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, 05:01 pmWalter Plinge
>I wouldn't do this play because I don't like the play
>It only, in my opinion, exists for shock value,
People said that of "Shopping & F--king" as well, Amanda. And of "Trainspotting".
It's a matter of opinion.
>When calling for 'a dedicated, emotionally mature
>young cast' you also didn't give a particularly sound
>reason for the nudity/sex.
I was waiting for people to ask "Why?". No-one did.
>I don't see that a brave, risk-taking actor would whip
>their clothes off just for the sheer challenge of appearing
>nude
But, as I asked in the original post, would they consider it if the script was the right one? No-one even asked about the script.
>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.
So you *would* be willing, if the play was the right one?
Thank Christ for that, someone finally answered the question.
>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.
So you like those plays more than you like "3 Parts". Cool. You've been exposed to charismatic actors playing the central roles in sympathetic ways. Great.
Is it mine or Mr Shawn's fault that you haven't had a chance to see just how charismatic and sympathetic the characters in "3 Parts" can be when played correctly?
And just because Mr Shawn's play is a more stylised, a less realistic, and a less recognisibly documentary play than the others, does it make it less humanist?
But again, I guess that's also just a matter of opinion.
>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.
That's because in my experience, that has been the actor's overriding concern.
>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'.
Oh please, Amanda. Don't try and bullshit me. You know damn well that you've been as guilty of what I just mentioned above. Up until only recently, you were "I wouldn't do nudity under any circumstance", and therefore, "...wouldn't do any play that required me to". Now you have the gall to accuse me of not concerning myself with character?
As for "read the play and see what you think"... well, I've seen four productions of "Equus", and was involved as an actor in a fifth. In *none* of them did the actor playing Jill strip completely nude in the famous barn scene. In all but one of them (the one I was in), neither did the actor playing Alan.
All but one of the five actors who played Jill told me that they understood and respected the need for the nudity, but that they just didn't want to do it, because they "felt uncomfortable with it".
Where's the concern for character here?
My production of "Salome", for Playlovers, some years back, had to fold because the actor in the lead role -- after agreeing in principle at the auditions -- suddenly didn't want to do the brief moment of nudity at the end of the "Dance of the Seven Veils", because she "felt uncomfortable with it". She agreed with my take on the moment, and that nudity was the only way to make it work, but she simply didn't want to do it. End of story.
My leading man in "A Clockwork Orange", also at Playlovers, baulked at the last minute when it came to the full nudity I had requested of him in the suicide scene. He agreed that it was right for the character and for the moment, but that he simply felt -- you guessed it -- "uncomfortable with it".
So excuse me if my first question is "would you do nudity?", and not "do you think the play demands it?". Every single personal experience I have had with actors when it comes to nudity has been about *their* comfort, and not the greater good of the character or the play.
You do what your experience teaches you to do.
>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.
Like or dislike, as well as justified or not justified, is all a matter of opinion. To which you're entitled. I don't agree with you.
respectfully,
David M.
>It only, in my opinion, exists for shock value,
People said that of "Shopping & F--king" as well, Amanda. And of "Trainspotting".
It's a matter of opinion.
>When calling for 'a dedicated, emotionally mature
>young cast' you also didn't give a particularly sound
>reason for the nudity/sex.
I was waiting for people to ask "Why?". No-one did.
>I don't see that a brave, risk-taking actor would whip
>their clothes off just for the sheer challenge of appearing
>nude
But, as I asked in the original post, would they consider it if the script was the right one? No-one even asked about the script.
>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.
So you *would* be willing, if the play was the right one?
Thank Christ for that, someone finally answered the question.
>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.
So you like those plays more than you like "3 Parts". Cool. You've been exposed to charismatic actors playing the central roles in sympathetic ways. Great.
Is it mine or Mr Shawn's fault that you haven't had a chance to see just how charismatic and sympathetic the characters in "3 Parts" can be when played correctly?
And just because Mr Shawn's play is a more stylised, a less realistic, and a less recognisibly documentary play than the others, does it make it less humanist?
But again, I guess that's also just a matter of opinion.
>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.
That's because in my experience, that has been the actor's overriding concern.
>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'.
Oh please, Amanda. Don't try and bullshit me. You know damn well that you've been as guilty of what I just mentioned above. Up until only recently, you were "I wouldn't do nudity under any circumstance", and therefore, "...wouldn't do any play that required me to". Now you have the gall to accuse me of not concerning myself with character?
As for "read the play and see what you think"... well, I've seen four productions of "Equus", and was involved as an actor in a fifth. In *none* of them did the actor playing Jill strip completely nude in the famous barn scene. In all but one of them (the one I was in), neither did the actor playing Alan.
All but one of the five actors who played Jill told me that they understood and respected the need for the nudity, but that they just didn't want to do it, because they "felt uncomfortable with it".
Where's the concern for character here?
My production of "Salome", for Playlovers, some years back, had to fold because the actor in the lead role -- after agreeing in principle at the auditions -- suddenly didn't want to do the brief moment of nudity at the end of the "Dance of the Seven Veils", because she "felt uncomfortable with it". She agreed with my take on the moment, and that nudity was the only way to make it work, but she simply didn't want to do it. End of story.
My leading man in "A Clockwork Orange", also at Playlovers, baulked at the last minute when it came to the full nudity I had requested of him in the suicide scene. He agreed that it was right for the character and for the moment, but that he simply felt -- you guessed it -- "uncomfortable with it".
So excuse me if my first question is "would you do nudity?", and not "do you think the play demands it?". Every single personal experience I have had with actors when it comes to nudity has been about *their* comfort, and not the greater good of the character or the play.
You do what your experience teaches you to do.
>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.
Like or dislike, as well as justified or not justified, is all a matter of opinion. To which you're entitled. I don't agree with you.
respectfully,
David M.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···