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?
Tue, 12 Mar 2002, 03:30 pmRE HOW FAR WOULD YOU GO AS AN ACTOR
Danii, If Spencer Tunick is the guy who gets thousands of naked bodies and plasters them over a cityscape, I think your example actually argues against your point. Though I obviously am no good with the names of artists, I am familiar with this work (I think).
By contrasting naked, vulnerable human bodies against a city it really does highlight the vulnerability of human life. His work makes me think about how weve created a world for ourselves that most of the time isnt really condusive to our existance. That he can get that reaction out of me to me makes his art successful. Clothed people would not be as vulnerable-looking and if you run with the principle that everything in an artwork must have a meaning, part of the statement that would be being made is a statement of shame and disgust at the naked human form.
To get back to the subject of the play, to apply a similar censorship to the play would be even worse, considering that the play is, in my view, a (hilarious) satirical exploration of sexual interactions between humans. Nudity (or some degree of it) is, in most cases in my experience, an important factor in seuxal contact (probably more info than you wanted, but you get that). In this plays instance it adds to the immediacy of the proceedings and draws into focus the primal (though emotionally and politically complex) nature of the proceedings. If the play had to stop to show sexual contact in a symbolic way or to let the actors go off stage for an implied bit of kissy kissy bang bang it would be silly.
Almost as silly as my use of the phrase "kissy kissy bang bang" instead of what I was going to say as I dont know what censureship this bbs has.
If your primary focus in performing in a play is what your mum will say about it, what sort of artistic expression is that? I don't mean any offence, as I was planning on appearing in this piece and had mentioned it to my mother who said something to the same effect. But if you are to be an artist working in the medium of theatre rather than just a person on stage making an audince react then you can't AFFORD to give a damn what your parents/girlfriend/neighbour/Who Magazine/neighbours sisters daughter has to say about it. If your mum's going to be grossed out to extremes where she needs therapy, tell her not to come.
All that said, I initially felt that the sexual scenes contained in the play were not only un-necessary but detracted from the plays meaning. I was in fits of laughter at the gratuitousness of it all. Upon further reading, I think that it actually makes a decent commentary, though I would like the commentary to be stronger as it does have to overcome the shock value of the proceedings. My eventual reason for not wanting to play those characters came down to practicality - I didnt know how David was going to do it and if I could be assured that it was something that I would be able to do onstage (ie no money shot required) then I would definately have been up for it. Not that I was told otherwise, but I didnt really know how it was to be done.
In fact I am even more up for it now having read Davids other (newer, shinier) thread as I know more about his artistic motivation from it. Perhaps the problem that David faced with the backlash here is because he is, like many of us, not as well known as he wants to be and assumed that everybody would know his artistic motivation. If youre going to put a play on like this I think its quite important to explain exactly WHY - not to people who see it, as Im sure theyll get that information from the piece itself, but to those who would bitch about it (ie: here) and anybody interested in it.
I posted much more than was intended.
Tom
Danii, If Spencer Tunick is the guy who gets thousands of naked bodies and plasters them over a cityscape, I think your example actually argues against your point. Though I obviously am no good with the names of artists, I am familiar with this work (I think).
By contrasting naked, vulnerable human bodies against a city it really does highlight the vulnerability of human life. His work makes me think about how weve created a world for ourselves that most of the time isnt really condusive to our existance. That he can get that reaction out of me to me makes his art successful. Clothed people would not be as vulnerable-looking and if you run with the principle that everything in an artwork must have a meaning, part of the statement that would be being made is a statement of shame and disgust at the naked human form.
To get back to the subject of the play, to apply a similar censorship to the play would be even worse, considering that the play is, in my view, a (hilarious) satirical exploration of sexual interactions between humans. Nudity (or some degree of it) is, in most cases in my experience, an important factor in seuxal contact (probably more info than you wanted, but you get that). In this plays instance it adds to the immediacy of the proceedings and draws into focus the primal (though emotionally and politically complex) nature of the proceedings. If the play had to stop to show sexual contact in a symbolic way or to let the actors go off stage for an implied bit of kissy kissy bang bang it would be silly.
Almost as silly as my use of the phrase "kissy kissy bang bang" instead of what I was going to say as I dont know what censureship this bbs has.
If your primary focus in performing in a play is what your mum will say about it, what sort of artistic expression is that? I don't mean any offence, as I was planning on appearing in this piece and had mentioned it to my mother who said something to the same effect. But if you are to be an artist working in the medium of theatre rather than just a person on stage making an audince react then you can't AFFORD to give a damn what your parents/girlfriend/neighbour/Who Magazine/neighbours sisters daughter has to say about it. If your mum's going to be grossed out to extremes where she needs therapy, tell her not to come.
All that said, I initially felt that the sexual scenes contained in the play were not only un-necessary but detracted from the plays meaning. I was in fits of laughter at the gratuitousness of it all. Upon further reading, I think that it actually makes a decent commentary, though I would like the commentary to be stronger as it does have to overcome the shock value of the proceedings. My eventual reason for not wanting to play those characters came down to practicality - I didnt know how David was going to do it and if I could be assured that it was something that I would be able to do onstage (ie no money shot required) then I would definately have been up for it. Not that I was told otherwise, but I didnt really know how it was to be done.
In fact I am even more up for it now having read Davids other (newer, shinier) thread as I know more about his artistic motivation from it. Perhaps the problem that David faced with the backlash here is because he is, like many of us, not as well known as he wants to be and assumed that everybody would know his artistic motivation. If youre going to put a play on like this I think its quite important to explain exactly WHY - not to people who see it, as Im sure theyll get that information from the piece itself, but to those who would bitch about it (ie: here) and anybody interested in it.
I posted much more than was intended.
Tom
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···