how far would you go as an actor?
Tue, 22 Jan 2002, 05:46 pmWalter Plinge38 posts in thread
how far would you go as an actor?
Tue, 22 Jan 2002, 05:46 pmReally, this is the nudity question all over again... but I don't want it to descend into the fracas it usually does (got that, Leah?). :o)>
I am considering putting in a play to the Blue Room this year that requires four young people (2 guys, 2 girls - all twenty-somethings) to appear fully nude and in highly explicit (simulated, obviously) sex scenes.
It is a serious early play by a major American playwright, dealing with the fractured nature of human relationships and the idea that no matter how close we get to one another, we are all -- essentially -- alone.
(That quote from Albert Schweitzer comes to mind on this... I may well use that in the programme!)
In other words, it's not a cynical, exploitative flesh-fest, but deadly serious piece of theatre needing a dedicated, emotionally mature young cast.
Therein lies the rub... does such a thing exist anymore? Can I realistically hope to cast this show, or would every suitable young actor be too terrified of a room full of strangers scrutinising their privates?
How far are actors (male and female) prepared to go these days, and for the right play (which this one is), would they go the whole hog?
Are you out there, or is this just a pipe-dream?
peace,
David M.
I am considering putting in a play to the Blue Room this year that requires four young people (2 guys, 2 girls - all twenty-somethings) to appear fully nude and in highly explicit (simulated, obviously) sex scenes.
It is a serious early play by a major American playwright, dealing with the fractured nature of human relationships and the idea that no matter how close we get to one another, we are all -- essentially -- alone.
(That quote from Albert Schweitzer comes to mind on this... I may well use that in the programme!)
In other words, it's not a cynical, exploitative flesh-fest, but deadly serious piece of theatre needing a dedicated, emotionally mature young cast.
Therein lies the rub... does such a thing exist anymore? Can I realistically hope to cast this show, or would every suitable young actor be too terrified of a room full of strangers scrutinising their privates?
How far are actors (male and female) prepared to go these days, and for the right play (which this one is), would they go the whole hog?
Are you out there, or is this just a pipe-dream?
peace,
David M.
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Sun, 27 Jan 2002, 02:26 pmWell, this posting went down like a lead balloon, so let's see if we can get a debate going, alter my opinion on this particular topic, and/or get David's show cast...
I wouldn't do this play because I don't like the play (which is Wallace Shawn's 'A Thought in Three Parts' by the way). Not because I'm adverse to taking my kit off in a space as small as the Blue Room, but because I just don't think the script justifies the repeated nudity/masturbation/sex. It only, in my opinion, exists for shock value, and that is not enough for me as an actor to motivate me to put myself in a physically vulnerable postition. If I wanted to do that badly enough, I'd make a porn, smack a Disney label on the outside, and stick it in the kids section of Blockbuster.
When calling for 'a dedicated, emotionally mature young cast' you also didn't give a particularly sound reason for the nudity/sex. I don't see that a brave, risk-taking actor would whip their clothes off just for the sheer challenge of appearing nude - if that was the case, you could make loads more money and have a far more appreciative audience at the Site, Exotica or similar venues. Bravery and risk taking exists in portrayal of characters - not whether they remove their clothes or not.
Had you put a post up for a new production of 'Trainspotting' or even, say, 'Shopping and F-ing', with a warning that it is a requirement that actors would have to appear nude, inject heroin in to certain intimate body parts, perform simulated sexual acts etc, I would probably be one of the first to call asking for an audition. I would want to play the characters in those plays. I see the sex, nudity, drug taking in those plays as far more shocking and risk taking, although not nearly as explicit as Thought in 3 Parts, because we really care about the people involved and don't want to see them destroying themselves in such a depraved and dangerous way.
I guess it comes down to the fact that you seem to be making the nudity itself a priority, not the challenge of characters or plot. When you first mentioned this play (and a couple of others) to me your first question was 'would you appear nude?', not 'read this play see what you think - I'd like you to consider part X'. You've taken a similar tack here. It seems slightly seedy to me, and if I didn't know you well and hadn't done a heap of plays with you, I wouldn't do it because your motives don't seem altogether honourable (and I mean that in a caring, sharing, debate-stimulating way).
Having read two of the three plays you've suggested requiring nudity, I still wouldn't do them because I don't like them and, again, don't think the nudity is justified.
OK. That's me done. May a stimulating and interesting debate (minus personal slurs) begin.
Amanda Chesterton
I wouldn't do this play because I don't like the play (which is Wallace Shawn's 'A Thought in Three Parts' by the way). Not because I'm adverse to taking my kit off in a space as small as the Blue Room, but because I just don't think the script justifies the repeated nudity/masturbation/sex. It only, in my opinion, exists for shock value, and that is not enough for me as an actor to motivate me to put myself in a physically vulnerable postition. If I wanted to do that badly enough, I'd make a porn, smack a Disney label on the outside, and stick it in the kids section of Blockbuster.
When calling for 'a dedicated, emotionally mature young cast' you also didn't give a particularly sound reason for the nudity/sex. I don't see that a brave, risk-taking actor would whip their clothes off just for the sheer challenge of appearing nude - if that was the case, you could make loads more money and have a far more appreciative audience at the Site, Exotica or similar venues. Bravery and risk taking exists in portrayal of characters - not whether they remove their clothes or not.
Had you put a post up for a new production of 'Trainspotting' or even, say, 'Shopping and F-ing', with a warning that it is a requirement that actors would have to appear nude, inject heroin in to certain intimate body parts, perform simulated sexual acts etc, I would probably be one of the first to call asking for an audition. I would want to play the characters in those plays. I see the sex, nudity, drug taking in those plays as far more shocking and risk taking, although not nearly as explicit as Thought in 3 Parts, because we really care about the people involved and don't want to see them destroying themselves in such a depraved and dangerous way.
I guess it comes down to the fact that you seem to be making the nudity itself a priority, not the challenge of characters or plot. When you first mentioned this play (and a couple of others) to me your first question was 'would you appear nude?', not 'read this play see what you think - I'd like you to consider part X'. You've taken a similar tack here. It seems slightly seedy to me, and if I didn't know you well and hadn't done a heap of plays with you, I wouldn't do it because your motives don't seem altogether honourable (and I mean that in a caring, sharing, debate-stimulating way).
Having read two of the three plays you've suggested requiring nudity, I still wouldn't do them because I don't like them and, again, don't think the nudity is justified.
OK. That's me done. May a stimulating and interesting debate (minus personal slurs) begin.
Amanda Chesterton
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···