Theatre Department Crosses the Line
Issue date: 10/23/09 Section: Letters to the editor
Anticipating a show I was required to see for my Intro to Theatre class, I sat excited to see what the actors and directors had prepared for the audience in Miller Auditorium. As soon as the time came for the show to begin, dancers flitted about in the aisles, dancing to the rock 'n' roll beat. This upbeat production of Shakespeare's Cymbeline promised to be an incredible showcase of talent as the gifted dancers "rocked" about the auditorium.
When the play began, the actors spoke their lines as if they truly were the character they were portraying.
The performance was well thought out.
The play opened with tremendous excitement as well as a little bit of humor, grabbing the attention of the audience right away. Certainly, there was a lot of talent involved.
But there's a flip side.
If you saw the play, you'd probably agree that there were at least a few parts that made you squirm in your seat.
I am, of course, referring to the incessant obscenities throughout the production.
If you didn't see the play, I'm referring things such as lewd dance scenes, inappropriate dress, shirtless girls (with a bra on, of course), a plotline full of seduction and rank with bawdiness and a crazy character who, in one dance scene, repeatedly humped a life size doll onstage. Certainly, there's no need for the play to be so vulgar. I understand that the original play has an "adult" plotline.
But this production seemed to want to take anything in the play that might be deemed indecent and make it 10 times more so. Are these things really necessary? Did certain female characters really have to have their shirts off when delivering their lines? These things were unnecessary and offensive. They added nothing to the show. If the girls in the show had been fully clothed, I don't think anyone would've complained.
Sorry, but bizarre and outlandish doesn't equal talent and creativity. I think the actors should be encouraged to get the audience interested in the show by becoming better actors-by not removing articles of clothing. Going to a college production, I'd hoped that it'd be more thought provoking. In conclusion, I think there was a lot of talent on that stage, but it was wasted in the vulgarities.
Timothy Plumberg
'13, English Education
When the play began, the actors spoke their lines as if they truly were the character they were portraying.
The performance was well thought out.
The play opened with tremendous excitement as well as a little bit of humor, grabbing the attention of the audience right away. Certainly, there was a lot of talent involved.
But there's a flip side.
If you saw the play, you'd probably agree that there were at least a few parts that made you squirm in your seat.
I am, of course, referring to the incessant obscenities throughout the production.
If you didn't see the play, I'm referring things such as lewd dance scenes, inappropriate dress, shirtless girls (with a bra on, of course), a plotline full of seduction and rank with bawdiness and a crazy character who, in one dance scene, repeatedly humped a life size doll onstage. Certainly, there's no need for the play to be so vulgar. I understand that the original play has an "adult" plotline.
But this production seemed to want to take anything in the play that might be deemed indecent and make it 10 times more so. Are these things really necessary? Did certain female characters really have to have their shirts off when delivering their lines? These things were unnecessary and offensive. They added nothing to the show. If the girls in the show had been fully clothed, I don't think anyone would've complained.
Sorry, but bizarre and outlandish doesn't equal talent and creativity. I think the actors should be encouraged to get the audience interested in the show by becoming better actors-by not removing articles of clothing. Going to a college production, I'd hoped that it'd be more thought provoking. In conclusion, I think there was a lot of talent on that stage, but it was wasted in the vulgarities.
Timothy Plumberg
'13, English Education
Comments which include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site at the time of posting. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. Abuse of this feature may lead to the termination of your account or complete removal of this feature. Your posting of content on this website indicates acceptance of these rules. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 35
Anonymous
posted 10/22/09 @ 9:23 PM EST
We are all college students, and it is thought that adults are mature enough to handle vulgarity.
Welcome to college kid.
Something always offends someone on this campus. (Continued…)
anonymous
posted 10/22/09 @ 10:21 PM EST
It's a good thing Intro students are required to see the shows. Then you can get a taste of something other than Commercial theater. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are a lot of "vulgar" more realistic shows out there in the professional world. (Continued…)
anonymous
posted 10/23/09 @ 6:56 AM EST
So your argument for the play in its collegiate form is that it's not as bad as some of the other plays, and that we should grow up. Since when does growing up mean becoming a pervert are we not supoused to grow in our love, care, and admoration for the female form? Or shall we attempt to expose ourselves at every "artistic" opportunity? Shall we possess no restraint and pursue vulgarity and nudity at every fuction. (Continued…)
demosthenes
posted 10/23/09 @ 11:02 AM EST
the "vulgarity" involved in the show was used to show the "vulgarity" of the characters. if you read more Shakespeare, you begin to see how bawdy some of the writing really is. (Continued…)
Lilly
posted 10/23/09 @ 3:02 PM EST
I think if SRU offends you, maybe you should have considered going to the school up the road in Grove City. They seem to be more of what you would approve of. (Continued…)
Nick Gligor
posted 10/23/09 @ 3:23 PM EST
Dear Timothy,
You're welcome.
With love,
Nick Gligor
"Cloten" (AKA the crazy character who, in one dance scene, repeatedly humped a life size doll onstage. (Continued…)
Cymbeline Fan
posted 10/23/09 @ 3:44 PM EST
Funny. I don't remember seeing a single naked person on stage. Everyone, including the sex doll, had on more clothes than any college student sunning herself on the quad. (Continued…)
Mathew Feinninger
posted 10/24/09 @ 2:54 PM EST
So when was it that young adults came to college not wanting to see a naked indivdual? Either way the performers on stage were hardly naked. I think someone is just a little upset that they were forced to see a play that didn't pertain to their own stereotype of college life (whatever that could possibly be of course). (Continued…)
anon.
posted 10/24/09 @ 6:31 PM EST
Timothy,
I respect that you are simply expressing your opinions, which you are clearly free to do. However, calling anyone's interpretation of any play (Shakespeare or otherwise)"over the top" in any respect is simply rude. (Continued…)
Kevin Moore
posted 10/25/09 @ 4:55 PM EST
I was in this production of Cymbeline, namely the scene with "topless" girls and prostitutes, need I remind you Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and Jesus still loved her. (Continued…)
Post a Comment