2008 Woodie Awards
Trials of the Performing Arts
Shaun Mitchell
Issue date: 3/2/06 Section: Perspectives
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Instead of doing my weekly gossip column today, I wanted to take some time out to write about the e-mail Dr. Greeley sent out last Thursday regarding the English department's production of "How I Learned to Drive." Considering she used a global e-mail to initiate her argument, it left students, such as me, without a voice because we cannot global like faculty can. The result was a feud between members of faculty that accumulated e-mail after e-mail in our inboxes.
Since when did global e-mails become the ammunition and battlegrounds for arguments? And the administration thinks students would abuse global e-mails. This will constitute as my global to the SHU community in response to Dr. Greeley's argument.
First, let it be said that I deeply admire Dr. Greeley for her constant bettering of our campus and mastery of her profession. I just feel that her response to a three sentence synopsis of a highly regarded theatrical piece was out of line. Dr. Greeley cited that her disagreement with the synopsis came from the wording and how the absolute integrity of every human being of our Mission Statement is not represented in the synopsis.
A synopsis is merely a brief explanation of what a play is about. Professor Minor's synopsis blatantly tells those who are reading that it "concerns a young woman's affair with her uncle." There is no fine print here. This show includes incest, and yes, Kyle Minor presented that in his synopsis. The bottom line: did the message of the play come across in so many words? Yes.
My problem of this unnecessary attack on the synopsis is that if one hasn't seen the production, one cannot compare the synopsis to the actual show then one should not make judgments beforehand. I understand that Dr. Greeley saw the show off-Broadway, but she hasn't seen this specific production.
If I were told that a production of "The Sound of Music" was about New York street gangs and their battles for drugs, I would accept that. Upon seeing the show and realizing that it has nothing to do with New York street gangs, then I would make an attack on the synopsis for misleading me to believe that it was something it wasn't.
Since when did global e-mails become the ammunition and battlegrounds for arguments? And the administration thinks students would abuse global e-mails. This will constitute as my global to the SHU community in response to Dr. Greeley's argument.
First, let it be said that I deeply admire Dr. Greeley for her constant bettering of our campus and mastery of her profession. I just feel that her response to a three sentence synopsis of a highly regarded theatrical piece was out of line. Dr. Greeley cited that her disagreement with the synopsis came from the wording and how the absolute integrity of every human being of our Mission Statement is not represented in the synopsis.
A synopsis is merely a brief explanation of what a play is about. Professor Minor's synopsis blatantly tells those who are reading that it "concerns a young woman's affair with her uncle." There is no fine print here. This show includes incest, and yes, Kyle Minor presented that in his synopsis. The bottom line: did the message of the play come across in so many words? Yes.
My problem of this unnecessary attack on the synopsis is that if one hasn't seen the production, one cannot compare the synopsis to the actual show then one should not make judgments beforehand. I understand that Dr. Greeley saw the show off-Broadway, but she hasn't seen this specific production.
If I were told that a production of "The Sound of Music" was about New York street gangs and their battles for drugs, I would accept that. Upon seeing the show and realizing that it has nothing to do with New York street gangs, then I would make an attack on the synopsis for misleading me to believe that it was something it wasn't.