Anne Frank the Musical: Can They Do That?!

In my last post, I discussed the controversy surrounding a theatre director who donated money in support of Proposition 8.  Since then, some new and very interesting drama has surfaced in the world of theatre.  My internet investigations have led me to the case of El Diario de Ana Frank: Un Canto a la Vida-- a musical currently running in Spain (see poster, right), based on the Jewish girl named Anne Frank who hid with her family from the Nazis for two years during WWII and recorded her account in a diary.  Eventually, her family was betrayed, discovered, arrested and trained off to a concentration camp where all but her father died.  It is a tragic true story that lacks anything remotely close to a happy ending, which begs the question, is a musical of her short life appropriate, especially when musicals are generally known to be a happy and light form of theatre?  In the search for this answer, I found that even though I understand the points that supporters of the production make, there is something that is just plain unsettling about turning the The Diary of Anne Frank into a musical spectacle.

One of the most interesting details in this situation is that the writer/director, Rafaelo Alvero, was actually given support to use Frank's story.  According to the Guardian UK, Jan Erik Dubbelman who is the head of the international department of the foundation said, "The Anne Frank Foundation, which jealously guards the rights to the diary - it once turned down Steven Spielberg when he wanted to make a film - has given its support."  One would assume that surely Spielberg, the founder of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation and director of the critically acclaimed film Schindler's List, would be granted the rights over some theatre company in Spain.  In defense of his vision for the musical, Alvero says, "When I first came here they had this doubt, about how somebody can do a musical of a story like this.  The thing we want to do is... through the music, to understand the story better."  Dubbelman says, "This production respects the message of tolerance, within the tragedy, that we want to keep alive.  Being in Spanish, it can also help to take the message of Anne Frank to Latin America."  While I think it is great that musicals are being done in Spanish, I have to argue that without a doubt The Diary of Anne Frank (the book) is printed in Spanish and can be shared with Latin nations that way and more accurately for that matter.  It so happens that none of the actual words from the diary were allowed to be used in the show, because contradictory to Dubbelman's statement, the "rights to the diary" belong to the Anne Frank Fund.  The Fund is headed by Anne's only surviving relative, Buddy Elias.  

Elias is a cousin of Anne's and strongly disagrees with the musical production, as he is quoted saying, "The Frank family was living in hiding for two years, which ended in tragedy - that's no theme for a happy evening of song and dance."  Because the Fund is calling the shots, El Diario could not use any of the words from el diario.  While the general story of Frank is free game, I have to wonder about the integrity of a production that was not approved by her family.  Writer Alvero, who is also a movie producer, says, "It is emotional, within the sadness and the happiness of the life of Anne Frank.  I have no doubt that it will be educational and entertaining."  I am very skeptical that "education" is this movie man's main objective.  The budget for the musical is a reported 4.5 million dollars; this is a huge investment which has to be aimed at making a large profit.  Speaking of profit, where are the proceeds going?  I wonder if any of the money is being donated for a good cause benefiting the legacy of Anne Frank, or are the proceeds being kept as reward for investors and producers?  

I am a firm believer that every story deserves to be told.  However, I do not agree with Anne Frank's life being reduced to a musical soundtrack.  The young girl wrote about her life and first love in a diary she thought would be for her eyes only.  There is something intimate and romantic about a diary and for it to be transformed into large scale Broadway worthy numbers is inappropriate and unbefitting.  I especially disagree with the transformation of the actual diary into a character by the pet name of "Kitty," which Frank often referred to her diary as such.  Steve Kingstone, a reviewer for BBC News, writes, "The human diary first appears in a red chiffon dress with a fat sequined belt and big hair - much like Wonder Woman going to a black-tie event."  They might as well have given her a cigarette and a martini glass.  The personification of Kitty is a perfect example of the the mess that can be made of fact when left up to artistic interpretation.  This is not the way Anne Frank should be remembered and this is not the way someone should make money.  

We live in an age of remakes, proving that the majority of writers have for the most part lost their edge on originality, but that does not make it alright to remake Anne Frank's life set to a fancy tune.  Her cousin, Buddy Elias says, "How can I support this when my cousin Anne Frank who died in a concentration camp, who had a terrible destiny, is used for a happy musical with singing and dancing and I don't know what else?"  While there was no dancing in the show, he does have a point.  I think the greater question here is: would Anne approve?  I'm sure the 13 year old girl would have been bubbling over with excitement had someone told her she would be famous one day with people vying for permission to tell her tale.  Yes, I would venture to say that Anne would have loved the idea, until she heard the end of her tragic story.  

Scott Eckern: Theatre's New Poster Boy for Hate

Last week, I wrote about the importance of telling minority stories given our current political climate in the United States.  Since then, the heat has definitely risen, and no, not just because half of California is on fire.  I'm talking about Scott Eckern (pictured right), the director of California Musical Theatre based in Sacramento, giving $1000 in support of Proposition 8, and the uproar it's caused in the theatre community.  Many of his colleagues have quickly spread word via email and facebook informing the community of his views on "hate legislation."  Another colleague called for a boycott of the entire theatre.  In the end, Eckern resigned from his position at CMT, because he clearly could not handle the heat that came along with his political leanings.  While I do not agree with Scott Eckern on Proposition 8, I must admit that I loved seeing the very liberal theatre world get shaken out of its boots.  Every group has their general beliefs, and while in the company of like-minded friends, it is easy to get comfortable and feel too safe.  This whole Eckern situation, if anything, has the theatre circle back on its toes, which is right where they should be as artists.  While assessing what Eckern did and what happened to him, I found two very interesting blogs on the topic and left comments, which I have included for you below.  The first blog I commented on is called Culture Monster, written by Mike Boehm who is a writer for the LA Times.  He gives an accurate retelling of the events that led up to Eckern's eventual demise.  The second blog I comment on is called The Clyde Fitch Report, the personal blog of Leonard Jacobs who is a freelance writer and who has a theatre online pod-cast show.  He offers opinion on the facts and agrees that Eckern should be pushed out of his job.  I disagree.  Eckern is entitled to have his own opinions and offer support to his chosen causes and whether anyone else agrees with him or not.  Somehow Eckern has become the poster boy for hate in the theatre community, and I believe his right to free speech is not being honored, which contradicts Prop. 8 protester's "equal rights for all" platform. 

Culture Monster by Mike Boehm

Comment:

I would like to thank you Mr. Boehm for writing such an informative blog on the surprising and recent commotion that is occurring at Sacramento's California Musical Theatre, due to the donation made by Scott Eckern in support of Proposition 8.  It is a very touchy situation that has cost many people in the theatre community a lot of hurt and anger and consequently driven Eckern to resign from an executive position that he clearly loved.  People often go see theatre to be informed, changed and entertained by politically driven stories, few realize that those same stories could easily be and actually are lurking behind the scenes.  Behind the scenes of your blog is supporting information, offered through links, which I think is very helpful for readers to further understand the history and facts surrounding this event.  Now, you mention a few prominent theatre names who chastised Eckern for his actions, but I wonder if there are any members of the theatre community who are supporting his right to free speech, even though they might oppose his particular point of view on the matter?  And, while I'm playing devil's advocate here, I must ask, don't you think the pushing out of Eckern is contradictory to everything that Prop. 8 protesters stand for, in regard to equal rights?  While you are in somewhat of a public position, it would have been interesting to hear your thoughts, the point of view of an outsider, on this matter.  While I do not agree with Eckern on Proposition 8, I believe he has a right to his own opinion and that his theatre colleagues may have gone too far.  It was wrong to call for a boycott against the entire theatre (which Eckern did not own), because it not only affects Eckern, but robs the existing employees of jobs and the surrounding community of their theatre.

Scott Eckern: Enemy of Freedom, Lover of Bigotry, Death and Hatred by Leonard Jacobs

Comment:

Thank you Mr. Jacobs for taking the time to offer your opinion on the hottest topic in the theatre blogosphere, which is Scott Eckern's donation in support of Proposition 8.  Many of Eckern's colleagues have taken major offense to his actions, but it is always helpful to have an outside perspective from a party who is not directly involved and your blog offers just that.  While a bit harsh, I most definitely appreciate your candor when you write, "Scott Eckern, you are an enemy of all that is good in America,"  but I wonder if he really deserves to lose his job?  While I do not agree with Mr. Eckern on Proposition 8, I must question whether or not the pushing out of Eckern contradicts everything that Prop. 8 protesters stand for (protester pictured left).  As an American, Scott Eckern has the right to his own political leanings.  Sure, he probably should have picked a different industry other than theatre as home to his career, but it is unconstitutional to push him out.  As far as him being Mormon, I appreciate you bringing that up, because as most are well aware, the donations of the Mormon Church are a large part of why Prop. 8 was able to pass.  Even though there is no fact to back it up, I am sure that the Church, directly or indirectly, asked its followers to donate to the cause.  Scott Eckern did and he got caught, but where is the Church now?  How sad that Eckern has to be the poster boy for hate and his spiritual leaders are not there to back him up.  Well, after all is said and done, Eckern is jobless now, so maybe some LDS branch will offer him a job overseeing the Christmas musical.  Wait, do they even have Christmas?  Let's hope so, because after such a violent response from the mainstream theatre world, Baby Jesus is really Eckern's only hope at this point. 

Intimate Apparel: The Telling of Different Stories

In last week's post, I discussed the ongoing issue that theaters, particularly in the United States, are facing in selling tickets to middle class patrons. The middle class is growing increasingly diverse with minorities and I believe their stories need to be told, especially if they are the target audience that theaters are aiming to sell tickets to. One theatrical institution has begun to diversify its productions, and for the first time in ten years, it produced a play that tells the story of a minority, in this case, a black woman. I would like to elaborate on the nature of this play called Intimate Apparel by Lynn Nottage (pictured left), illustrate how a theatre piece can really and truly tell the stories of all people and how producing shows like this one can up ticket sales.

When the University of Southern California School of Theatre produced Intimate Apparel, directed by Anita Dashiell-Sparks, which opened in October of 2008, it had been ten years since they put a show up that tells a black story. The audience was ready for it, too, because every show was sold out. The actors also could not wait to play a part in this event. Prema Cruz, a senior theatre major, who played the lead as Esther, said, "This is the first time, since I've been at USC that I've played a character that looks like me." Not only is it important for audiences to see black actors playing black people, but it is crucial for an artist to be able to feel comfortable in their own skin while performing. One would think that having black actors playing black people would not be an issue, but it most definitely is and it is a wonder that it has taken institutions like USC 10 years to get back into the groove of the way things should be. With a piece of rich writing like Intimate Apparel, it is obvious why they chose now to take action. Lynn Nottage's words offer freedom to share history and expression to artists and audiences alike, proving that even a minority story can connect to whoever is watching, whatever color they may be.

Intimate Apparel, set in 1905 New York, follows the story of a plain looking thirty-five year old seamstress named Esther Mills who sews intimate apparel for ladies: a prostitute named Mayme and married socialite named Mrs. Van Buren. While living at a rooming house run by Mrs. Dickson, she begins receiving letters from a black laborer in Panama named George Armstrong. Eventually, through correspondence, he asks for her hand in marriage and she accepts, even though she is very much in love with the off limits Romanian Jew and fabric salesman, Mr. Marks (the two characters are pictured below). A touching moment between Esther and Mr. Marks occurs when she touches his hand and he instantly and almost violently pulls away.  Esther says, "The color won't rub off on you."  Marks replies with, "No, no.  I'm sorry.  It's not that.  Please.  My religious belief doesn't permit me to touch a woman who isn't my wife or my relative."  The two were unable to express their affection for one another because of stark cultural differences, which in the story lead to complete misunderstanding on the part of Esther.  Nottage writes of a time in New York when different cultures, religions, social classes, sexual orientations and genders were all living on top of each other. Sound a little familiar? The American people of 1905 struggled with identity and coexistence the same way the people of today do. Nottage managed to take this huge notion of intersection and pack it into a very revealing and personal story that exhibits the struggle people go through when their own personal desires conflict with the societal expectations that are placed on them. She says, "It's an exploration of race and class in America. And desire and hope." Indeed, it is an exploration that transcends time and qualifies this play as a perfect example of what quality of story American theatre should strive toward.

I was much honored to be a part of this particular story telling process. I played Mrs. Van Buren, a white woman married to a very rich man. Van Buren's husband loses interest in maintaining their marriage, because she is unable to have children, and in that time, that was really a woman's only purpose. Van Buren begins to feel affection for Esther and kisses her, for once throwing away her social rulebook and adequately expressing herself, saying "I just wanted to show you what it felt like to be treated lovingly." Exploring this character as a reader and an actor helped me to fully appreciate the liberties I have today, like the right to bote, not having to make child bearing a first priority, having the educational and professional means to be self sufficient, and quite frankly, the right to wear whatever I want. Corsets are aesthetically pleasing, but very unnatural and unhealthy for a woman's body! I wore them for a week and I do not know how our female ancestors did it for all those years. Oppression, I tell you!

Basically, the most important point of Intimate Apparel, I believe, is that every person longs to be touched, not necessarily physically, but on an emotional and spiritual level. Every character in this play ends up alone, with what seems like no hope in sight. When strict boundaries are placed on a person, it harnesses their ability to believe that hope pays off and that getting what they need is possible. The play shows an audience that pressuring someone to live a certain way or to place rules on love and ambition is oppressive and can ruin lives. The relevance of this show is heightened especially in the political times we are living in, with the first black president elect being Barack Obama. Also, the recent controversial passing of Proposition 8 that bans gay marriage in California makes the message of this play hit closer to home with any audience. Intimate Apparel captures a glimpse into the lives of people from all different backgrounds connecting their stories to the people of today, which makes it a perfect production to appeal to the United States' massive and ever diversifying middle class audiences.

Audience Drought: Are Ticket Deals the Answer?

This week, I stumbled upon a struggle that is ever present in the theatre community, which is how to fill theatre seats and get the people to keep coming back for more.  Theatre has the power to affect a culture, to make them ask questions, and to feel, which is a rare occurrence in our increasingly technology dependent society.  But, the art of theatre cannot use its power for good if nobody is there to experience it.  How can theaters gain a larger audience?  Is a free or reduced ticket all it takes to transform the middle class into theatre regulars?  In pursuit of the answers to these questions, I commented on two blogs that offer information and some opinion on the matter at hand.  The first blog entry that I comment on is that of theatre critic and freelance writer Chloe Veltman, a nominee for "Best Columnist" at the 2006 "Pubbies" Awards.  She discusses the Free Night of Theatre, where participating theaters across the nation offer just that: a free night of theatre.  Veltman questions whether or not this ploy is actually effective in gaining, converting and maintaining and average Joe (or Josefine) into a theatre enthusiast.  While she explores a free theatre ticket program, there are other efforts being made to pack houses, like Los Angeles' own Center Theatre Group's discounted ticket program.  Diane Haithman, a staff writer at the LA Times and a graduate of the Univ. of Michigan, wrote a very informative blog about the efforts CTG (see image, below) is making to appeal to the middle class.  In my comments to both Haithman and Veltman, which I have included, I ask if the ticket prices are the sole reason for poor attendance.  The target audience that theaters are seeking is growing increasingly diverse, and I wonder if the plays being produced are reflecting this.  It could very well be just a simple supply and demand issue: supply the people with what they want-- with what they need -- and maybe selling tickets will cease to be an issue.  

"Free Night or Free Nights?" by Chloe Veltman

Comment:

Thank you Ms. Veltman for taking the time to explore what I believe is the latest and currently most trendy fix all plan to fill empty theatre seats: giving away free tickets.  Theatre is a powerful art form, capable of healing, expression and change, but none of this is possible if no one is there to see it.  You write specifically about the Free Night of Theatre, which I think is a great example and sort of "test event" to review the results and deem whether or not the program is effective.  The statistics you give for the Free Night campaign are very helpful.  Including them makes your writing more credible, giving the reader a sense that you have invested time and research into your writing.  You make a good point when questioning the extension of free tickets to more than just one night, but I think it could be a good thing.  It gives potential new theatergoers flexibility that might be just what they need to actually make their way to the playhouses.  Plus, instead of one night, theatre is on the brain for nearly an entire month.  The most effective question that you asked, which concerned the basic principle of giving away tickets, was "how does offering free tickets... affect the economic situation of the theatre companies involved?" Name a theater and they probably need money.  So, if they are giving up some of their earnings as a marketing ploy, is the investment paying off?  If it is not, what is your insight on what could be a good strategy in packing out the theatre houses of America?  Is there a way, or is theatre really a dying art that the majority would rather let die?  I wonder if the right plays are being produced, maybe people have a need to see something different.  The U.S. is becoming more and more diverse, and I have to ask: are we telling the right stories?  Today's target audience is composed of various ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, and cultures.  I believe that the body of work being produced should reflect that.  Whatever the answers to all of these questions may be, it is my great hope that more people will realize what they are missing and head to their nearest theatre to get their latest fix of what should be their new addiction.

"Center Theatre Group offers 100,000 $20 tickets for 2008-09" by Diane Haithman

Comment:

I would like to thank you Ms. Haithman for

 writing such an informative post on the implementation of the reduced price ticket program that is under way at CTG.  Theatre can be a vehicle for social change, cultural expression and human connection, but only if people are there to engage in the process.  Filling seats is the hot topic in the theatre world right now, which makes what you have to say very relevant.  It is clear that the productions at CTG are produced on a grand scale, so giving tickets away would be out of the question, because as the the CTG artistic director Michael Ritchie says, "selling tickets is the primary purpose [of the program.]"  Do you think discounted tickets are a more effective way of drawing the crowds in?  Or in these times of economic uncertainty, is a free ticket the only way to get a butt in the seat?  Could the problem be deeper that the cost of a ticket?  Your post identifies the middle class as the target for the cheap ticket campaign, but I wonder if maybe theaters are not producing the right plays.  The population is growing more divers with the opening and closing of every theatre season, especially in Los Angeles, which poses the question: whose stories are we telling and are these stories representative of the people we want to convert into regular theatre goers?  Whatever the remedy to this "audience drought" may be, I am glad that CTG is making and effort to lure the middle class into the theatre.  If you discount it, they will come.  Let us hope this is true.

Theatre: It's a Man's World

Last week, I wrote about the media's portrayal of women and the effects it has on women's perception of their own beauty. However, in this entry, I have chosen to blog about the on going struggle for female playwrights to break through the "glass ceiling," (see image, left), in an effort get their work produced in both the east coast and the west coast theatre circuits. To offer a better understanding of the issue, statistics show that the number of female-penned plays on the stages of New York represents 12.6% of the total, while 60% of theatre audiences are female. The problem is frighteningly similar on the west coast, as well. Theatre is, at its very least, supposed to be a forum for progress, change and expression. How is it that an aspiring female playwright most definitely still finds herself in a man's world? Are there just not enough plays written by women to choose from? What's the deal? As a young woman with her sights set on a life in the arts, I have decided to raise a few questions and offer encouragement to the writers of a few blogs, who are currently concerning themselves with this ever present problem. I comment first on a blog entry, "Broadway's glass ceiling," written by acclaimed playwright Theresa Rebeck, author of several plays, including Spike Heels and Mauritius, which is making its and her Broadway debut on October 3rd of this year. Her blog is currently closed for commenting, so I have included it below. Rebeck, pictured below, does well in ranting on the issue as far as New York is concerned, so I found another blog that paints the picture just as effectively regarding southern California's iffy theatrical production decisions, similarly titled "L.A. Theatre's Glass Ceiling." Lisa Fung, a Los Angeles Times staff writer for the L.A. Times blog, Culture Monster, offers a similar, but more subdued, message as Rebeck: it is high time for female playwrights to get the representation they deserve from the theatre world that they are devoting their talents to. You will find my comments on what both writers had to say below.

"Broadway's glass ceiling" by Theresa Rebeck
Comment:
I would like to thank you, Ms. Rebeck, for taking the time to share your sarcastic assessment of the issue regarding the production of female penned plays in New York-- or lack thereof. The underrepresentation of women is a battle that plagues all areas of our lives: education, business, the arts, etc. Most probably assume that this struggle does not surface in the "free" and "artistic" world of theatre, but as you've expressed and those of us in the theatre community have experienced, it most certainly does. Your frank method of shrewdly shedding light on the issue is an unappreciated way of really reaching out to readers, grabbing their attention, and possibly giving them a voice--specifically women. So many critics speak in lofty terms to analyze theatre and the world in which it exists, making the "theatre is for snobs" stereotype reign supreme. Your sources give a good impression as to what is popular on Broadway today. It would have been wonderful if you could have included a source for the startling statistics on the plays written by women on NY stages and the 60% female audience percentage you give. I wonder: do you believe the number of plays written by women matches up to that of those written by men? Do producers have just as much male and female-authored work to choose from, or are they simply choosing male playwrights, because, well, they are male? I imagine great strides would be made for this cause if women were encouraged to write more, from early childhood into womanhood, so that they may grow up learning to to use the voice they normally would not even know they had. Then, maybe, the amount of good work written by women would be undeniable. What do you feel is the best remedy for this illness that has the world of theatre, or at least the women in it, feeling so sick? Lastly, I think your bravery in speaking out is something to be admired. You are a successful female writer in a seemingly "man's world," and you have a great deal to lose by putting your "balls" on the line. Write on, Ms. Rebeck, write on.

"L.A.'s Glass Ceiling" by Lisa Fung
Comment:
Many thanks to you, Ms. Fung, for shedding light on the theatre scene on the west coast, and how our struggle relates to that of the east coast theatre circuit. Your choice in using Theresa Rebeck's words, when identifying the barriers women playwrights face in getting produced as a "glass ceiling," is unfortunately perfectly accurate. Your simple and fact-based argument is effective in reaching both male and female readers, while Rebeck's sarcastic tone and choice of words may scare off the very men whose minds she is hoping to change. It is interesting that the Orange County theatre community has embraced female playwrights more that the Los Angeles circuit has. What do you think this is? I definitely agree with you that the woman's voice in the California theatre world is being muffled to a whisper thanks to producer's choices, but, I will pose the same question to you that I did to Rebeck when I ask: do you believe the umber of plays written by women matches up to that of those written by men? Do producers have just as much male and female-authored work to choose from, or are they simply choosing male playwrights because, well, they are male? Also, I wonder what a potential solution to this problem could be. You imply that an expectation for "some sort of gender based affirmative action" would be in appropriate, but is there any other way? What do you suggest? Could the answer lay in the encouragement of women to express themselves through story and other outlets, from the time they are young? I believe the answer to this equation is more deeply rooted, that it trickles down to young girls who are not even aware that theatre exists as something they can be a part of. Females should feel empowered and confident enough to tell stories, only then will the playing field be even between men and women when it comes to production decisions. lastly, I admire your action in responding to the problem and continuing to fuel the fire that Theresa Rebeck started. The heat is on, thank the theatre gods.

Plastic Surgery: Is the Industry to Blame?

In the busy lives we lead, we are most likely to make a quick dinner and turn on the tube. As we inhale our several hundred calories, we are bombarded with images of women, as the graphic to the right demonstrates, who look as though they have not had a single calorie in the last decade, and on top of that, they look as though they have not aged a single year in that same decade, either. A television show of any genre, a commercial and even your average reality TV show tends to depict a different kind of woman than what we are used to seeing on a day to day basis. The star of their show is a pin thin, twenty-something looking thing, who looks as though she just so happened to roll out of the tanning bed long enough to film her latest project. It’s no wonder that women feel physically inadequate, leading them to loads of plastic surgery.

Nearly 11.7 million cosmetic surgical and non-surgical procedures were performed in 2007, according to The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Women account for 91% of those procedures, while men are responsible for the other 9%. In 2001, women accounted for 87% of procedures, and men the remaining 13%. The top surgical procedure performed in 2007 was liposuction and the top non-surgical procedure was botox, which strongly indicates that women’s body images are affected the most in regards toward weight and age.

I believe there is a correlation between the spike in female plastic surgery procedures and the increase in the amount of reality television shows that have been filling our television screens for the past few years. There was a writer’s strike in the entertainment industry in 2001, which was right after the creation and nearly instant success of the “reality” television hit, Survivor. The strike is often attributed with being the reason why so many reality TV shows came into conception. No fiction equals no writing equals lower production costs. And so it began. The industry’s carefully packaged presentation of what is “real” began airing like there was no tomorrow. Well, apparently tomorrow never dies, because America is currently standing knee deep in reality television—swamped with the notion that perfection is normal.

One show, notorious for mis-portraying reality is MTV’s The Real World. The characters on the show are “usually beautiful and always overly dramatic,” says Danielle Stern, an Ohio University Ph.D. candidate in mass communications. She says they illustrate “the larger problem of television producers using sex and the exploitation of the female body to attract a young audience.” Networks are eager to attract a young demographic, because advertisers are constantly seeking their attention, seeing as how they are frequent shoppers. The advertisers sell young women products and clothing, while the very networks that do business with those advertisers cause girls to hate how they look while wearing their purchases.

Thankfully, there are real life efforts to change the image of beauty. There has definitely been a recent trend in owning one’s body and accepting it as beautiful. I attribute the start of this movement to playwright, Josefina Lopez, who wrote Real Women Have Curves, which was adapted for the screen and starred America Ferrera who is not only known for her acting chops, but also her curvaceous figure. Since 2006, Ferrera, pictured in character below, has been playing the role of Ugly Betty on ABC’s hit show by the same name. One show that does not get enough credit when it comes to the topic at hand, is E!’s reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians. This is a family full of full figured women, who are proud of their bodies and more specifically their derrières. The show may be lacking when it comes to intelligent content, but it and Ugly Betty certainly deserve a nod for giving curvy women at home the opportunity to find a mirror in reality television.

Even the theatre community is getting involved. WET, Women’s Expressive Theatre based in New York, has a program called Risk Takers which “teaches girls how to look at the media with a critical eye, and to distinguish empowering risks from damaging risks.” Programs like this are important, because it requires physical connection and direct affirmation. The images of Ugly Betty and the Kardashians are left to interpretation. Theatre companies like WET are doing good work in showing young women how to find empowerment in the industry’s portrayal of “real women.”

It is my great hope that this trend in the honest portrayal of women proves to be more than just a trend. May it muster up the courage to persist and achieve longevity. Women need more images to balance out the bevy of unrealistic images they see every day, so that if they do want plastic surgery, they can make a more informed decision without the pressure. Playwrights, television and film writers, producers and advertisers need to take into consideration who we actually are, instead of who they want us to want ourselves to be. Every girl should be able to sit down in front of the television, eat her dinner, and use a toothpick after her meal, instead of watching one on the screen during her meal.