1.)
Introduction / 2.) Ratings, Censorship
and Negative Criteria / 3.) What SHOULD
Children See? / 4.) What SHOULDN'T Children
See? / 5.) Children and "Adult" Drama
What SHOULDN'T Children See?
So, Theatre for Young Audiences should be about children or childhood,
should address its subject matter with honesty and respect, both in the
acting and in the writing, and should not rely for humor or understanding
on esoteric information that is outside children's experience. It
should challenge its audience, both in its ideas and in its presentation
of ideas, to think and to feel. Theatre for young children should
be active and fast-moving. These are the first things I look for
when asked to decide if a work is "appropriate" for a young audience.
That's what I mean when I say we should apply positive, rather than negative
criteria when considering this question. But it begs two questions.
First, isn't there any kind of content that would automatically
disqualify a play? And second, what about taking young people to
see plays or films not specifically intended for young audiences?
I'll address these questions one at a time, although most of what I say
about the first will apply as well to the second. (I should note
here that I am NOT suggesting that producers of children's theatre adopt
my standards when programming, even if they agree with them. No play
is any good for its audience if it is never seen by them, so it is important
for a producer of children's--or any--theatre to know what is acceptable
in their own community, and if they disagree with the community standards,
to push the limits only gradually.)
First, is there any kind of content whose presence in a play would make
that play "inappropriate" for young people, even if it conforms to the
positive criteria above? The answer is that of course there is, but
it's not such a simple question. First of all, here is where we get
into individual parental attitudes. As long as we're assuming that
parents have a right to decide what is best for their children, I have
to allow for the possibility that subject matter that doesn't bother me
a bit might bother other people. All I can do is tell you my opinion,
and defend it as best I can. Second, obviously, it depends on how
old the children are. (Of course that applies to all of my criteria,
but more so here.) Let me just try to cover some of the basics of
my own standards. Virtually all of what I say here applies to film,
television, and video games as well as to theatre. The easiest way
is to take what I see as some of the most obvious "generally accepted"
classes of "questionable" material and discuss them individually.
As I see it, the things most likely to worry producers and parents are,
in no particular order, "strong language," sexuality, religion, death,
drugs, and violence. On the first four I suspect I am
more permissive than the average parent; on the last I am pretty sure I
am far less. (My position on drugs in dramatic media is complex.)
I don't really know what the term "strong language" means, and I doubt
anyone does. In a particular domain--say, the rules of motion picture
rating--it often has a specific meaning, because there exists a list of
forbidden words and phrases, but in the real world that's obviously absurd,
which is why such lists are constantly changing. Every community
has its own unwritten list, and they are all different. Even after
several years in one school, I am still occasionally astonished to see
shocked looks on my students' faces because I have used a "bad word."
For example, "shut up," is taboo at my school. (I would never tell
a child to shut up, but I used to sometimes use the expression in other
contexts, is in, "the third little pig thought he was so smart, he almost
never shut up.") The funniest example of this phenomenon I have encountered
is the "bottom/behind" controversy. Kindergarten students at my school
are expected to sit crosslegged on their derrieres during "circle."
For reasons that still escape me, it is acceptable to remind them to keep
their "bottoms" on the floor, but not their "behinds." That's merely
humorous and silly, but it illustrates the point. What is or is not
a "bad word" is different in every community, and changes with time.
(Many people point to the changing language on prime-time television as
a sign of the laxness of the times, but I would argue that it mostly reflects
the fluid nature of language.)
I think people are way, way too sensitive about "strong language" in the
entertainment children see. Most children are smart enough to understand
that what is permissible in one setting may not be in another--and if they're
not, what a marvelous opportunity to teach them the concept. (I am
discussing here the use of words independent of their literal meaning.
When a "four-letter word" is used literally to describe an object or action
that is "inappropriate" the problem is not the word, but the concept it
denotes, and that comes (mostly) under the next two headings--sexuality
and religion.) But when a character in a play says, "f___ off," or
"you need to get your sh__ together," I find it impossible to get excited
about it--provided such language is consistent with the character and his
situation. Virtually every child I know older than four uses language
like this every day when she thinks no adults are listening, and so do
most of the adults I know, when they know or think they know no one in
the present company will object. I try not to use "four-letter words"
in my own writing for children because I know it is the quickest way there
is to earn the dreaded "inappropriate" label, but I personally think the
whole thing is pretty silly. There are probably words that I would
admit no child should hear, but I can't think of one offhand. (On
the other hand, I think many writers use "foul language" far too much,
in the belief that it is somehow "edgy," and that's just as stupid as running
in fear from the occasional "damn it!") This issue is unlikely to
come up much when dealing with entertainment specifically marketed for
children, except in exceptionally conservative communities, but it has
bearing on the decision of whether to allow children to view other entertainment.
Sexuality is a more difficult issue. As I have already said, it is
unlikely that a story with sex at its center will be of any interest to
children--other than for the thrill of the forbidden--but I don't think
it makes much sense to pretend sex doesn't exist, even with very young
children. If the story is important and appropriate, and it cannot
be told honestly without mentioning sex, I usually don't have a problem
with it. I think most of the sex even in "adult" entertainment is
unnecessarily graphic, but that's more an issue of artistic taste than
morals. I also think much of the sex in the movies is gratuitous,
which is why I make the requirement that it be necessary to the story.
(And I do draw the line at simulating sex onstage--but then that's practically
never justified by story.) However, implying or even saying right
out that characters are sexual beings is not only permissible, but necessary
if failure to do so would be dishonest
I refer above to sexuality in general, but this category can be divided
into subcategories that should be discussed separately, because they sit
in very different places on different people's "appropriateness index."
Divorce, for example, is in a sense an issue of sexuality: certainly sex
is sometimes an important issue in a divorce. Many people believe
that plays about divorce are inappropriate for children. I would
argue that it is a very important topic children need to discuss and explore.
Suzan Zeder's Doors, and to a lesser extent Step on a Crack,
concern children who are, like the vast majority of children in practically
any audience, trying to deal with this issue in a healthy way. Divorce
touches nearly every child, either in his own family or in a friend's,
and the theatre is a powerful force for social understanding. When
a play deals with this issue from the child's perspective, it is almost
always a good thing. Children should probably not be subjected to
the meanness and vitriol of conflict between adults (don't take them to
see Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf), but they need to explore their
own feelings about the disintegration of family.
Homosexuality is another issue that terrifies most producers and many parents.
Simulating homosexual sex on the stage is of course inappropriate for the
same reason that simulating heterosexual sex is. But as far as I'm
concerned, portraying homosexual characters, or discussing issues of gender
orientation should not even be an issue. Fifty years ago (or more,
or even, sadly, fewer, depending on the community), many people would have
said it was inappropriate for children to view plays in which characters
of different races fraternize--but that didn't make it true. It saddens
me that it took us so long to abandon such prejudices, and I think it's
time we abandon this one as well. I probably wouldn't take pre-pubescent
children to see a play about gender orientation, because sexuality
in general isn't a major concern for them, but the presence of an openly
gay adult character shouldn't keep children from seeing a good story, and
I'm inclined to think even a play whose young protagonist was struggling
with her sexuality would be appropriate for teenagers. I realize
I am probably so far off to the left of most people as to be outside the
building altogether, but that doesn't change my opinion. As a playwright
I have never written, and will probably never write a children's play with
an openly gay character (unless times change more than I think they will),
because I know perfectly well it would never be produced. All I'm
saying is that I think it's a shame. This issue is unlikely to come
up, therefore, in children's theatre, but it will when deciding whether
to allow children to view "adult" dramatic media.
A final note about sexuality (and this applies to a lesser extent to language
as well). Anything which children know is a touchy issue must be
handled very sensitively in any theatre that will be seen by audiences
of primarily children. Whatever one thinks about the importance or
appropriateness of a topic, if it provokes embarrassed or delighted laughter
because children know they are seeing or hearing something they are "not
supposed to," it cannot be effective. A colleague of mine once described
this reaction as, "did you just see me hear that?" Children are extremely
unlikely to have this reaction unless surrounded by peers, so this concern
really doesn't apply when trying to decide whether to bring children along
to the "adult" theatre, but it is very important in Theatre for Young Audiences.
This is one reason (and the only really compelling one, in my view) that
such references should only be used when the integrity of the story demands.
Religion is an especially difficult issue to navigate because charges of
"inappropriateness" can come from both the left and the right. In
many public schools, "political correctness" has been carried to such an
extreme that anything that can possibly be construed as "religious" in
tone is decried as discriminatory--especially stories taken from the Judeo-Christian
scriptures. On the other hand, certain "hot button" topics, such
as witchcraft (and, of course, homosexuality) often excite major controversies
in predominantly Christian communities. (Even fairy-tale "wicked
witches" can qualify for this kind of reaction.) As to the first
problem, I am personally inclined to take an inclusionary, rather than
an exclusionary approach--if, over time, all the "religious" stories dramatized
and all the openly religious characters come from the same tradition, that's
a problem, but I see no reason to reject a good story just because it happens
to relate to a particular cultural or religious group. Of course
if a school has a rule, they have a rule. Regarding the objections
to witches and other such things, all I can say is that I have never seen
an example of such controversy that didn't strike me as a silly, knee-jerk
reaction. Usually the problem goes away with considered discussion
with the concerned group. If it doesn't one has to respect people's
sincere religious concerns. This is not usually an issue except in
schools. Of course, if a play is intended to advance a particular
religious position (which is not necessarily the case in plays based on
bible stories, other than maybe the Nativity, despite what some over-excited
"PC" proponents might insist) then it probably has no place in a public
performance. It is important not to be disrespectful to children's
personal and family beliefs or traditions. I can illustrate the distinction
by referencing television. I have no problem with something like
the new television movie, Noah--which is a good story told as such--but
I am acutely uncomfortable, despite being a Christian, when I come across
the Billy Graham Crusade on network television. However, I freely
admit that this is an issue I don't really have a handle on.
Death is another issue that some people think children should never have
to think about. I disagree, for precisely the same reasons I have
expounded regarding divorce. Of course I don't want to frighten children
for no good reason, but sensitively told stories about dealing with death--either
from the point of view of the dying or of those left behind--can be extremely
good for children. I have already mentioned David Saar's The Yellow
Boat, which deals with a dying protagonist. Another excellent
example is Aurand Harris's The Arkansaw Bear, about a young girl
learning how to mourn for her grandfather. Most children will have
to deal with the death of someone close to them, and all children fear
that they might. Often it is a good idea for parents and teachers
to be prepared to help children deal with issues brought up in such plays,
but that is true of any play.
When it comes to plays that deal with, or contain references to drugs (including
nicotine and alcohol), it is extremely important to look at the context
and the style of the references. Drugs and alcohol are very dangerous
and extremely pervasive in the media. I would have strong reservations
about taking children to see any play in which drug use is portrayed as
glamorous or "macho." Glorifying a behavior as destructive as this
is just a really bad idea. I deplore the gratuitous presence of drugs,
and especially cigarettes and alcohol, in film and television. With
rare exceptions, I don't see this as a contradiction with my insistence
on honesty. While it is true that many people drink and smoke, without
being junkies or drunks, it is usually unnecessary to show them doing it.
Even most habitual smokers spend the vast majority of their time not
smoking,
and so unless a film purports to follow a character through every moment
of his day, there is no reason we need to see him with a cigarette.
And the same could be said for alcohol and illegal drugs. I use the
word "gratuitous" deliberately, however. If a character's drug use
is an important plot point, that's different, but even in that case I don't
think it is appropriate for children to see drug use glamorized.
On the other hand, plays that deal honestly with the issue of substance
abuse, whether directly or as a side issue, do not usually strike me as
inappropriate. I was once asked to excise Miss Hannigan's drinking
scenes from a production of Annie I was directing, and I refused.
For one thing, I believe it would have been unethical to make such a significant
change in a copyrighted work, but I had a more important objection.
In Annie, it is obvious that her drinking is a large part of Miss
Hannigan's downfall. No one could possibly see it as glamorous.
People objected to the drinking per se, rather than evaluating its
context and meaning. I think the refusal to face and deal with the
issue of substance abuse is, if anything, even more dangerous than glamorizing
it. Even at a very young age I approve of plays whose purpose is
to point up the dangers of drugs (provided they are good plays, which they
often are not), and for the most part I don't have a problem with casual
references like the one in Annie, provided they are honest--by which
I mean they show the dangers of abuse. If the reference in an existing
work
is neutral--that is, if it shows an adult character drinking or smoking
in moderation, and neither glamorizes it or condemns it--I would not allow
that to over-ride other positive virtues, but when creating new
work I always think every care should be taken to avoid even this kind
of reference.
My position on the appropriateness of plays, films, television shows and
video games containing gratuitous violence is much the same as my position
on drugs, only more so. Here is where I suspect I am far more
particular--far more apt not to allow children to view a work--than
most people. I will go into detail about my reasons for feeling the
way I do, but let me first just put it out there: Children should
NEVER be allowed to view "professional wrestling," "extreme fighting,"
or similar atrocities. Many television programs, such as Walker,
Texas Ranger, Martial Law, and Power Rangers (and all similar
shows) should be off limits at least into the middle teens. Films
such as True Lies (and most other Arnold Schwartzenegger films),
Goldeneye
(and all other James Bond films), and films like
Natural Born
Killers are extremely dangerous for children. Video games such
as Doom, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, and countless others should
be forbidden to children if not taken off the shelves altogether. It
frustrates me to no end that parents who become incensed if a character
says the word "masturbate" on stage during a school play think nothing
of the fact that their children spend hours everyday imagining themselves
in the role of a violent killer while playing Nintendo. It shouldn't
take a disaster like the recent shooting in Colorado to remind us that
we live in a culture in which people--adults and children--are far too
quick to turn to violence to solve problems. We must stop glorifying
violence. We must stop presenting it as a first option in times of
trouble. And we especially must stop doing it to our children.
Even many programs, movies and games designed specifically for children
(note my mention above of Power Rangers) are incredibly, gratuitously
violent. And parents often allow their children to view material
not
designed for them--particularly if it is violence, and not sex, that makes
it inappropriate.
Some of the works I have mentioned above are ones I, as an adult, personally
enjoy. (Others simply disgust me.) But all have two things
in common: graphic depictions of violence, and a protagonist for
whom violence is usually a first, rather than a last resort in times of
trouble. Although I think any graphic violence should be viewed with
extreme caution, it matters that it is the protagonist who is violent.
It is natural when viewing any kind of narrative entertainment to identify
oneself with the protagonist. An adult may identify with a violent
character while watching a program without wanting to be him, but
for children this is often a difficult distinction. The problem is
compounded when, as in all but one of the specific examples I have mentioned,
the protagonist is presented as heroic and glamorous. It should not
surprise us if children whose heroes are James Bond, the Power Rangers
and Savage Steve Austin choose violence over words when they are confronted
with adversity. The fact that most of these characters are fighting
for "right," far from making it all okay, makes it even worse. Everyone
always thinks they are in the right in a conflict. Video games are
the worst danger of all: in a video game the protagonist IS the child.
Virtually all video games these days are role-playing games, in which the
player is expected to step into the role of the hero of the story.
I can think of nothing more frightening than the image, repeated hour upon
hour in countless homes across America, of a child playing out acts of
incredible violence as the hero of one of hundreds of hyper-violent virtual-reality-type
games.
Some people believe that the increasingly graphic nature of the violent
imagery in the media "desensitizes" people to violence. I'm not sure
how much credence to give this idea. I suspect there is something
in it, but I think it is far less significant than the amount of
violence, and the heroic and glamorous light it is given. That's
why a show like Martial Law, in which the violence is stylized and
often comic worries me more than a show like Law and Order, in which
the violence is much more graphic and naturalistic, but far less pervasive,
and practically never perpetrated by the protagonists, or indeed by any
sympathetic character. (I confess that I enjoy both shows.) Walker,
Texas Ranger (which I don't enjoy, largely because of truly inane writing)
is an example of two particularly worrying problems. First, it is
extremely manipulative in the way it plays on the viewer's emotions.
The protagonist is nearly always defending a clearly weak and innocent
person--frequently a child--against an obviously evil person who is a racist,
a drug dealer, a molester or some equally politically correct villain.
He comes across, in short, as an enlightened, even a peaceful character.
(He hardly ever draws a gun.) Yet he can never go ten minutes without
beating the living daylights out of someone. At least we know the
protagonists of Natural Born Killers are unusually violent.
On some level we know they are "wrong." But Walker is presented as
"right." A second problem is related to the idea that we can become
"desensitized" to violence. The fight scenes in this show (and it
is by no means the only one of its kind) are always absurdly drawn out,
and the soundtrack is enhanced so that every kick and punch sounds as if
it carries the force of a nuclear missile. In the real world, no
one could possibly survive even a fraction of what these guys shake off
as if it were nothing. In the real world, Walker would have to convey
every one of his captives to jail in an ambulance, and most of them would
never recover. Yet everything else about the show appears to be intended
as naturalism. Children need to know that if they hit someone--even
once--they can hurt them. (Obviously this is one of the main
problems with "professional wrestling" as well--if anyone needs a reason
to avoid that particular brand of pornography.)
When the violence is not presented sympathetically, one must look at the
surrounding context to make a sensible decision about whether children
should see it. Graphic violence can be very disturbing regardless
of which character commits it, and regardless of what the opinion of the
creator is about its "rightness." Unless the story, and its relation
to the violence, are very important, I am inclined to give graphic violence
a miss with children even if it has none of the characteristics mentioned
above. Still, as with the issue of drugs, there are times when the
mention of violence, or even its direct depiction, are appropriate. Schindler's
List, for example, depicts fairly graphically the atrocities of the
Nazis, but it does so in order to tell an extremely important story, and
while I would probably not want very young children to view it, older ones
not only could but should. When it comes to the theatre, graphic
violence is almost impossible, so the question generally comes down to
the glorification of violence versus its condemnation. If it is important,
it is often appropriate. Again, the theatre is a powerful force for
social change, and we need plays that deal sensitively and honestly with
the issue of violence in our society. Many schools are beginning
to make rules forbidding the use of prop guns, knives, etc. in plays, and
I can't get behind that. Schools need to trust drama teachers to
be sensitive to the issue, and program responsibly. (And, of course,
they need to hire trained people who will be able to do that.)
NEXT PAGE
Back to top.
BACK TO MAIN MENU
Copyright © 1999 by Matt Buchanan