'Pippin' a success
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, May 11, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
‘Pippin' a success
Regarding the letter “Appalled by Pippin” (April 27): That was a shameful critique of Valley High School's spring musical based on two small remarks in the play.
I am a junior theater arts major at the University of Pittsburgh and graduated from Valley. My brothers and I have been involved with Valley's drama department for about 10 years.
I'm happy a small, public school like Valley took on a challenging musical like “Pippin.” It addresses big issues that kids, teens and even adults experience. It does an excellent job of detailing that life is not always glamorous, and ending it is not the best option. “Pippin” takes a journey familiar to everyone — finding a job, questions about love, sex and religion, failure and success.
Children and teens constantly are exposed to the real world. It would be irresponsible to not teach our students about things they will face; a lack of preparation sets them up for future failure. “Pippin” addresses these things in a safe setting. It is widely accepted at the high-school level in hope of engaging students.
Director Larry Tempo and the Valley production committee did a fantastic and tasteful job with “Pippin.” Most shows today — even those classified “child friendly” — have sexual innuendos and “questionable” language. I'm not saying children should be taught to use obscenities; I am stating the point of this play goes far beyond one use of name-calling by a child.
What's appalling is criticizing a play based on minute details and ignoring the talent on the stage. The message of the show is powerful, and with the wonderful singing, makeup and costumes, Valley's “Pippin” was a resounding success.
I'm proud my alma mater put on the show.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Slots & property taxes
- Medicaid’s future
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Proven success
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Good use of slots money
- Putin’s actions I
- Lebo’s coyotes