Stephanie M.

Musical theater is a huge and well-loved medium, and in recent years has given us some cutting-edge hits (Legally Blonde, Wicked, Dear Evan Hansen, Hamilton, etc.) Yet there are some accepted "rules" of theater culture that still feel like stereotypes or "boxing in" actors. For instance: sopranos get the leads; mezzos and altos play "witches and britches." Tenors play romantic leads; basses play villains. Actresses past the age of 30 can expect to play mothers and grandmothers, but not love interests for their own sake. If you are a white male, you cannot convincingly play a male or female of any color (although I have conversely seen white women tapped to play WOCs). Actors with disabilities can only really expect casting in disabled roles.

Most theater aficionados will tell you there are solid reasons behind this thinking, even truth. Then again, in 2019, should conventional theater change more to suit the needs and desires of actors? Could or should a musical be written to give an ingenue role to an alto or a hero role to a bass? Is it pushing the envelope to allow actors of certain orientations to play outside of them, or for a white actor to play a POC (outside of a historical context)? In short, what would and should truly "diverse," "inclusive" theater look like?

Most actors spend their careers playing fictional characters. However, many actors are chosen to star in biopics, Biblical epics, or similar films at least once. When an actor makes the switch from playing a character to portraying a real person, the gravitas factor goes through the roof, and while most actors will try to play real people respectfully and responsibly, there are some who arguably do it "better" than others. Just for one example, look at the many actors who have played Jesus Christ over the years.

In your opinion, what does it take to play a certain real role responsibly and respectfully? How much of a production team’s choice is based on "casting type" and how much is based on say, personality or lived experience? What are some of the best biopic portrayals you’ve seen, of whom and by whom, and why? Discuss.

Saving Mr. Banks (2013) was something of a groundbreaking film for Disney. The company had done films based on true stories before, but Saving Mr. Banks was the first to juxtapose the story of a Disney classic’s making with the story of the original work’s author. Saving Mr. Banks met with critical acclaim and is also one of my favorites in the canon. In fact, I’d very much like to see more films like this.

Do other films in the canon, live-action or animation, lend itself to this type of storytelling? Would actors or viewers be interested in say, learning about the personal lives and struggles behind the makings of Disney’s Golden, Bronze, or Renaissance films? Are there untold stories to be mined from animators (e.g,, Walt’s Nine Old Men, female animators, etc.) and other production staff/voice actors? Discuss.

Potterheads enjoy asking each other which Houses they’re from, and once you become a Potterhead, one of the first things you want to do (at least in personal experience) is get formally Sorted via a well thought-out quiz or app. It’s not uncommon to go on social media and find people sorting their favorite media characters into Houses, putting HP Next Generation characters into Houses through fanon, and debating the traits of certain Houses and how they are or are not represented. (I myself am a proud supporter of Slytherin House redemption).

But, why all the fuss over this little bit of HP canon? Why do people get sorted over and over again, identify with more than one House, and so on? Several reasons worth exploring exist. For one, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are just sort of "there," while Gryffindor and Slytherin get all the attention. House Sortings are the closest we’re probably going to get to a "real" Hogwarts if we can’t afford trips to Orlando. Sortings help us craft new, fantasy-based identities that may help us handle some real-world problems to a degree. We might be looking for a "perfect" Sorting experience that hasn’t been achieved yet.

Is it all of this? None? Are there facets not yet considered? Discuss.

My most recent Artifice article was about the feminine spirit in Holocaust-centered YA literature, and I enjoyed every minute of prepping and writing it. I also enjoy Holocaust-based fiction (in small doses) because it so often focuses on heroism and brutality in real, thought-provoking ways. The stakes are already built in and a lot of times, couldn’t be better.

But then I had a thought. Lilac Girls, The Guernsey Potato Peel and Literary Society, Lost Roses, The Girl in the Blue Coat, Flight Girls…there is a LOT of WWII women’s fiction around these days, not all Holocaust-based. And I wonder, what is it about this sub-category that is or has become so compelling? Are other women in other time periods as compelling, and what could authors explore to give them their due? Have writers overused this category or are there more stories to be explored?

Alex Trebek’s announcement of pancreatic cancer shook Jeopardy fans and resulted in an outpouring of love and good wishes on social media. Fans rejoiced when earlier this year, Trebek rallied and achieved borderline remission. But recently, he has hinted he may step down from Jeopardy in the wake of his cancer and treatments. If this were to happen, could Jeopardy survive? Discuss the changes the show might undergo, whether some might be overdue, and how much Trebek’s presence has made the show what it is today.

Every time a movie is adapted from a book, people complain about it. This is understandable; I’ve seen my favorite books butchered in film and it’s never pleasant. However, I recently read the comment on a BuzzFeed article about this that a certain book’s story didn’t "translate" to film. Are there certain books that translate better than others to film, and if so, what are some? Does a book need certain elements to translate well to film, or are filmmakers simply stuck doing the best they can because, print and film being different mediums, certain things are bound to get lost in translation? Discuss.

Short stories form the backbone of almost any literature and creative writing class, either because students read or write them. Either way, they are analyzed–sometimes to the point of death, but we hope today’s literature students and teachers are moving past such tendencies.

Of the myriad of short stories that exist, classic and contemporary, what are some that should belong in any canon? In particular, discuss contemporary stories or collections not getting attention right now, that should be. To go along with this, what are some universal themes, character traits, or tropes that make a short story "work" better than it would if it were written in longer form? Do some topics or themes lend themselves better to short form, and why?