Replies

Dear All,

I live in the community, and had a front-row seat for every step of this drama.

Sadly, assumptions were made, words were manipulated for political gain, and the tendency of adults to judge before learning the facts was garishly displayed for all young people to see.

If they ever thought age brought wisdom, that idea was quashed for good, no thanks to those who did not think through their actions and words.

The show "Bat Boy" was written in part to teach about the hypocrisy of those in a community who think they follow Christ, but who do not realize that they often behave in an un-Christ-like way. Their faith is tested. Instead of showing kindness to someone who is different, they make him the scapegoat for problems that they themselves have created.

When Bat Boy has read the Bible more than once, and yearns to attend a revival meeting to learn more about God and be healed, they strictly prohibit his attendance.

Because they lack information, they make assumptions, and choose suspicion and blame rather than learning more about the stranger in their midst. Any negative information they are given about Bat Boy, whether or not it has foundation, is absorbed into the fabric of what they consider truth. Tragedy is the outcome - they are too ready to believe in his guilt to see the truth.

In spite of the seriousness of these themes, the authors show that they understand the human foibles of the townspeople. The story is told with a combination of humor and pathos. It includes an unexplained production number including a chorus line, lush solos, duets, trios, and grand cast finales. The music is a complicated triumph in an age of relatively inconsequential tunes. This is a thinking man's composer and lyricist.

A line referring to the "beast inside", while interpreted quite darkly by some, can also remind us that we all carry turmoil in our hearts; that though we frequently give in to our weaknesses, we are to love ourselves in spite of this, as Jesus does. We are forgiven.

The authors most certainly did not intend this last message. Does it matter? We can make our own choices as to how we interpret material, and demonstrate our convictions for our children. Words ring hollow. Actions are what our children believe.

To answer most of the questions and comments:

The authors of "Bat Boy, the Musical" collaborated with the Weekly World News long ago to get permission to use the character, which was created by WWN. Everything has been on the up and up from day one.

The next questions in the forum react to the misinformation that the production "would depict" [rape, incest and bestiality], and that [Bat Boy and the rest of the cast use drugs, alcohol and sex as tools for acceptance].

We in the community found it inexplicable that readers elsewhere - and even some within our own borders - could so easily believe we would allow our children to be involved in such a show, if it were, indeed, planned.

Did it occur to them that the story they were reading could be misleading, leaving out vital information, or that the author might not have all the information needed to write such an article?

Bear with me. There is much to say.

Directors, especially those in high school, often get permission to make changes in the plays and musicals they present, for various reasons. The authors had given permission for this script to be modified so it would be family friendly long before any concerns were raised. (Notice that this was not mentioned in the article.)

Those who raised concerns about "Bat Boy" did not *ask* what would be presented on stage. Without asking or confirming, they publicly stated what they believed would be presented, in meetings, in emails, and in the media.

Would you do such a thing?

Even when they were informed that the changes were already made AND were given the opportunity to read the modified script in the school's office, they remained angry, and refused to believe that they were wrong about the play overall. They had been so vocal - and so wrong - I'm not surprised that there was no apology. It would have been terrifically embarrassing. In fact, the opposition continued their objections.

Their original comments were now being energetically repeated by others who were taking the misinformation as true, some adding embellishments and further tearing down the characters of people involved. The students in the cast, who knew what they were rehearsing, compared it to what was being said, and were amazed and disgusted by the claims.

For the record, there were no depictions of rape, bestiality, or incest in the LCHS show. Those things were either vaguely referred to, so that an adult might be able to make the implication explaining the existence of Bat Boy, or they were not mentioned at all.

Because of the accusers, there was so much repetition of the term "bestiality' in town for seven weeks leading up to the production that La Cañada parents who would never have needed to mention the term to their children ended up having to explain it. Worse yet, unknown numbers of students certainly went on the web to find out what this word meant. The mind boggles. Had it not been for the uproar, this was something that only adults would have picked up, and few of them would have paid attention.

There was no depiction of use of "drugs" in the play, unless you mean the use of alcohol by the character of the veterinarian, who is depressed by the loss of his wife's love. The closest thing I can find to what is described in the article as "using sex as a tool for acceptance" is not that at all. The vet's wife does promise to be "a wife" to him if he spares the life of the boy from the cave instead of killing him. That's in the script, as written.

Karen Johnson, the author of the article you included in the blog, places this quote from the lead actor immediately after the negative things she has written. "It's great that this stuff is gonna be put on stage," said [the actor], who plays Bat Boy.

Who taught Karen about manipulation and fair play? Dr. Dobson? It serves his political message. I wonder what the young man was really discussing when his words were taken out of context. Would a real student with an A+ GPA *actually* say those words to a reporter in reference to a list of vulgar acts?
It seems a little manufactured, doesn't it?
Anyone feeling nauseated yet? WWJD?

That article was written in April. The show was put on in June. Reviewed ...in the future? How does one do that? And for the record, Mr. Page's [sic] complaint was withdrawn. He is a good, caring man whose concerns were addressed and satisfied.

Bat Boy critics proclaimed, "The pro-Bat Boy people say this is a play about tolerance, but they don't *tolerate* our point of view." No, because the "point of view" was based on assumptions and misinformation at best, and included accusations and libel. The things said about the parents, staff, and children in the production were awful. The play's message of tolerance doesn't refer to meek acceptance of inaccurate, out-and-out public attacks on decent people.

Here's another part of the blogs by you, I believe, Vi:

"Just finished reading a review by USA Today, which forewarns viewers, "Vampirism figures prominently in Bat Boy, as do intimations of bestiality and incest." As if the sex, drug and alcohol abuse wasn't enough." This, I assume, was the review of a production other than La Cañada's?

No two directors do *any* show the same way. There are thousands of choices to be made in the development of a play, and a director makes most of them as they fit the actors, space, materials, and inspirations that come up during rehearsals. In this musical, some directors have actors play more than one character, which is how it was written. At LCHS, each character was played by a different actor. This was a choice made by the director. The show you are quoting was doubtless different from the LC play in hundreds of ways. Not all versions of this show have obvious "intimations of bestiality and incest".

In the local papers, some asked, "What lesson is to be learned from this play?" as though nothing good could come of it. Reminder: None of the people challenging the musical had seen our version of it.

Lessons? The actors take their work seriously, and the message of the work seriously, but they don't look to take lessons or find a role model in Dr. Parker, who drinks and betrays others to solve his problems. They don't follow the logic of Mrs. Parker, who could have told the truth and saved the lives of several people.

If anything, they admire Bat Boy, who studies avidly, wants to know God, and wishes to contribute to his community. The way the story is written, the audience and cast, young and old, have every reason to empathize with Bat Boy.

But let's not ruin things with Spoilers.

Another article objects: the "Officials at California high school won't say how they plan to tone down controversial play". People want to be surprised by what happens when they go to a play. Telling the audience too many facts about a play is called "spoiling". There had already been plenty of discussion about LC's "Bat Boy", truthful and not, and enough was enough. Articles were online; the authors and director were available for interviews, and the modified script was in the office.

Interesting, though, how this very normal situation - not telling everyone what will happen during the show - became, in Waliszewski's mind, a "guess of embarrassment on the part of the school." Was he, too, a victim of Dr. Dobson's ambitions? No, we need to draw the line. He, too, used the opportunity to manipulate.

This article, by Josh Montez of www.family.org, further states that the play "features scenes of rape incest, and bestiality". As you can tell, Josh was no more invested in fact-finding than other reporters from his publication. His writing cannot be used as a sound basis of refuting anyone's point, even if it made print somewhere, because he refers to "the play" as though it was the LC play.

The one done on the LC stage had been modified to exclude scenes such as the ones he describes. This casual error caused many well-meaning people to condemn others* without cause. I wonder if Josh is aware of the consequence of what he wrote. It would bother him, I imagine.

Actually, the comparison between "Grease" and "Bat Boy" was made for a good reason. High schools are more limited than you might believe when it comes to selecting musicals. They need to get a show that a) hasn't been done within a certain number of years and within a certain distance from their location, b) has parts for as many students as possible, c) the kids and musicians can handle, in terms of difficulty, d) they can get the rights to, e) has enough girls' parts. And the list goes on and on. There is also a long list of musicals, including "Grease", that have been done ad nauseam and are thought to be decent enough for families.

In actuality, the songs, themes, and dialogue in many of these shows are not as innocent as people are accustomed to thinking. Articles in the papers listed: "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat", "Pajama Game" "Damn Yankees", "Guys and Dolls", "Music Man", "South Pacific", "Mame", "Anything Goes", and "Oklahoma", for starters. Check the plots and lyrics. The most galling point is that the lecherous components of these shows - including 'the sadder but wiser girl' - are overlooked as acceptable and normal. "Grease" is no innocent show, yet no one protests when it or these others are performed. Why not?

In the final analysis, the show went on. Tickets were sold out and overflowed into the balconies. No one left. The audience, forgive the cliche, was rivited. I heard a man sitting in front of me ask, in reference to a soloist, "Who's the ringer?", indicating that he thought an adult had been drafted to sing one of the most spectacular solos. His jaw dropped when he was told: "She's a junior this year."

My summary is this:

"Bat Boy", as presented by LCHS, was not what it was painted to be by those who presumed it would be like its original format. Those accusers stepped on the backs of young adults and tried to foist their lack of trust on an intelligent community for their own purposes. Their efforts did not reflect the mainstream views of the community, were based on incomplete information, and were unjustly damaging to the reputations of students and adults involved.

As it turned out, the community had no need to worry over this production. There should never have been any doubt. No changes needed to be called for, no criticisms should have been publicly bandied; everything was in place already. For shame.

Those who insisted that "Bat Boy" could not be modified for presentation to a family audience were incorrect. If one had never seen the original, the changes made by the staff would not have been noticed.

Audience members of all ages - my conservative, member of the community for 45 years, Republican, 80-year-old mother included - enjoyed the singing, dancing, and clever story with its message of tolerance of those who are different, and its lesson against hypocrisy. The beautiful orchestration, choral arrangements, and ingenious set were complemented by special sound design created just for the show. It was dazzling.

The actors, many of whom achieve the highest academic honors in the country AND who actively participate in Christian faith, saw the people in charge of Focus on the Family for who they are. The authors of the musical, who attended the Friday night show, loved the modified LC version, and declared it better than some West-end productions. They had never heard it with a full chorus, and were amazed at the fullness of the sound.

It was never vulgar.

Those of you who have been worried about the issues involving this show have been writing based on information you thought you could trust.

•••••••••••••••••••

"Bat Boy" has been done by a religious high school here in California, and several high schools around the nation. If you decide to see a performance, it's likely you'll enjoy a high school version more than a professional one.

And now that you know that a play is never the same play twice, consider saving criticism for after having seen it, please. Or at least until after SOMEone has seen it!

Give good people the benefit of the doubt. If someone has had a rock-solid, stellar reputation, hold off on the public accusations until you have more information. I don't care if your information came from your most trusted friend. Sometimes he's wrong. If you care enough to write about it, care enough to keep your reputation clean by researching your topic before speaking your mind.

Most people are not out scheming to take over the minds of the country's youth, or old people, for that matter. It's too late in high school, anyway - students are challenged to look at how decisions are made, if they are fortunate, and have ways of evaluating those decisions.

And please, give teenagers the benefit of the doubt. These are the folks to whom we will be handing rifles the day after tomorrow when they turn 18 and they are suddenly "adults".

(Everyone knows we aren't really adults until we are 47, and even then it's sketchy, but since they will have legal status at 18, we had better offer them opportunities to make lesser judgements that are relatively safe, don't you think? Even if you DO think those judgements could be offensive! Remember, it's a rifle day after tomorrow, and I don't want them *starting* to think on their own on that day for the very first time.)

Best wishes to all. You are kind to honor this topic with your time and attention. By the way, the tag line below is from Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)