Nudity - the actor's POV
Mon, 28 Aug 2000, 07:55 pmWalter Plinge37 posts in thread
Nudity - the actor's POV
Mon, 28 Aug 2000, 07:55 pmPurely as a hypothetical question (at this stage, anyway): how do the actors out there in community theatre feel about nudity?
Would you do it? If so, under what circumstances? If not, please give reasons.
I'm talking serious nudity here; not "underwear nudity", but actual nudity: full frontal, topless, etc.
Would it be unreasonable of a director to ask a large portion (if not all) of their cast to appear fully nude, for instance in plays like "Hair", or "Steaming"?
And would be unreasonable of a director to apply for a season with a local group with a play or production that will require nudity to work effectively? Could he/she find a cast?
I open the topic for discussion....
D.M.
Would you do it? If so, under what circumstances? If not, please give reasons.
I'm talking serious nudity here; not "underwear nudity", but actual nudity: full frontal, topless, etc.
Would it be unreasonable of a director to ask a large portion (if not all) of their cast to appear fully nude, for instance in plays like "Hair", or "Steaming"?
And would be unreasonable of a director to apply for a season with a local group with a play or production that will require nudity to work effectively? Could he/she find a cast?
I open the topic for discussion....
D.M.
RE: Nudity - the actor's POV
Wed, 30 Aug 2000, 08:43 pmWalter Plinge
Gill wrote:
> The nude scene in Hair was purely for the shock value.
In one way, yes. But if you approach it from another way (ie: the way I would do it if the amateur rights were available), the nudity is not merely a leftover "statement" from the swinging seventies ("sticking it to the man" and all that), but an important point in growth for the tribe.
Throughout the first act, we see lots of different racial, sexual, and socio-economic types tell their stories and try to find a common ground as a community. At the end of the act, they find it, and the nudity that occurs at that point symbolises the trust they have found within one another's company. In the second act, of course, it's all threatened by the Vietnam war, and the fight is on to preserve the beauty of all they've discovered in each other's company.
> Shirley Valentine's, "Bet you didn't recognise me", line works just as well if she
> is wearing a bikini (I have seen it performed both ways)
I haven't ever seen the play performed, so I can't comment on that one.
> and the Steaming ladies most important expositions are in what they say not
> what they show.
Ooh. Fundamental interpretive disagreement there. And I think the playwright might have some words to say on that, too. After all, the nudity's written in, so it kind of is actually the point of the play.
> Being wrapped only in a towel in front of a bunch of other people would > be intimidating enough for most.
Yeah, but it would be even more so if the towel weren't there, which raises the stakes and makes for more interesting drama. I think that's the point of the play.
> Having said this I certainly don't have anything against nudity and I find that after
> the initial reaction of, "Oh my goodness I can see his/her bits", you tend to > forget about the nudity if the script and the acting are good.
Precisely my point. Like anything else, it works if it's done right.
> Me? People would pay me put my clothes back on!
It's the personality that counts, Gill... not the pink bits.
D.M.
> The nude scene in Hair was purely for the shock value.
In one way, yes. But if you approach it from another way (ie: the way I would do it if the amateur rights were available), the nudity is not merely a leftover "statement" from the swinging seventies ("sticking it to the man" and all that), but an important point in growth for the tribe.
Throughout the first act, we see lots of different racial, sexual, and socio-economic types tell their stories and try to find a common ground as a community. At the end of the act, they find it, and the nudity that occurs at that point symbolises the trust they have found within one another's company. In the second act, of course, it's all threatened by the Vietnam war, and the fight is on to preserve the beauty of all they've discovered in each other's company.
> Shirley Valentine's, "Bet you didn't recognise me", line works just as well if she
> is wearing a bikini (I have seen it performed both ways)
I haven't ever seen the play performed, so I can't comment on that one.
> and the Steaming ladies most important expositions are in what they say not
> what they show.
Ooh. Fundamental interpretive disagreement there. And I think the playwright might have some words to say on that, too. After all, the nudity's written in, so it kind of is actually the point of the play.
> Being wrapped only in a towel in front of a bunch of other people would > be intimidating enough for most.
Yeah, but it would be even more so if the towel weren't there, which raises the stakes and makes for more interesting drama. I think that's the point of the play.
> Having said this I certainly don't have anything against nudity and I find that after
> the initial reaction of, "Oh my goodness I can see his/her bits", you tend to > forget about the nudity if the script and the acting are good.
Precisely my point. Like anything else, it works if it's done right.
> Me? People would pay me put my clothes back on!
It's the personality that counts, Gill... not the pink bits.
D.M.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···