done so, I find it easier to post. The backlash against this new poster was not nearly as harsh as I had myself believing it would be.
posted
Glad to have you come out of the shadows... Its a little creepy knowing that there are people out there who have opinions on what you say and are just waiting for you to say something stupid before they make any sort of comment... When was there ever any compliment given to someone on these forums? I think there should be more love on the internet... I hope you all got that because I thought it was funny... I like the way people try to put their smartest foot forward on this website so as to convince others that they are mentally and intellectually superior and more like the author that we so obviously admire and aspire to be like unto. Hiding the fact that deep down inside, we are all 16-year-old sophomores... I myself feel incredibly smart when talking to you guys and I use big fancy words that make me feel special... I just recently stumbled upon this website and realized that it was a dream come true! We all get to sit and banter about the books we love and pick apart the author who wrote them! AMAZING GOOD FUN! And although all of you guys seem to disagree with OSC's political views, I find myself pretty close on some of them... For example, the Tony Blair democrat statement... As a native Englishman I heartily agree... But unfortunately, like most people in this country/world (no fight picking) I will probably be eaten alive for liking socialism... it works... If handled properly, and if you can persuade rich doctors that truck drivers are people too, then there would be no problems with it... All this country needs for it to work properly is a little humility... Greatest country in the world... I know that myself, as well as others would like some proof occasionally. Patriotic is great. Blind is not so great... We just need to open our eyes a little... Socialism is still democracy in Britain. We could do that right? We could go for free health care and such right? Anyway... Rambling on will just make you all hate me... So I am gonna stop... And now that I have, everyone can go ahead and release the hounds on me... Tali-ho!
quote:But it is an inherent truth that starving is a problem in africa and therefore I should eat my food.
Are you sure you want to use this example? Because it's kind of nonsensical. After all, whether you eat your food or not has no impact whatsoever on people who may or may not be starving in Africa.
You are probably correct, though my logic said "Don't waste good food, even if it's not something you LIKE to eat, a child would do well to be thankful for what he/she has and eat it, rather then be picky when there are those out there who would relish the chance at ANYTHING to eat."
That explains why we should value being able to eat what we do. It doesn't explain why we should eat food rather than have it go to waste. If I'm full then I see no reason to eat leftover food on principle. In general, it's probably unhealthy.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
I aggree with your statement, and I appreciate the warm welcome. Indeed, I too agree with a lot more of OSC's personal views than most.
Threads -
quote: That explains why we should value being able to eat what we do. It doesn't explain why we should eat food rather than have it go to waste.
Valuing being able to eat what we do would be best observed by EATING it, not throwing it away. You answer your own question in this way. Also, wasting food is like dishonoring it, or at the very least showing it now respect. If you truely valued your food you'd eat it.
I'd also like to mention that the entire context of the anecdote was under the premise that it was a MOTHER telling her CHILD this. No where in it did it ever say the child was full, or the child was alergic or any other variables. It was simply a child who wouldn't eat there food.
This applies in context due to value and worth. Show you respect the bounty before you by eating it, regardless of whether you LIKE the food or not.
Tom Davidson -
Yes. Really. I may not be very humble on occasion, but humility doesn't get you Queen of the World, gumption and drive do.
Note: okay, some humility might get you to be queen of the world, but explaining away your faults all the time takes away from your drive to change the world, and since it's hard enough to re-instate a monarchy of the world (not that there ever really was one) with out making YOURSELF seem spineless.
quote:Yes. Really. I may not be very humble on occasion, but humility doesn't get you Queen of the World, gumption and drive do.
One might wonder why you would want to be queen of this particular virtual slice of world, as opposed to, say, someone we might enjoy talking to.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok thats funny TomDavidson... But its 2 on 1 at this point, so if you dont like the topic then you can leave We are bantering about the current state of the world and you are stabbing at us... I enjoy talking to him. Thats enough for this thread no? Posts: 93 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to harp on this, but "you should eat your unwanted food to demonstrate that you are grateful for not having been born in Africa" is a strange argument, when you really get down to it. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Can you not talk to the Queen of the World? Are you so sure of this? Maybe, but up until they become queen of the world... they are bound to want to talk to you, to gain your aproval so they don't have to add you to the long list of people they have to KILL to make it to the top. Hostile take-overs are always so... messy.
2. WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK I'M A HIM!!! (LOL). I figured my "female-dogish" rants and the idea of wanting to be QUEEN (note I didn't say DRAG Queen) of the world would lend itself to my femininity. Alas.. even online they think I'm a tomboy. Perhaps it's my blunt and get-to-the-point-without-really-getting-to-the-point attitude.
3. It is a strange argument. I think that was the point of my original statement:
quote: A good example of when people say something to make a POINT that isn't ENTIRELY accurate would be:
See, even I SAID it's not entirely accurate. But it is still an argumentation that is used by parents to get there kids to eat their greens when the child clearly does not enjoy them.
My original analogy involved the "well, people in hell want ice-water" argumentation, but to be honest, I can't remember a scenario where my mom said that and then I stopped asking for whatever she was wanting me to stop asking for.
4. YAY DEBATE IS FUN!
(that last point really was just me happy that people are actually talking about this stuff, I had worried most of my posts would go unnoticed and ignored because it seemed as though a lot of the forum had become trivial over the years.)
Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that I think my post are better than others, but when you are posting in a forum called "discussions about OSC" and less tha 1/3 of the topics are actually discussing anything REMOTELY related to HIM....
Well... the definition of trivial gives it to me;
quote: triv·i·al /ˈtrɪviəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[triv-ee-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. of very little importance or value; insignificant: Don't bother me with trivial matters. 2. commonplace; ordinary.
While perhaps a little harsh. (okay a lot harsh) My statment was only meant to suggest that a large portion of the posting here wasn't really debating, and so someone wanting to debate may have not been welcomed. It was only a probability, not a certainty, which was silenced when people actually responded. I hope I didn't hurt anyones feelings about the content of previous threads.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well... the definition of trivial gives it to me...
Well, no, unless you mean "gives it to me" in something other than the commonly-used way. But I won't nitpick you more than necessary.
As long as you understand that there's no reason to take you more seriously than anybody else just because you think you're writing things that should be taken seriously, I'm happy. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow... does that mean... our argument is over?
I mean, yeah, of course I am no more important than anyone else.. and my arguments are no more meaningful...
(by the way I meant that it "gives it to me" in the way that says it gives me the justification of my explination, or more simply, it helps me explain my thought process more clearly)
quote:Originally posted by Ish: WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK I'M A HIM!!!
I don't. But your SN seems like a shortening of Ishmael, and actually means "man" (in Hebrew.) So I can understand the confusion.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you single Ally? LOL! No but seriously, I am definately down with debating. There is nothing wrong with a healthy banter until everone starts calling people poo-poo heads and whatnot...
Posts: 93 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
now I'm almost 100% sure I'm the only girl on this site....
Thats...
Depressing. But something I've gone through before, I do after all work at a Video-Game Store.
And no, not single, and also I agree that debate needs to stay at least intellectually civil. (meaning no outright name calling, just witty humiliation of ideas)
posted
I'll have you know I... Am not a girl... I dont really think it matters anyway online... Its pretty genderless stuff ya know... You can hardly tell the voice of people enough to guess whether they be male or female. Especially if the girl isnt saying 'like' this and 'like' that after everything, like, ya know, whatever! Honestly, I couldnt tell that Ish was a female, thus my earlier comment of him... Oops, I thought. But then again, is it my fault? Its not like her name was Princess Flowerpuff or something... I feel kind of ruthless and unfair for instantly labelling her a him... But then again, that is the way of the world... It is, after all, MAN-kind we are a part of... So ultimate apologies for my too quick assumtion of genders... Thats one of the things that will get you in trouble, like asking a woman if she is pregnant... Its a slippery slope! Posts: 93 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I write the play, man, and I write it however I want to in order to do what I need it to do.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I hope you all got that because I thought it was funny... I like the way people try to put their smartest foot forward on this website so as to convince others that they are mentally and intellectually superior and more like the author that we so obviously admire and aspire to be like unto. Hiding the fact that deep down inside, we are all 16-year-old sophomores... 
