Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Fair ~ River stage: 35.12 Falling Sunday, November 8, 2009 |
RSS
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Read comments (61)
 Share link
SEMO offers to refund tickets to controversial playSunday, November 9, 2008Patrons of student performances at Southeast Missouri State University's River Campus will receive refunds if they were offended by a recent play and won't see controversial offerings included in future season ticket packages. That decision, detailed in a letter from provost Jane Stephens to the Southeast Missourian that appears on today's editorial page, is an attempt to be sensitive to the community and is not an attempt at censorship, Stephens said Friday. The play that started the local controversy, "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All for You" by Christopher Durang, was performed by students from Oct. 29 to Nov. 2 in the Wendy Kurka Rust Flexible Theater. One of the people most offended by the performance was the theater's namesake, who wrote a letter to the school that "a play that ridicules and scorns the Christian religion under the label of satire is inappropriate to be included in the offering of season ticket holders." Rust is the wife of Gary Rust, chairman of Rust Communications, which owns the Southeast Missourian. Her letter to the university was printed in full Thursday. "Sister Mary" is a one-act play, first performed in 1979. During the play, the title character is confronted by former students who perform a mock Christmas pageant and who challenge the Catholic dogma she teaches. A performance of the play in St. Louis in 1983 prompted an attempt in the Missouri Legislature to pass a law withholding state arts funding for theatrical productions people may find offensive. Anyone seeking a refund of the $6.40 ticket price for "Sister Mary" may do so, Stephens said Friday. The River Campus will also refund the $11.80 paid for tickets to "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes," a play by Tony Kushner that explores homosexuality, AIDS and conservative politics. In the case of both plays, ticket purchasers were warned in advance that adult themes and language were part of the performance. The bottom line for the university, Stephens said, is "in no way do we want to offend anyone." A committee will, in the future, look at the productions planned for student performances and determine which will be included in season ticket packages, Stephens said. "A group of us will talk this through," she said. "We will look to see what is in the season ticket package. I would not tell the theater department 'We don't want you to produce this play.' But we will look at what will best sell season ticket packages and what will hinder season ticket sales. This is a financial decision." The review team will include Gary Miller, associate dean of the Earl and Margie Holland School of Visual and Performing Arts, and Robert Cerchio, assistant director of the school. Neither could be reached for comment. Traveling shows will not be subject to the same scrutiny and the entire touring series will continue to be offered as a season package, Stephens said. This year's offerings that may be offensive to some people include "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street," which deals with murder, and "Sweet Charity," Neil Simon's play about a taxi dancer in a dance hall. But with student productions, the university must be careful, Stephens said. "Much of art is controversial," she said. "What we will try to do with our own local productions is be more sensitive to themes that are more sensitive to the community in terms of season tickets. I could no more select the plays for our theater department than I could select the novels our literature classes read." 388-3642 Does this affect you? Have a comment? Log on to semissourian.com Comments  Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
|
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
It is sad that Southeast Missouri State is bowing to political correctness. I am a Christian and I have seen the play in question. Offensive? Certainly, but it is also thought provoking and is a commentary on what some consider to be the hypocricy of the church----heaven forbid----we all know churches do not have problems with hypocrites! How dare they! Grow up and put your big girl panties on.
MOST of art is NOT controversial. Only when art is used with the intent to make a point that is known to be offensive, is it so. Thinking people can decipher the content of differing views and come away with new knowledge. If you are a THINKING person [teacher, artist or activist] you try to get your point across in a way that doesn’t offend so that it will be used for instruction. If you are a leach and have excessive views and life traits you USE thinking people and their wish to foster ART and get your agenda across that way.
Thank you River Campus board for not wasting our time and money.
P.S. You will find hypocrites in every bar, lodge, club or organization. Hypocrites are not limited to the church. The definition of hypocrite is someone who says one should behave one way and then behaves another. A thinking person lives his opinions.
I hope the leaders take responsibility for what is presented by the River Campus in the future. I would hate to see that in the name of "art", they subject the community to the type of garbage presented in the so called "enlightened " areas of our country. Everyone is allowed to be offended UNLESS you are a conservative christian, God help us.
Jack may call it political correctness, most people call it making a profit. A business is in the habit of keeping the customers happy. When the customers complain, a business better listen or it will cease to exist. Especially a business that has existed for less than 3 yrs.(the River Campus).
I know that the RC is supposed to be an "educational institution", however part of that education is learning to please the audience,i.e. make a profit, another part of that is having an audience to interact with. No audience, no real life experience. No real life experience, no successful graduates. No successful graduates, no more financial benefactors, no more school of The Arts.
Oh C'mon!!! Who gets to decide what is offensive?
"Gee, I found this play offensive because it is about a dog and I'm a cat person." Or maybe someone will be offended by the PRESENCE of York in a play about Lewis and Clark. (Although I would be offended if he portrayed in a negative way, the fact is that a historically based play might have things in it we find wrong today.)
I'm sure ticket purchasers had a chance to read a short "blurb" about the play beforehand. If that blurb is written correctly, the purchasers should have a good idea whether or not they want to risk being offended.
I think these "offended purchasers" are simply trying to make sure the River Campus doesn't offer anything outside their limited scope and view of the world. I think they bought the tickets with the intent of raising a stink later.
The correct way to have expressed dissatisfaction with the offerings would have been to write a letter or make a phone call expressing their concern when they saw the play offered.
Does the movie theater have this problem, or is just that some people are not ready for culture???
I agree with Eliza. If you went into the show and didn't have any idea that you may see of hear things that conflict with your beliefs, then you're just naive and should be blaming yourself, not the people that put on the performance.
Reading further on this subject, I see that they are talking about offending purchasers of SEASON tickets, who buy an overall package and don't buy tickets to one particular performance. This was not real clear in this article.
That does change things a bit and makes me somewhat more sympathetic to the offended purchasers, however, if I was to purchase a season ticket to something, I would assume I would not like or be able to attend every offering.
I would consider buying a season ticket if I thought I would attend enough shows that it would be cheaper than buying them individually. Most of us have done this math at some point or the other...let's see, a Season Ticket costs $4X, individual tickets cost $X, so if I plan to attend 4 times, I'm paying the same price and I could decide to attend other performances because they would now be free to me.
One of the letters I read elsewhere on this site about the play mentioned that maybe they should let "offensive" plays stand on their own and not be a part of season ticket sales. That's not quite right....as a season ticket purchaser, I would expect to be ABLE to see all offerings...the name "season ticket" leads one to expect that if you choose to attend every offering you can.
Maybe these offended season ticket purchasers should take a look at what they are getting for their money overall and stop worrying about one or two performances.
Lighten up Wendy Rust! (...oh, and tweety)
I believe the students at Southeast are now at a disadvantage for having to tailor their artistic work to an overly conservative, hypocritical Cape Girardeau society. Go somewhere else to school! Go somewhere you can use your talents of expression and develop and tone your skills for your theatre aspirations! It's terrible that the 'namesake' is even outraged. She shouldn't have allowed her name to be associated with the theater if she wasn't open to the varying kinds of presentations that would be shown. She doesn't get to pick and choose her personal favorites to be put on stage.
Also, I'd like to send a message to "Tweety". I believe that YOU are a bigger disgrace to your workplace than your gay or lesbian co-worker. It's people like you that make Cape Girardeau a "sickening" place to live. Interesting that our state finally almost saw BLUE in this presidential election. What does that tell you? Time to open your mind.
Childish, small-minded, overbearing.
Did she protect the publisher of the newspaper this closely? No. She may have tried, but I'm fairly confident she could not have succeeded
A college campus is for the free and unfettered exchange of ideas: the same fundamentals for a free press.
It's time for her to change her position and encourage thinking that challenges the mind by sponsoring a series of lectures on diversity.
Censorship by proxy is most offensive and insidious.
How about plays promoting bestiality or pedophilia? No, there should still be standards of decency and evidently more people were offended than just Wendy Rust. As a taxpayer, I don't think the university that I support has an obligation to provide a stage for every group with a radical agenda.
I am a theatre major here and I personally find this whole subject a disgrace to all of the hard work that all of the students, one of which being me, put into making this show happen. Everything has to be so politically correct today. For the people who were "offended" by this performance...You bought the tickets so you deal with it. Season holders or not there is no difference because we publish our shows prior to the ticket sales. Maybe do a little research on the show before you buy the tickets instead of making a mockery out of the countless hours the theatre students put into these productions. And for whoever said the comment about the RC being a business that has existed for less than 3 years...I guess you've never heard of the Rose Theatre in Grauel. It's not like our department started with the new campus. Thank you everyone commenting with the exception of 2 or 3 people for supporting us.
-Greg
How can a reasonable person expect student productions to reflect the morals and values of southeast Missouri when many of the students are from St Louis--a place where productions like this aren't just "tolerated", but celebrated? This goes to the root of the whole SEMO problem: They want St Louis kids, but then they expect the students to conform to Cape standards. They want to have a competitive athletic program, but they have to cheat and STILL fail. They pat themselves on the back for building a fabulous fine arts facility, then deny anything that isn't "PG" rated. Would someone please decide what this University should be?
greg, how can you stage a play ridiculing religion and the faithful, gleefully trashing the beliefs that many in the community hold dear and not expect criticism? Not everyone appreciates getting spit on.
Just because some people find things "offensive" doesn't mean they should be the only ones catered to. And Christians relish finding things "offensive". Believe it or not, there are people (a lot of them) who find Christianity and so-called "Christians" extraordinarily offensive, particularly the way they demand that everything should conform to what they and they alone find acceptable. But that doesn't mean I think it should be banned. If a state university isn't about putting forward differing viewpoints, then the university is a joke and an embarassment. This theatre is about the students and what the students want to do, and if the general public doesn't like it, that should have no bearing whatsoever. I find Christian/religious productions offensive because they inherently discriminate against people who are not of that particular faith. I find idiotic musicals like "Oklahoma!" offensive, and I know a lot of younger people feel the same way. Does that mean those sorts of things should be banned if we whine about it and threaten not to spend our money at the theatre? No, differing viewpoints were supposed to be what made this country great in the first place, not bowing down to the utterly abhorrent repressive and fascist Christian Right. And as usual, this all boils down to money and that the university is clearly willingly prostituting itself. They don't want to risk losing money from season ticket holders, so they are all too willing to sell their principles for the right price. It's disgusting.
How can "I" stage a play? I have no say in any of that. Hence the fact that I am a STUDENT! This is a public university and religion should have no factor in the arts. I went to a Christian high school in Saint Louis (CBC) and our senior year play was going to be the Laramie Project. But the archdiocese told our president that we were not allowed to. It was an HBO documentary about Matthew Shepard, who was gay and was beaten and left for dead, and eventually died. We wanted to do this to address the issue of the high level of homophobia at our school. Now that I have come to a STATE run university where the school has no religious preference to be officially dedicated to, there should be no reason to bring the church into this. Yes it may have offended people. It was meant to be farcical and humorous. How dare you attack me for this production. Oh, and if you didn't notice...It's called ART and A LOT of ART is repulsive and offending to people. Welcome to America!
And Stevemo, Did you even come to see the show? This also goes for anyone who was offended and wants a refund: I paid to go to a Cardinals game. They lost the game and I was upset. Too bad I can't get my money back. I am Catholic just FYI to everyone who wants to be ***** with me. I just look around the fact that it's attacking religion and look at the humorous side of it. If you want religion...Go to church. If you want anything but...Go to a theatrical performance. Thank you.
DON'T GO if you are easily offended!
ps- people who are easily offended are insecure with themselves and their beliefs.
Shame Wendy Rust! Your actions demonstrate real narrow mindedness! I guess money doesn't buy an open mind. I actually feel sorry for you.
No need for a tantrum greg, just pointing out that when you go for controversial, sometimes you get it. Also it should be pointed out the Rust family used the newspaper and I assume their political influence to champion the River Campus. It was an unpopular and controversial project that probably wouldn't have succeeded without their efforts. You might try and show a little appreciation for the Rusts.
According to Aristotle, a tragedy occurs when a person of good position and intentions is brought down by a minor character flaw that starts a catastrophic chain of events. A tragedy is unfolding here, but instead of a good man, a good theater program is falling from grace because of one poor choice: Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You by Christopher Durang. We should not let one abominable play provide an excuse to restrict season ticket access for controversial student productions.
I won’t try to defend the play. This newspaper should have previewed it and delivered the devastating review it deserved. The student actors did a commendable job. The play itself was the problem.
A good play should challenge the beliefs and assumptions of its audience. Most people who subscribe to a university theater series expect that some plays will bring laughter, some will provoke outrage, but each play should bring something unexpected and original.
Sister Mary Ignatius was offensive in its one-sided, extreme, flat, clumsy, heavy-handed portrayal of a Catholic stereotype already outdated when first performed in 1979. If it was really played as satire, it might have worked. If the demented Sister Mary Ignatius had been balanced by Catholic characters that were more human, it might have worked. If the characters were motivated by anything other than hatred and bitterness, it might have worked. Instead, it offended almost everyone. Even for those not offended on religious grounds, it was a waste, providing nothing innovative in theme, characterization, or theatrical technique.
That being said, we should not rush to strangle the creativity of a developing theater program with well-intentioned oversight. Providing an outlet for creativity and presenting it to the community are the two primary reasons for any arts program to exist. Students need the expanded subscription series audience for their acting and production experience to be relevant to the real world of theater and experience both positive and negative reactions to their work. The community also needs to see unconventional productions; if a university theater program can't provide value-added creativity, we might as well watch TV.
Because of this debacle, some people will miss Tony Kushner’s brilliant play about the AIDS crisis and conservative politics. It is full of anger and bitterness, but also humor. A variety of gay characters struggle with their identities and demons, and their anguish is presented in disturbing, original ways. It will challenge the beliefs and artistic expectations of a conservative community and for exactly that reason should be seen by thoughtful adults.
If student productions have to be cleared by committee, where will we stop? Would we reject Romeo and Juliet for sexual innuendo and portrayal of suicide? Community control of series productions could make the River Campus program less attractive to talented students and faculty members needed for the program to thrive in the future. If we aim for a theater series that does not offend anyone, we could end with a program so bland it does not interest anyone, either.
That would be a tragedy.
You're right and I apologize for that. We are greatly appreciative of their huge contributions that helped give us the outstanding facility we have now. I'm just confused why they would be the ones who would "confront" such an issue of the production. I mean, yeah it was a pretty hateful show, but wouldn't you think that they would understand that the department isn't purposly meaning to offend them in the way that it apparently has? I just found it a little upsetting on my part that they stretched their "offendedness" (probably not a word) to include the show about homosexuality and AIDS. Because that is pretty much trying to make the University follow a Christian stand-point. And being a theatre major, I have a lot of gay friends and my views on the subject of homosexuality are neutral. I'm not looking to start a battle over this topic, I was just telling my personal feelings to it. Moment of rage, my bad man.
Shiela, You pretty much nailed it with what you said. Especially at the end.
Thanks, Greg.
I struggled to express my feelings on this because I am a season ticket holder who HATED the play, but I hate the idea of using it to destroy the integrity of our theater program even more.
I think it is despicable that any public university would try to censor a play like this. The play's content had nothing to do with any illegal manor.
Religion is religion. Big deal. Have a satire about it. Get over yourselves.
Is the university now going to go in to the library and take out any of the books speaking out against the Christian belief? What if the Rust family writes another letter? Then what?
If I were a student in the SEMO theatre department I would seriously consider transferring to a different school.
Perhaps The River Campus should stick with plays like "Grease" and "To Kill a mocking bird" so people like Wendy Rust won't get "offended" and the
close minded people in cape will live forever in harmony.
Stevemo: IMO I think Greg and Shiela brought in some very valid points and I think you came across very rude and vendictive. I also came away after reading your statements with the feeling that if everyone does not feel as you do they are just wrong and you are right. I know several of the theater kids and I think we should all be proud of them as they are extremely hardworking, dedicated and driven. And if it were not for the talented theater kids no one would come to see any of the plays in the first place, these kids are more than doing their part in making the RC profitable. These kids come from all over the country and they help our economy in more ways than one. Does Wendy Rust not have two feet, if she was offended by this play she could have walked out at any time during the performance. I could care less if the Rust's may have helped to bring about the RC, that was their choice, but it does not give them the right to try and censor what they deem to be inapropriate. I have gone for several years and watched these kids grow and develop their talents and go on and pursue their dreams. I also think that more than enough information is given before the plays to know whether or not it is a play for all audiences or if it is something that I would prefer not to see and I am mature enough to take it if I make the choice to go and see the play and I am mature enough to walk out if it is not, but it is not my place to dictate what is appropriate for others as that is their choice. It's called Freedom of Choice!
Wendy Rust,
Wake up and pull your head out of your bible. I am going to cancel my subscription to your newspapers first thing tomorrow morning and more importantly discontinue business advertising with your paper. I suggest others who are offended by her narrow minded attitude do the same.
When you put your name on a building intended for the university's liberal arts program, you have to realize that your name will be associated with the liberal arts productions that are performed therein. This is not the first time that the theatre department has encountered controversy. A few years ago when "Romeo and Juliet" was produced, it was considered extremely crude- reduced to "frat boys and vulgarity", according to those offended. Did she think that was the end of controversial material?
Yes, it's great that the Rust family donated money for the River Campus. Trust me, that facility was greatly needed.
However, it seems quite unfair that in the aftermath, the students of the university should have to feel guilty for that when the "namesake" decides she did not enjoy something and wants to shift her weight. Of course the newspaper would print her letter and run a story putting it in a negative light- they own it!
I really have to agree with Shiela on this- the show may not be the highest quality material. There are bound to be many people that walked out of the theater who did not enjoy it in the least. However, there was advance warning about the show, and isn't the rule that beyond that, you are on your own?
The season ticket holders pay to see shows for the entire season, so that part should not be censored. However, there should not be some magical guarantee that they will particularly like everything offered. Every person is different in their own tastes, and if they are worried about buying season tickets as a result, they should do research on the shows before they make their purchase.
http://www.semissourian.com/article/20081106/OPINION0101/711069970&SearchID=73335576905539
That is the link to Wendy's letter. Please read Mr. Rust's comment at the end and see how that makes you feel. Apparently to perform now, we must sit down with clergy and read over the script to make sure that it is ok. And Coyote Ugly yes was repulsive but come on.
http://www.semissourian.com/article/20081106/OPINION0101/711069970&SearchID=73335576905539
There's the link to Wendy's letter. Please pay attention to what Mr. Rust says at the end. Apparently now we have to sit down with clergy to make sure that the church is ok with our PUBLIC performance. They say that this show and ones like it should not be included in the SEASON TICKET PACKAGE. Well, they are SEASON PACKAGES! You get tickets to every show. Do you really need your $12.80 back for your two tickets Mr. and Mrs. Rust?
Can someone tell me how much the Rust family donated?
Maybe we can start a drive and refund their money and take her name off the building.
I agree with INVESTOR pull your ads and cancel subscriptions I think the Rust's have carried this way over the top.
"The "nun" in this play (well acted, as were all of the characters) who spouts and expresses nonreligious beliefs and then shoots and kills two of her former students was a little over the top, as was much of the play."
Now THAT sounds like my kinda play! I knew I should've went. When I heard the production may be "offensive", I thought it was gonna have a couple of curse words or a vague reference to abortion.
Sorry I missed it!
Nope just nuns, guns, offensive puns, and the church trying to play big kid at a public institution.
Whats left for the fall season
Twelfth Night: Dec 3-6
Fall Dance Concert: Dec 10-14
I have not been to this play and never planned to attend, but if i am not mistaken are'nt playes supposed to be controversial? Is that the point so people will attend with an open mind and think outside the box? I may be wrong on this but I have always viewed it that way.
Another sad example of old money in a small town. Unfortunately, SEMO relies on these people for donations and have to do some "smooching" to keep it coming in. Rusts, make sure you wash your back-sides good tonight to get the lipstick off.
Isn't it ironic that someone who, as a newspaper owner, lives behind the First Amendment would suggest that others aren't entitled to the same freedoms?
So if you all look in the shout out thing for today November 10th...there are 4 main comments that kiss Wendy Rust's backside. But none about people supporting the students. Looks like its time to write some good old fashioned letters. Who's with me?
I'm baptist. No dancing of any kind, please!
I think anytime you are offended by anything you have the right to leave immediately. I think the arts have always provoked and pushed the line and I believe this is a good thing. If you buy season tickets and are offended by one show maybe you didn't research it enough to be informed of its content. But to deny others the right to see it, is more offensive than the show itself.
sad, sad, sad.
I am a student at SEMO. Now, I'm not a theatre major, but I am an art major. I will openly admit that the majority of my close friends are theatre majors, but I hope this doesn't slant your opinions of me or my comment before I go on.
The possibility of censorship at the River Campus frightens me like nothing I have come across in the entirety of my schooling here. And frankly I don't think I'm alone in saying that if I was not slated to graduate in December, I would be looking into different institutions should this occur in the manner I fear.
This is 2008. You can no longer claim ignorance to ANY subject you come across. The listing of performances for this year was listed in the playbills for the shows as early as (if not earlier than) the Spring semester of 2008. That would give anyone interested, including season ticket buyers, the opportunity to research the shows up for production. You have internet on your cell phone in most cases, there is no excuse for not knowing what you're getting in to.
I understand fully that conservative money helped bring the River Campus into being, and I am exceedingly grateful to the Rusts' and to anyone who donated. However, you were donating to a LIBERAL ARTS college. If you didn't expect liberals to be running things there, you weren't thinking clearly.
I know that the opening of the River Campus made SEMO a big deal in Missouri and surrounding states. Incoming freshman viewed this area as a kind of haven for the arts. To step in and start setting up committees to test for appropriateness in the arts would be detrimental not only to the name of the institution, but to future enrollment in the University and the Liberal Arts College.
I fear for what this can be the start of. How long before the Art Majors start seeing this side of things? How long before nude models are removed from the drawing classes? How long before the works presented in the student shows have to pass standards of morality? I understand that this is a very Christian-centric area of the United States, but people in the area should take into account that not everyone here shares their ideas, beliefs, or ability to be offended. Part of what makes this country beautiful is the diversity in people and in ideas, and to put a block on ideas like this would do far more harm than good.
It all comes down to personal responsibility. No one can make you see what you don't want to. No one can make you pay for something you don't want to pay for. You all have the ability, as THINKING, RATIONAL people to research something, and if you find it distasteful, to not take part in it. I hope the University realizes that they can't pander to either side of the issue. The people in charge of the theatre department are intelligent, thoughtful people who don't wake up in the morning going, "Gee, how can I offend someone today?" They research what they are going to put on, and if they deem that it will be enjoyable and challenging for the students to take part in, I think they should be allowed to choose whatever shows they deem fit.
And yes, I did see the show in question. And yes, I did enjoy it. Am I a Catholic? No. Am I a Christian? Well that depends on a number of things that I won't go in to here. But I can tell you, I did grow up in a town MUCH smaller than Cape Girardeau. It contained a Catholic school. Said school was two blocks from my house. I didn't attend, but walking to and from a school farther away allowed for me to meet and interact with a number of the nuns that taught there. I met some that were open minded, agreeable of faith. I met some that were typical of what would imagine a nun to be: whole-heatedly dedicated to their religion. And I even met some that were frighteningly reminiscent of Sister Mary. This play was written as one man's reaction to the Church, and has become a part of the history of theatre in this country. For the faculty at SEMO to ignore it and ignore the possibility of producing it or other shows deemed controversial would mean they are simply not doing their jobs.
I applaud the theatre department and the production of the show. They are a commendable staff of people who teach an amazing group of hard working students.
"We went with an open mind having been forewarned that the plays were offensive and in bad taste. We were prepared for the worst." - Wendy Rust
Obviously not.
Thank you James that is amazing! If only your comment were to be posted buy Mr. Rust in the Speak Out forums. But that wouldn't support his wife. What the Rust's need to know is that every student who has something to do at this beautiful campus appreciates everything people like the Rust's do to provide us with a great space. Mr. and Mrs. Rust, Would you please reconsider the actions you have taken thus far and recognize the reason which you donate for is in the talents that we acquire, not the show content that we perform. I'm sure you or one of your assistants or relatives read these comments. If you do, and would like to talk privatly gjbuerkle1s@semo.edu. I just want to show you the true appreciation we have for you in ways other than this web forum.
Maybe I'm just more balanced or intelligent than a lot of people or maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't get why art must be controversial or thought provoking. I do a lot of thinking on my own. I remember when the Catholic Church threw a fit about the Madonna smeared with elephant crap several years ago. I didn't get it then, and I don't now. I know the church is a complex and sometimes hypocritical, corrupt institution. I don't need to "open my mind" to that fact by the aid of elephant ****. I didn't see the play, but it sounds like it was just weird and silly. I guess I'm just saying that I don't understand why people need gross symolism to initiate discussion. If you can't think critically on your own, going to a play where they beat baby Jesus into a cross is probably not going to bring about some great realization of deep things.
Ike-
By your definition of "the easily offended" African Americans and homosexuals are insecure in their beliefs. These are two groups of individuals that many people walk on eggshells to avoid offending. If it's okay to offend some, it's okay to offend all. Let's be equal opportunity. Truly, who decides what is free speech and what is offensive: You? Are you saying if someone is berating another's culture or lifestyle, the offended should walk out? You obviously think the line is drawn in the wrong place. Where should it be and who should decide it's position?
Happy
Don’t waste your time. So long as “art” criticizes Christianity it is stimulating discussion and provoking thought. To criticize anybody else would be so passé and intolerant.
Doesn't everyone see how ironic this is, and how hypocritical the Rust's are? Remember this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Rusts run a business, and became very rich, based on this amendment. So rich that they can donate enough money to SEMO to get their name on the side of a building, and now they are trampling all over the first amendment with their prude, arrogant, condescending, pretentious attitudes. It's okay for them to do it, but if anyone else exercises this right, look out if it offends precious Wendy! Let's trample on the first amendment and stifle creativity and education. Let's not question authority. Let's not exercise our constitutional rights. Just another communist regime. Ask anyone that works there.
James Bratten's reply was spot-on. I grew up in the Cape area but moved away over 10 years ago. I now have a broader perspective on life through my experiences and travels both domestically and internationally. Though I can't tout seeing 50 plays like Mr Rust has, I have seen a few (in NYC, Chicago, St Louis, Atlanta, and Italy to name a few) and appreciate the arts. Any attempt at censorship is a very scary thing. Cape is a very conservative place full of conservative people, but I really hope that the people would be open to broadening their perspectives, even if it is through seeing a controversial play. It's kinda sad to even see this happening. I love the area but wish people would have a little more open mindedness.
The whole "river campus" idea was stupid. The fact that stupid things go on there is such a surprise. Rust should have thought about the ramification of any money being spent for that waist. You got what you payed for. SEMO equals WASTE.
I hope that all of you "open-minded" people will be so supportive if there is a Klan rally on campus. If you aren't, you are every bit the hypocrites you are criticizing. Of course, you'll all claim that you will be, but you will be lying. I'm happy to be able to call crap on crap without being hypocritical. Stupid things are stupid, whether they claim to be thought-provoking or not. I will happily stand against the Klan, anti-gay rallies, and plays that just try to be offensive by beating baby Jesus against things. They all are mean-spirited and divisive.
Now, before I am accused of being the Christian right, I am a musician, I drink, smoke, and curse, and have probably offended my share of people. They, however, were in a bar, not a state-funded institution. If the state can't support religion, it shouldn't tear it down, either.
It is my understanding that the person that is responsible for this whole situation is Stilson he does like the shock value of the plays and he does not have the backing of all other faculty members in some of his choices of plays to be performed. But I feel the plays are very upfront as to the content of the plays and if you feel it will offend you, just don't go. You would not go to a movie if you knew upfront from the advertising that you would not like it and this is no different. These kids work their tails off in preparation for these plays and they should all be proud of their accomplishments. I think that the comments posted here show that we have some very talented, driven, and very well informed, educated kids in our mist and they should be commended. I do understand the Rush's concern, but I also think they should have taken the issue to the University heads and not to the Missourian. And yes I am also glad that the Rush's have the means to be able to contribute to the RC but, we should not forget that these kids and their parents pay a very hefty fee for them to attend SEMO too.
You can call crap crap - I'm all for that. And apparently to some this play was just that. I don't mind people calling it great or crap...once they've seen it. Just don't dismiss it completely - and before seeing it - because of the content or topics covered. And PLEASE don't try to censor the arts. That's all I'm asking for when I say Cape and the surrounding area should try being a little more open minded. And no, I would not be part of a klan or anti-gay rally...but I WOULD go see a play about either topic!!!
"For the faculty at SEMO to ignore it and ignore the possibility of producing it or other shows deemed controversial would mean they are simply not doing their jobs."
I think it is great that so many people have an opinion on this matter. But I would like to clarify one important detail. The university is NOT trying to CENSOR anything! They are just going to give season ticket holders a choice of which plays they get tickets to, instead of just automatically getting tickets for the controversial plays. SEMO will still have plays that are thought provoking and controversial, they will just stand alone and not be part of the season ticket package. Everyone needs to calm down, they are NOT censoring or taking opportunities away from the theatre students.
I fully believe that outside the extreme acts of physical harm there is no excuse to stifle the arts. It's 2008 and I would hope that we have come far enough as a race to be able to be tested in our beliefs without lashing out. I am an Art Major at SEMO and the biggest concern that I have right now is what sort of message is being sent to the students involved with the College of Liberal Arts at SEMO? All students in general? I'm sure that many of my fellow students would agree with me in saying that if we are treated to feel that our expressions will be stifled here then there is no point in attending this school because the technical skills mean nothing if all security and support in releasing those skills is ripped from us. I really feel for all faculty, staff, and students in the theater department because if this situation were brought down on the art department and me and my peers I imagine that it would be debilitating to my work. I think is horrific to give students such an opportunity like the RC and then begin to delegate like this. It's very imporant to me to feel like the campus is a home that I can be comfrontable in and that's not the feeling I'm getting right now. I adore the people I see each day here at SEMO, the ones I know and the ones I don't. I've never known a more beautiful and unique group of individuals on such a regular and close basis before and I think if those who's actions are hurting this group could take a moment to really SEE what they could be jeopardizing then I would hope they would reconsider their words and actions before going forth on them more.
Jessica:
Please read my previous post. You will not be "stifled" in your expression. The university is just not including controversial plays as a part of the season ticket package. They will still have those type of plays, they will just be stand alone, instead of being part of season tickets. Please have all of the facts before you allow yourself to be upset. You WILL NOT be stifled, nor will the theatre department be censored.
ZU, I understand and read what you were saying but I believe that the overall message that the university is sending to the students is a negative one. Basically, we're being told that the university will not stand by us and does not have out backs, creativly. Furthermore, I think it's a shame that any department in the arts is being made to cater to the public in such an obvious way. I know that theater depends more on the public than say the visual arts but giving into this situation is saying that pushing the envelope and trying to reach people with a message that they may not be so comfrontable with but is possibly very important for them to hear is wrong.
Besides, those wanting a refund knew very well (or if they didn't I question their motives for even being interested in the productions) what they were going to be attending....and I'm a firm believer that you don't get refunds for not liking art. Not all art is supposed to please ones already set tastes, notion of the way the world works, ideals or morals.
Honestly, I think the most disgusting thing of all of this is the fact that refunds are already being offered for 'Angels in America'....
Jessica:
I can see how you would feel negatively about the University's stance on this. With that being said, I myself am a theatre junkie. I love seeing plays and on occasion being on stage myself. I went to see this particular play, knowing that it had some "offensive" material in it. I figured it would be poking fun of religion in obvious ways. Instead I witnessed a baby doll (that was meant to be baby Jesus), pounded onto a cross, ketchup squirted on his brow, and just overall mocking of Jesus' life and crucifiction. What if someone were to mock another religion in that manner? What if a play made fun of and mocked the slavery of African Americans, or the difficulty of being a Homosexual in today's culture? Would THAT be considered "art"? I think people just expect Christians to "just deal with it, people have other viewpoints than you" and I understand that. But would you expect that of the gay couples in California who were just told that even though they did have a right to be married, now that right has been taken away from them? I would NOT expect those gay couples to just "deal with it, people have other viewpoints than you", they have a right to protest and be upset and mad. Just like Christians do.
There are several messages in this idiotic anti-intellectual circus surrounding Sister Mary Ignatius.
Long ago I predicted that if it became clear John McCain was in danger of losing the election, the Republicans would unleash a smear campaign the likes of which has never been witnessed. They would, I suspected, start lashing out wildly in all directions hoping to turn the tide with culture wars and character assassination. And John McCain and the Missouri Republicans duly proved me correct. Now, they have lost, they are lashing wildly at anything that they don’t like.
When Salmon Rushdie wrote a book critical of Islam, Ayatollah Khomeini condemned him to death. Quite appropriately, most of the rest of the world was appalled. Now, Ayatollah Rust and his clique have found a play they don’t like, they are trying similar strong-arm tactics. It’s amazing, isn’t it, how these defenders of civil liberties and freedom are the first to try to limit the freedoms of others who may disagree with them. Typical Bushies, they view freedom as the freedom to agree.
The best art makes us think – it should challenge our complacency. This is what Sister Mary Ignacious does. Can anyone imagine the same furor if the play had been poking fun at Muslim beliefs and the nation of Islam? Absolutely not! It’s situational ethics.
If someone were to criticize a cartoon in the Southeast Missourian, the response would probably be 'caveat emptor;’ when you buy this paper, you expect right wing extremist views; if you don’t want them don’t buy.
The same should apply to theater tickets. No-one was forced to go. If you weren’t prepared for the content, you shouldn’t have attended. And having attended, you should just suck it up. It is totally inappropriate for these Cape Girardeau fat cats to try to strong-arm the university into watering down its artistic offerings. Maybe they would like a season of ‘The Muppets’ instead of an array of serious artistic productions.
And what is worse, is seeing the university administration roll immediately over and prostrate itself before these Philistines – as though they have a legitimate point of view. If the university will not defend intellectual endeavors in Southeast Missouri, who will? Everyone knows that the last thing that should be done with blackmailers is to negotiate with them – yet this is exactly what Southeast has done – or worse. It has just grovelled before this narrow-mined, bigoted extremism – and thus legitimized it.
Personally I would rather a University Drama Dept. explore the limits of the medium. Where would modern stage and theatre writing and performance be without a little controversy.
An active and vibrant Drama Dept. cannot continue to resurrect Shakespeare or get caught performing "The Pirates of Penzance". This performance has taught those involved some of the power that can be unleashed through words and images.
One obviously realizes that any play that ridicules westernized religion might be in for a bad review in this town, I wonder how people would have reacted if it had been a baby Buddha.
Congratulations for being willing to put on the play, I hope that some people understood and appreciated the true significance.