Nudity - the actor's POV

Purely 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.

PIT did it years ago with Equus and I'm sure many others have done it since with no problem getting cast. The major thing to remember is that as long as you are upfront (no pun intended) with all perspective cast members you won't have a problem.

On a personal level, please lose my phone number David. I even shower fully clothed.

Well I don't know if I would do it. Going out on stage in the nick (especially for a woman) DOES damage your credibility. I don't like the idea of circulating in the lobby afterwards and have everyone there thinking about how they just saw my pink bits. I think it may well lower me in their (particularly male) eyes to just a pair of exposed breasts.

Quite seriously folks, what will the audience be looking at, your groundbreaking performance, or your arse? As soon as you whip your top off, you could be creating the most moving and in depth charcter study in the known universe and no-one will notice. I don't think we've evolved that far.

I dont think it's a matter of commitment, I think it's a matter of none of us being mature enough to remove ourselves from the sexual element of nudity. If you want people to see you purely in terms of sex, go ahead. I'd prefer to keep my kit on and try to be seen a person first and a woman second.

LEAH

PS

Dean Schulze wrote:
-------------------------------
On a personal level, please lose my phone number David. I even shower fully clothed.

On behalf of humankind, I thank you for your modesty Dean.

I tend to be of the opinion that nudity is rarely, if ever absolutely necessary in a play. The nude scene in Hair was purely for the shock value. The show works without it. 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) and the Steaming ladies most important expositions are in what they say not what they show. Being wrapped only in a towel in front of a bunch of other people would be intimidating enough for most.

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.

Me? People would pay me put my clothes back on!

Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
> Well I don't know if I would do it. Going out on stage in the nick (especially
> for a woman) DOES damage your credibility. I don't like the idea of circulating
> in the lobby afterwards and have everyone there thinking about how they just
> saw my pink bits. I think it may well lower me in their (particularly male) eyes
> to just a pair of exposed breasts.

I don't know what kind of men you hang out with Leah, but I seriously doubt if such a reality exists. But then, I can only speak for myself, and I'm an odd-bird when it comes to gender politics.

Maybe other men on this forum can address the allegation more accurately.

> Quite seriously folks, what will the audience be looking at, your groundbreaking
> performance, or your arse? As soon as you whip your top off, you could be
> creating the most moving and in depth charcter study in the known universe and
> no-one will notice. I don't think we've evolved that far.

Speak for yourself. I personally believe that if the director and actor have done their job, then the nudity will emerge organically... as a natural occurence in a logical sequence of actions and events.

Of course it's going to jar if you just "whip your top off" out of (or barely next to) context. The director has to make it a logical next step in the character's journey, and the actor has to play it as such, otherwise it's hardly sage that it won't work.

> I dont think it's a matter of commitment, I think it's a matter of none of us being
> mature enough to remove ourselves from the sexual element of nudity.

Again, speak for yourself, Leah.

Frankly, and with all due respect, I think you, and Gill, and the countless others out there who object to nudity and who use all of the standard arguments to try and justify the stance, are simply justifying - after the fact - a fundamental personal discomfort (whether moral, political, or in terms of body-image issues) with the idea of public nakedness. All of these (frankly, spurious) artistic arguments are so much false front.

All of your reasoning reveals a socio-political bias and not an artistic one. When Alan and Jill strip off to have sex at the end of "Equus", you think "exploitation"... whereas I think "vulnerability", awkwardness". In other words, I'm involved in the action... being carried by the drama and the emotion, rather than what you apparently do, which is to stand aloof and observe critically and intellectually.

I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with external socio-political agenda when I stage or perform a nude scene (I have done both). I am concerned with doing justice to the play... and if nudity is required, then nudity will be delivered, hopefully with enough substance behind it to make it work. Anything else would be censorship.

D.M.

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.

David, you asked for other male responses to Leah's allegation that if she got her kit off males would not be able to get past it to the performance. Well, I agree with her. i've never seen Leah in the buff but even now I can't have a conversation with her without thinking of her pink bits. This make rehearsing for "When Harry Met Playlovers" particularly difficult - especially when I know the reverse is also true.

So for anyone who was thinking of missing this very short season - don't. It will be worth coming just to see the incredible sexual electricity built up between two people totally consumed by pink bits. Book your tickets ASAP.

(Sorry David to hijack your erstwhile discussion for a bit of a cheap grab for a larger audience - but hey - bums on seats is important too)

I very rarely get to read this web page, let alone find something to respond to, so thank you David for giving me a meaty enough topic.

As to personally performing nude, I don't think that I could do it. The reason I don't think I could do it is that I am not comfortable with my own body image and I would feel totally inadequate while thus exposed. Mind you this all depends on context - if someone cast me in 'The Elocution of Benjamin Franklin' for example, I'd be doing the nude scene from the very first rehearsal. Then again, I still don't know, possibly I would. No, bugger it, I would. If a director cast me in a role that required a nude scene, I would actually take it as a compliment that maybe my own perceived bad body image is just my own perception, and maybe other people don't see it as badly as I do. Who knows!

As an audience member I have no problems with stage nudity. The best example to date was 'Homme Fatale' at the Fringe this year. The nudity in that play was not gratuitous (the play WAS about a gay porn star) and I must admit my first reaction was very much along the lines of "Hello!" but after about the first five seconds the fact that we could see the actors wobbly bits was just part of the whole story, and added a vulnerability to the character. It was exploitative in the fact that the person the play was based on was being exploited, and we were seeing that first hand. I have no objection to the human body being displayed on stage as long as it's done well.

As a director I would have no problems with doing a play with nude scenes. In fact there are a couple of plays where, if I directed them, I would put in nude scenes where they are not actually in the script. (Then again, there are actually no nude scenes in the SCRIPT of 'Equus' nor of 'Salome' that is just how they are normally done).
If I was doing a play that I thought required a nude scene, I would make sure the actors auditioning knew that it was my preference BUT given the option between a mediocre actor willing to get his kit off, and a good one who wasn't willing, I would go for the good actor every time (except if I was doing 'Oh, Calcutta').

Thank you for listening to me
Paul Treasure

David,
I just wanted to clear up a couple of points!

You wrote: Frankly, and with all due respect, I think you, and Gill, and the countless others out there who object to nudity...

Please tell me where I wrote that I objected to nudity?

You wrote (cont): ...and who use all of the standard arguments to try and justify the stance, are simply justifying - after the fact - a fundamental personal discomfort (whether moral, political, or in terms of body-image issues) with the idea of public nakedness.

I do not have to justify my decision to not want to go naked on stage. It is simply my decision and it does not make me a lesser person than you, just a different one.

You wrote (cont): All of these (frankly, spurious) artistic arguments are so much false front.

No David. They are just my opinions.

You wrote: When Alan and Jill strip off to have sex at the end of "Equus", you think "exploitation"...

Do I? Where did I say that?

You wrote: I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with external socio-political agenda when I stage or perform a nude scene...

And I am not the slightest bit concerned with external socio-political agenda when I say that I have no interest in going starkers on stage but I am quite happy for anyone who is interested in doing so, to do so whenever they like.

Cheers,
Gill

Dear David "wobbly bits" Meadows

I thought the question I was answering was would I go on stage starkers. Yet you accused me of having a problem with public nudity. I don't have a problem with public nudity, I have a problem with MY public nudity, and I was trying to say why.

And, Mr Artistic, you must be the greatest mind ever to be able to live artistically in a vaucuum with out what you put on stage being effected by or effecting socio-economic realities. Female nudity usually equals female sexuality, and female sexuality has been used to exploit and ojectify for so long now that even your high and mighty artistic ideals must admit that not everyone in the audience is as pure in heart mind and intention as you are. Mr Schulz certainly isn't. And I, and probably most of the women on this board (speak now ladies and agree or disagree with me) would be of the opinion that he is more indicative of the average male mind than you are, (The trick is to rise above it and love them anyway.) if indeed you are so completely able to switch off your natural instinct as you say you are. I don't believe anyone is that advanced.

Leah "no wobbly bits" Maher

> Please tell me where I wrote
> that I objected to nudity?

You mentioned plays where nudity featured and commented that they could have worked without it. On the basis that I disagree with this assertion, I classify that as an objection, if only to my way of thinking.

Does that makes sense?

> I do not have to justify my decision
> to not want to go naked on stage.

But you did. You said (albeit facetiously) that people would pay you to keep your clothes on. I jumped to a conclusion (for which I apologise, as it has apparently offended you), and based my comments on that conclusion.

> > All of these (frankly, spurious)
> > artistic arguments are so much
> > false front.

> No David. They are just my opinions.

At this point, I was referring to Leah's diatribe.

> > When Alan and Jill strip off to have
> > sex at the end of "Equus", you think
> > "exploitation"...

> Do I? Where did I say that?

You didn't. Leah did. I was reacting to her at that point.

At which point I should be off to bite the bait over at her response.

D.M.

Point one: in explaining why _you_ wouldn't go naked, you made a blanket generalisation about the perceived male response to stage nudity, which seemed to me to be fairly generic. At this point it seemed the argument had veered from purely personal to general.

> Female nudity usually equals
> female sexuality

To you, Ms Presumptuous... not to me. (Hard as that may be for your oh-too-cynical ennui to grasp!)

> and female sexuality has been
> used to exploit and ojectify
> for so long now that even your
> high and mighty artistic ideals
> must admit that not everyone in
> the audience is as pure in heart,
> mind and intention as you are.

Of course not. But why on earth should we censor ourselves because of a few "dirty raincoats"?!!

Okay, so a few lonely men with gratification issues are going to rock up expecting some artistic pussy, just like some people read Not Only Black & White for a wank. But still others read this photographic-art magazine for its artistic value, and these could very well be the same people who create nude scenes in feminist theatre, in order to reclaim female sexuality from the Flynts and Gucciones of the world.

I'm not saying it's a good thing that patriarchal dominance has rendered women and their bodies tools of sale, I am saying that instead of perpetuating the situation under the guise of bemoaning it, you should be actively trying to restore some kind of balance, like so many feminist playwrights and directors are doing across the world... performing truly left-wing theatre that actually reclaims their sexuality from both the porn moguls and the conservative reactionaries.

One of the more interesting pieces of theatre I saw while living in Melbourne was a music-theatre piece called "Matricide: The Musical", performed by Chamber Made Opera. This piece was basically a lesbian feminist ode to the vagina, and was a truly awful work (IMO).

_But_, it did contain one of the most explicit nude scenes I think I have ever seen in my life. At one point, the soprano Deanne Flatley (an old WAAPA class mate of Gill's) appeared in full frontal nude in a bath-tub, and ran her hands over her body in such a way that when she reached her crotch, her vagina lips actually opened and her genitals were exposed.

It was only a brief moment, but its effect was telling, and, yes, all I could think about in the immediate aftermath was the explicitness of it, and why it was deemed necessary by the performer and the director for it to be so.

But I didn't ask, because the production itself actually answered it for me, and made its point quite concisely, if a little self-indulgently.

Afterwards, I was content to simply say my hellos to Deanne and congratulate her on her performance. I didn't think "I've seen her cunt, slobber slobber". I thought "Wasn't she great, and isn't she so dedicated to her art!"

And before you fly into a rage, yes, I deliberately used the word 'cunt' to try and get a rise (pardon the pun... fnarr! Hi, Dean).

I use it in this context beause that's the context in which it's used by women who actually care about reclaiming images of their bodies and their sexuality.

(If you want to talk about sexually objectifying language and the reclaiming of it among feminist/humanist circles, that's another thread, I'm afraid).

They certainly wouldn't degenerate into spouting the even more insidiously sexist CLEO @!#$ ("rise above it and love them anyway"? Puh-lease!) to which you stoop.

And in answer to your final jibe, I _am_ that evolved, but only because I _choose_ to be.
Rather than wallow in cynicism and complacency, I'm actually trying to live and work with some sense of positivism, which isn't easy when confronted with the kind of antagonism so enthusiastically offered by your good self.

with all due respect,
D.M.

Man oh man, now not only am I not entitled to an opinion, I'm also not a feminist, because I chose not to go nude that way that "women who actually care about reclaiming images of their bodies and sexuality" do. So I stand accused of lumping all men into the same basket they way that you just did with women David?

And I am actually considered "sexist" because I try to live with the comments I get from my closest friends, without degenerating into a humourless shrew?

The "balance" you talk of may just be women playing a male game for what some feminists think is the restoration of female power. Personally I don't like to play the sexuality as power game, mostly because in my experience, women usually lose. I personally think power should never be sexualised and sex should never be about power - of any kind. (that's right, women actaully do differ in their opinions David).

I truely believe you are evolved David, I can see that you have an admirable commitment to your art. But one small reality check, wake up and smell the Bell Tower, we live in Perth, not in Melbourne where such cosmopolitan ideas find ready audiences, PERTH where we get Racheal Friend and Rob Guest because no-one thinks we will notice.

Oh and one last thing, watch the language David, there are ladies present.

LEAH

Leah Maher wrote:

> Man oh man, now not only am I not entitled to an opinion, I'm also not a feminist,
> because I chose not to go nude that way that "women who actually care about
> reclaiming images of their bodies and sexuality" do. So I stand accused of lumping
> all men into the same basket they way that you just did with women David?

Huh?

Sorry, but this paragraph actually makes no discernible sense. I think it's the combination of poor spelling, poor syntax, and an unclear point/question.

> And I am actually considered "sexist" because I try to live with the comments I
> get from my closest friends, without degenerating into a humourless shrew?

Again, where did you learn to construct a sentence?

(btw, this isn't a spelling flame, this a genuine desire to understand what the hell this person is on about!)

*snipped: lots of poorly constructed stuff (both gramatically and intellectually)*

> we live in Perth, not in Melbourne where such cosmopolitan ideas find ready
> audiences, PERTH where we get Racheal Friend and Rob Guest because no-one
> thinks we will notice.

So, again, we should just accept this limitation and live with it... just wallow in our own backwardness because we can't be @!#$ giving anyone anything truly significant? I'm with Paul on this one: let's do some wacky @!#$ for a change, really shake people up.

I detest complacency, cynicism, and negativism. And if my tone towards you is stroppy tonight, Leah, it's beause you've amply demonstrated all three to me in this thread.

And frankly, for this particular debate, I find this medium quite frustrating. Grant, I know you're reading in... can we organise a Green Room on nudity, feminism and exploitation as it relates to the theatre? I feel like going head to head in person on this one.

D.M.

Did anyone happen to notice the article in the "Today" section of Thursday's West? The topic: Nudity on the stage!

Jenni C

Yes, I did notice that article.

Hardly surprisingly, I'm going to see both shows... "Equus" on Saturday, if you're interested in having a go in person, Leah.

"Orlando" I haven't booked for yet, but I am quite interested to check this show out, for a number of reasons. One more, now.

D.M.

P.S.: I'm taking my mum to see "Camino Real" at WAAPA tomorrow night. Is this a bad move? Does anyone know the play?

Haven't seen Camino Real produced but have copies of two versions (& I've read them!) from when Joey L was going to direct it for Celtic 3 (?) or so years ago. I found it weird, fascinating & was v disappointed when it didn't happen. So, David, depends in what context you're asking - age (I'm prob older than your Mum & I'm hoping to see it), theatrical experience/preferences, or ?
As I recall, the text doesn't call for either pink or wobbly bits, so you should be safe there - depending on the director's artistic interpretation of course!
Anyway, hope you both enjoy it.
Cheers, BarbZ

My parents and I saw "Camino Real" on Wednesday night. I think BarbZ's description is pretty spot on - it's very weird, although there is a wealth of stuff to discuss if you're so disposed - I think you will find it very worthwhile, David. Most of the acting is spot on and it's a very visually engaging production with a cast of thousands, a wonderful set, some music and dance and imaginative staging. This is not a review, by the way, just an overview of the experience. As for your Mum, if she is well experienced in theatre-going and likes something out of the ordinary, then this is the play for her! It's long, 2 and 1/2 hours plus 2 intervals, but I didn't find that it dragged. My parents, I think, neither liked nor disliked it - more of a fascination with something so unusual (they do attend a lot of theatre and have been "educated" a bit by Playlovers' offerings over the years!). Several audience members did leave, particularly after the 2nd interval. One word of warning: the night we went, there were some extremely loud sound effects - made so, I suspect, for extra effect in the surreal quality of the whole thing. So maybe you should forewarn your mother to take some cotton wool, just in case! Oh, and if you look really quickly near the beginning of Act 3 (I think), at the top storey you may just catch a glimpse of some guy without a stitch on. In the scheme and the spectacle of the production, I don't believe this was gratuitous nudity (I did have a second look, just to make sure). Will look forward to your review and Mum's reaction.

Jenni C

Hi everyone. Being actually invovled with one of the plays dicussed here - Peter Shaffer's "Equus" - I feel compelled to add my two cents becuase this topic has been of some concern to us when deciding how to go about staging the show. The script actually does call for nudity, when Jill and Alan get together; Shaffer justifies this by explaining that it is indicicative of Alan's psychological "nakedness". I personally, having just recently been as close as I'm ever going to get to being naked on stage (boxers) understand from an actor's view the added stress of baring your all-important "body" for all to see, judge, critcise with their friends etc. I do, however, believe that nudity can be quite powerful and profound yet is more likely to be powerfully distracting. As someone mentioned earlier in this debate it is almost impossible to remove nudity from a sexual context, the sheer weight of importance culturally attributed to how we look conplicates things - as soon as we see a naked body, we usually analyse it's faults and flaws and thus stop thinking about the performance.
Admittedly, I am projecting my own discomfort at appearing nude onto others and I'm sure many people feel quite comfortable baring their bodies, but in Equus, the level of nudity that was chosen was not based on the need for a gratuitous shock, or just because the actor wanted to.
Also, from an onstage viewpoint it is incredibly disturbing and offputing - it's quite hard to stay focused when one of your friends is jumping around nude right in front of you. It's not enough for the actor to be comfortable with nudity, the whole cast must be accepting other wise it puts strain and tension onto everyone. Add to all this the fact that "Equus" is a high school tee text and we wish to draw school audiences, who legally aren't allowed to see that kind of thing...

Anyway, at the end of the day, it all comes down to how people feel about their bodies and others. While trying to avoid sweeping generilastions I will still venture to say that nudity almost never serves a constructive purpose - the naked body is too important an object; too sexual, too powerfully distracting - that in the end genitalia on stage will only end up detracting from a performance, rather than heightening it.
Whatever you view, come along and make your own decision at UDS's EQUUS - 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th of September @ 8pm, Dolphin Theatre, UWA, tickets $11/13

ps thanx for reading =)

"Oh and one last thing, watch the language David, there are ladies present."

Ladies?
Ladies?!

Why "Ladies" and not "Women", Leah?!

I think that one last comment counts as an own goal for David's side.

Saw 'Orlando' last night.
WOW!!!
Lindy Hume is a god!
She is personally responsible for some of the best nights at the Opera I have ever spent (and I've spent a lot).
It is also because of her that I will NEVER direct 'The Mikado' (after hers, why bother!)

This won't be a review of the show, I'll save that for next week, after I've seen 'Coronation of Poppea' tonight and 'Israel in Egypt' tomorrow night. (Does anyone have a Metallica CD I can borrow as an antidote for Sunday?)

Back to the main point - wobbly bits.
Due to my own preferences, I shall concentrate on my reaction to Chris Josey's butt in ActII rather than Amanda Colliver's breasts in ActI.
After reading the posts on this subject beforehand, I did find myself analysing my reaction to the events.

OK, I know part of me may just be a dirty old perve, but I did find that different parts of my brain were reacting differently at the same time.
My libido centre's reaction was pretty much "Phwoarr! Turn around! Let's cop a look at the rest!"
The bit of my brain that was sucked into the story was agonising for Orlando and empathising with his torment.
The critical side of my brain was in awe at Handel's mastery of his art, and thinking "This is one opera I gotta get on CD".
The musical side of my brain was bemoaning the fact that Christopher Josey was out of voice that night.
The self-critical (Roman Catholic) side of my brain was very busy castigating my libido centre for being such a dirty old perve.
The visual side of my brain was practically orgasming from the set anyway (and had been since the curtain came up).

Need I go on...

So yes. If you appear nude on stage, people will be looking, and noting, and critiquing, and storing aside for future reference.
BUT at the same time they will be doing half a dozen other things.

So, after recent personal experience, I think it vastly underestimates the complexity of the human mind to claim that if you appear on stage nude then people will ONLY be looking at your tits/arse/wobbly bits/pink bits/whatever

Paul Treasure

PS Simon - read your script of 'Equus' carefully, Shaffer never says that Alan and Jill actually take their clothes off, in fact he says that they 'mime' it! Mind you, I think it lessens the ipact of the play if they don't. Hey, I would even go so far as to have Alan and the horse both naked at the start of Act II as well...
But then, I am now a self confessed "Dirty Old Perve"

I am not convinced that this discussion is achieving anything. For most, the question seems to have been reduced to whether they 'personally' would feel comfortable appearing naked on stage.

As a director who has recently worked on two theatre pieces that featured nakedness can I suggest that it has nothing to do with actor or audience comfort. In fact quite the opposite.

Ours is a culture that is decidedly alarmed about the appearance of the uncovered human body. To appear naked in a public place is still an offence. Due to this taboo the naked body has assumed an enormous fascination.

For centuries public viewing of naked people could only ever be justified on grounds of art or science ie. the 'Classical School' in art and National Geographic 'nature' documentaries.

It is for this reason that nakedness on stage has such a powerful effect.

As a director I consciously use nakedness in productions to put the fear factor back into the work for both actors and the audience. The last things I want in one of my productions are comfort or complacency.

Simon Baldwin's concern that it is distracting to other actors is of course not a question of nakedness but one of focus. Coughing in the auditorium is also a distraction but I am sure actors develop suitable techniques to 'stay in character' throughout the winter months.

To my own thinking it is not a simple question of whether the 'text' REQUIRES it but always one of whether the 'work' DEMANDS it.

If you are far too intimidated by nakedness in theatre then please don't audition for me or book to see 'an elektra'.

PUBLICITY RELEASE:

an elektra
A production by Malcolm Crisp
Designed by Jo Marsh
Soundscape by Graham Knapp

With: Alaina Harris, Crispian Chan, Jo Marsh, Patrick Spicer,
Renate Earnshaw, Shelly Hayes, and Timothy Collins

'The Electra' was written by Sophocles over 2000 years ago and explored a
society that had begun to question such notions as justice and honour.

This new production (retitled 'an elektra') warp-drives the story to a
dark landscape inhabited by a warlike people who have nothing to celebrate
but a history of conquest, murder, and carnal gratification.

It is a sensually violent rampage through the dark-side of a society that
has discovered that principles and beliefs are nothing more than tools of
political and personal seduction. Malcolm Crisp's 'an elektra' is a
post-modern exploration through an ancient text freshly mapping its
insights into how individuals make choices about who they are and what they
do.

This controversial and edgy production, designed by Jo Marsh, is
frantically paced and is underscored by a sizzling soundscape performed
live by Graham Knapp (From one of Perth's hottest bands The June Brides).

'an elektra' is uncompromising in its contemporary language, use of
physical imagery, and intellectual investigations. Aptly described as "like
having sex on a rollercoaster with Derrida!" the explicit nature of Malcolm
Crisp's 'an elektra' means it can only be performed as a late, late show.

If you are not offended by nudity and scenes of simulated sex, or afraid of
imaginative acts of violence, and gratuitous deconstructions, then grab a
ticket while you still can.

At the Blue Room Theatre, 53 Francis Street, Northbridge. Limited season
dates: Thursday 7th, Friday 8th, Saturday 9th, Thursday 14th, Friday 15th,
Saturday 16th, September.

Doors open 10.15pm performance commences 10.30pm sharp. Duration: one
hour. All tickets $10.00

Bookings phone: 9227 7005

Information and Interviews: 041 328 7297

I have to agree with David here, I think most people would be hard up to admit that they werent personally effected in some way, outside the performance of the play itself, by nudity. I personally would definitely blush, its something I cant control, no matter what sex was naked, but at the same time I would also appreciate nudity on stage or screen if it fitted in with the story as the human body is nothing to be ashamed of. It is terrific that actors can put aside their personal feelings towards nudity and do what is required of their character, because afterall, isnt that what acting is.
A very good friend of mine went to some acting college (I forget the name) in London and tells me that they break your character and make you confront your worst fears before they sculpt you into a thespian. She told me lots of stories about her time there, which mind you, she loved. I am not an actor, I havent the inclination for it, but I believe its an art that if you want to master you have to separate yourself and your fears and your "morals" from the character you are portraying on stage.

JC.

I've been reading this discussion for the last few days with some interest. I feel that leah has made some very valid points and in some cases has been unfairly attacked. However after thinking about it long and hard I'm not sure that all or indeed most males would cease to pay attention to the actual dialogue when confronted with female nudity or vice versa. I saw Homme Fatale (great example there Paul) and while the nudity was not aimed at me it was still a necessary fact of that play. I would like to believe that my body is that fantastic that I could cause an intellectual theatre going audience to lose track of the play itself, however I would also like to believe that I have enough talent to be able to hold their attention, naked or otherwise.

just my two cents worth.

Melissa Merchant

Okay. Now we detour into assessing one anothers command of the english language and other linguistic matters. I'm pretty sure I've made a few mistakes along these lines already in this post and for that...I'm deeply, deeply sorry. Please forgive me.
Just before I make any real point here, I'd just like to share a little trip down memory lane with you all. It was when I made a rare appearence at a university tutorial and the discussion was on the issue of feminism in theatre (as you could often expect at Murdoch University). How funny it seemed to me at the time that this particular female student was debating such a topic with a male student. I always thought women had an insiders understanding on the issues pertaining to being, well, a woman. On that subject, that's just a brief anecdote that came to me on reading some of this stuff. Anyways.
Nudity. Millions more people come to see these shows for the artistic merit and to be challenged by whatever point is trying to made by the exhibition of some naked ass. Oh, and sex does sell, which helps alot. I'm not saying nudity or the like isn't valid. It's just a sad fact that the nudity often draws more focus than the many other elements that go into a good show. And if the show isn't of high quality (good script, exceptional acting, fine direction, staging, whatever) then nudity or any other sort of sexual cavorting can smack a little of exploitation. And as some of the learned collegues amongst us freely admit, they like bit of a perv. I know if I was on stage and Dean Schulze was sitting in the dark, thinking lurid thoughts about me and what he'd like to do to my bits if he got his grubby old hands on them, sure, I'd feel a little uncomfortable too.
Like many things, it's up to the individual. It would take a great role and half a bottle of scotch to get me naked up on stage, but that's just me. It's valid if done well and for the right reasons, but like Malcolm said, it's generally regarded as taboo and just because it's in the auspices of art, doesn't make it any easier to perform or for an audience to accept comfortably and maturly.
Not that I'm saying it should never be tried.
Now, on the count of three, you will wake up. 1...2..

Gee don't things change when we get a girlfriend!!!!!!!!
You didn't call my hands old and grubby that night I talked you into wearing that Koala Bear outfit for me. You were just oh so grateful for the $50 bill they were holding.
All I can say Dan is that my feelings for you are real and I'm heartbroken you are now in denial. If I am the reason you are going to Melbourne then all I can say is - "You beauty! More roles for me!"
Bon Voyage

Dean, you make it all sound so cheap and tawdry. I only took the money because I didn't want you to get the wrong idea. But I will never forget noticing through the mouth-hole of that koala bear suit your eyes intently watching my soft, furry form gamboling playfully in the nappies aisle. Had I known your penchant for 'watching' , I might have put some pants on that bear suit.
I look forward to 'watching' you at a "dress" rehearsal for the Pinter Plays at Playlovers.

PS- Next time you're in Melbourne, be sure to give us a call and don't forget to bring the bear suit. You won't need the pretence of any 'Teddie Bears' picnic this time and for a beer, I'll do it for free...

Go the nudity I say!! Hell, it's just a bit of skin and the only reason that there is a whole lot of hoo ha about it is cause we don't do it enough!!

On the other hand though, I hate the way actors use nudity as a tool to prove their commitment to the arts... It doesn't prove anything except that you don't mind getting your gear off!! I'm not big on nudity for no reason, but if it is warrented within a script and it has some signifigance then go for it.

Just my opinion of course!! :)

Kate,
Would you do it yourself or are you just okay with others doing it? David M may have an excellent role for you next year if you can act and are happy to do it without your clothes on! (Here's hoping that he gets a summer season).

Cheers,
Gill

Interesting thoughts, these ones. Just happened to be looking at this site and came across the nudity angle which is always good for a laugh as people get so het up about it. I hope all Perth inhabitants aren't as "tight-arsed" when it comes to nudity on stage or is it just a few on this discussion group. And as for the early Perth vs Melbourne dig by some tosser well...

In any case it will be interesting as i plan to direct a production of my play Big Dicks on Stage sometime early next year in Perth and Adelaide if i can find the time, theatre and the right actors who don't mind a bit of "gratuitous" as long as it's funny. Those interested [men of course...I wouldn't presume otherwise] can read the play at my web page and we'll talk more.

As for myself...been there done that, 20 years ago...strangely enough in that bloody Equus but God...who would want to do that play these days? IMHO.

Steven
www.sub.net.au/~stevend

Hey Gill,

Yeah I'd do it. I have done it before and I would do it again easily if I thought it was essential to the integrity of the script! I'm not just getting my gear off for the sake of it, but for the right show anything can happen!

Kate.

Hey Gill,

Yeah I'd do it. I have done it before and I would do it again easily if I thought it was essential to the integrity of the script! I'm not just getting my gear off for the sake of it, but for the right show anything can happen!

Kate.

Whether nudity is appropriate or not onstage is solely dependent on the performance style of the work in which it is used. Nudity is a stylistic devise that would be appropriate for many forms of performance and performance art, but not for others - it's up to the director to decide why they require the nudity to be present, and ensure that it is consistent with the style in which they have directed their work.

Ethical, moral or modesty issues are judgements that are highly subjective and debatable and should not really be considerations in the context of developing performance work that incorporates elements of nudity.

Whether nudity is gratuitous in a show or not is largely up to how clever, consistent and intelligent the director is in steering the course of the material.
And some actors simply cannot pull off (excuse the pun) nudity without appearing coy, embarrassed or awkward - this is a casting issue and not a deciding factor in having nudity in a show or not.

By the way, GRAND FINAL - which is part of the 2000 PRIDE Festival - has nudity. It's appropriate, perfectly timed and the actor is very competent in appearing relaxed and authentic. He also happens to have a fantastic physique which is a work of art in itself. You decide how appropriate it is when you come and see it...Enjoy!

I agree with Jamie 100%

And by the way, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (soon to be seen at Fuel as part of Artrage) contains no nudity whatsoever but will still be a startling show. Come along and see if you can spot the exact point when the director thought about someone who was nude once.

I did Equus with my school this year and it worked really well with just taking their clothes off down to underwear. I know it's just a school play, but you still get the same affect, and no gets too uncomfortable!! I think it worked really well, and the actors were able to concentrate on their performance, not on people staring at them!! I think that it's worth thinking about doing it like that, and you'll probably get way more auditionees. Good luck!

Firstly, let say why be a tight ass when it comes to nudity there is nothing wrong with it and if it comes up in my role i will not think twice to do it coz im confident in the size of my dick and body.

Monyping M Agok wrote:
>
> Firstly, let say why be a tight ass when it comes to nudity
> there is nothing wrong with it and if it comes up in my role
> i will not think twice to do it coz im confident in the size
> of my dick and body.



And secondly..?
Thanks for letting us all know you are so 'cocksure', but if what you say is true, than it's really not such a good measure of your bravery as you claim. The actors who REALLY show confidence are those who are comfortable with exposing their bodies regardless of size, shape or proportion.

Confidence in your body is great, (and actually necessary) as an actor. To be nude onstage you also require confidence in your director and supporting cast and crew; confidence in the script and the situation that demands nudity; confidence in your character and your performance portrayal; and confidence in the overall vision, focus, and purpose, that the act of being naked is not going to overshadow its own reason for being.

The reason this is often difficult to achieve is that such a huge display of confidence is often what stuns an audience most, sometimes to the point of distraction. Often people can come to terms with the naked body (we're well conditioned now by repeated exposure from most movies) but the live experience of witnessing someone ten feet away display the sheer confidence to disrobe in a room of witnesses is the most unsettling part of the whole moment, regardless of how naturally or sensitively it is portrayed.
This is the most difficult part to foresee and control as a director...most take great pains to ensure that the act of exposure is done tastefully, non-gratuitously, and is well-justified by the needs of the production...but to retain the moment and maintain the focus they also need to prepare their audience for the shock of witnessing a live act of bravery.


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]