Comments on: Who do you believe in the “Rent” controversy? Why?

By: Jessica Ruggles

Jessica Ruggles — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:48:25 +0000

Your post about the “Rent” controversy at the Corona del Mar high school is a very interesting way to look at the various arguments. It’s great to see someone attempting to take a neutral view in the discussion over who was in the wrong. However, I think there’s a big issue that is rarely addressed in articles and blogs, including your own. According to the Los Angeles Times, the principal had never asked to review a script before this production, regardless of “adult content,” which is what she seems to be trying to push as the reason for the analysis. Shows portraying controversial themes, like prostitution in “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” and alcoholism in “A Streetcar Named Desire”, were approved “without raising administrator’s eyebrows.” Though I agree that perhaps “crying homophobia” was not the best solution for those involved in the cancellation, I understand the school’s reluctance at expressing that as a concern. As one of the producers of the national tour, Jeffery Seller, said, “Like it or not, we’re right smack in the middle of an enormous cultural shift right now, and that shift will give way to acceptance of homosexuality and acceptance of gay characters… but it’s a process, it’s a messy process, and it makes sense to me that we’ll take steps forward and hit a pothole and take a step backward.” This shift has many people in power walking on egg shells when it comes to controversial topics; however, it also makes groups look weak when they are divided. The inability for the school administrators and the drama teacher to come to an agreement between their statements is possibly the biggest rift within this controversy. As you suggested, the principal’s statement is lacking detail, which I think causes many people, including myself to question: What does the administration of Corona del Mar have to hide from their community?

By: '( '-' )' Bearnaked Joe

'( '-' )' Bearnaked Joe — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:33:31 +0000

Well as a photographer I will say I disagree with you about intellectual property rights and am at a complete loss to understand how my work is a divinely granted vision. As an atheist, I believe if I create a photograph, I did it with my expertise based on years of experience, technical knowledge, my ability to visualize, and practiced motor skills. If I were a playwright or songwriter, my work would be made from my years of experience, and my understanding of music, the written word, and human nature. Just as I don’t want my rights as a gay person to be decided by another’s religious beliefs, I wouldn’t want my rights as an artist decided the same way. If everything I create belong to the aether, why bother? How do I survive as an artist?

The problem with students is that although we are in a free-thinking society, unfortunately schools are not. It is the responsibility of the educators to know what is going on. If it was a play about hate and murder, encouraging people to bash gays, we’d be in an uproar: “Why didn’t the principal know what was going on?” The principal has a responsibility to know what is happening in her school.

I’m not so sure who is telling the truth about revisions here either. Quite frankly, I don’t think either of them are telling the whole story, and I don’t fully believe either of them.

Interesting point about removing “the piece in time before having to be fully committed to the piece, including financially, and go with something else.” You have a good point. The teacher may have seen a protracted fight coming along and decided to just cave in right away. But if he was so sure of his being in the right, why didn’t he press the publishing house to rush a singular script for preview? Why didn’t he fight harder? Why did he just throw his hands in the air and say “Well she doesn’t like gay characters so we aren’t going to do it?” It just seems odd to me, like he’s passing the buck. Something is missing here.

Thanks for writing!

By: Bill Parker

Bill Parker — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:03:14 +0000

Revising an already published script that is being rented from a publishing house is illegal and against the copyright of the piece, and, a violation of the author’s intellectual property rights. The author intended to use gay, transgendered, drug-addicted and other “unsavory” characters to reflect his interpretation of the story (funny enough, “adapted” from La Boheme, another seemingly subversive piece of art) in this modern age. A principal, teacher, director or anyone can not rewrite a piece to meet their needs, be they creative, social, political or otherwise.

I stand with the teacher who removed the piece in time before having to be fully committed to the piece, including financially, and go with something else. There’s no reason a teacher or artist should have to submit their work for approval, that just shows students that we are not in a free-thinking society.

Mind you, this comes from the one that believes that intellectual property rights are overblown Capitalist hogwash. I hold the Native American philosophy that there is no such thing as unique thought or creativity: all ideas, songs, paintings, writings, formulas, inventions etc. have been thought and are in the aether, free to pass through your head, and out, or into another head: it is how it is used that matters. How can one claim ownership on an electrical impulse, or a divinely granted vision?