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?
Thu, 31 Jan 2002, 03:06 pmGeeze louise...you make one little circus freak joke..........
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>You put yourself out there with a question about
>how far people would go on stage, knowing FULL
>WELL that this would become a discussion about nudity.
I had rather hoped it would become a discussion about the play.
**BBBWWAAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHA!!! You have been reading this **board long enough to know better. You even referred to me in **your first past and asked me not to be upitty. OF COURSE you **knew this would be an argument about nudity!
>Instead, some of you, including some who should know me >better (and who even acknowledge as much) have assumed >that my motives are less than pure.
**I'm sorry if you thought that David, I truely am, and I certainly **never meant to imply any such thing. I realise on re-reading a **previous post it may have seemed that way. But I was refering **to people's motives for coming and seeing the show. Not your **motives in casting it.
>May I respectfully suggest that these pre-assumed "strong >views", by default, prevent you from having an objective, open->minded debate on the subject?
**You are right. Only people with no opinion or a very weak or **ill-informed one, have the right to debate any topic. Hence the **need for politicians. I follow you as an example David. I had **never been called "pathologically emotionally dishonest" until I **cyber-met you during one of your open minded, objective **discussions.
>Rubbish, Leah. Who I am as a person has nothing to do with it. >If you like the play, and agree with my take on it, you do it. End >of story.
**Who you are as a person has everything to do with it. A lot of **the time an actor takes a part because of the integrety, **reputation and personality of the director. A young female **actor may be interested in the play and your take on it, but if **you were Dean Schulze or Jarrod Buttery, well a girl would **have to think twice. (And for all you watching at home, if you **look carefully at the above quoted bit of Davids previous post **you will find another example of his "open-minded objective" **style of discussion.)
**Once again I am very sorry David if I offened you or you were under the impression I had accused you of being "sleazy". I don't know you well enough to form an opinion on that and even if I did I don't beleive I would air my veiws so publiclly. I try (TRY) to keep things above the belt.
**I don't think anyone should produce theatre with explicit sexuality, excpecially if it linked in some way to cruelty torture or abuse, mental or physical. And I don't think this shouldn't happen because I worry about the motives of the directors. That didn't actually enter my head until I read your post. I worry about the desensitising and objectifying effect this kind of production has on society as a whole.
**And now I bow out of this discussion (Good time to take your best shots David). You know I enjoy a good stoush of this nature but I don't like the idea that anyone would think their personal integrety, especially their sexual integrety, was being questioned. My post about "doing something nice" was actually supposed to be a tounge in cheek shot at how dark the material you seem to chose is. I see now that I didn't word it well. And now I'm tired....
**(Mental note...no more circus freak jokes...)
Thou droning bat-fowling giglet!
"Droning"...??!! I thought this button was supposed to insult the readers, not the writer. Last time I use the damned thing...
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>You put yourself out there with a question about
>how far people would go on stage, knowing FULL
>WELL that this would become a discussion about nudity.
I had rather hoped it would become a discussion about the play.
**BBBWWAAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHA!!! You have been reading this **board long enough to know better. You even referred to me in **your first past and asked me not to be upitty. OF COURSE you **knew this would be an argument about nudity!
>Instead, some of you, including some who should know me >better (and who even acknowledge as much) have assumed >that my motives are less than pure.
**I'm sorry if you thought that David, I truely am, and I certainly **never meant to imply any such thing. I realise on re-reading a **previous post it may have seemed that way. But I was refering **to people's motives for coming and seeing the show. Not your **motives in casting it.
>May I respectfully suggest that these pre-assumed "strong >views", by default, prevent you from having an objective, open->minded debate on the subject?
**You are right. Only people with no opinion or a very weak or **ill-informed one, have the right to debate any topic. Hence the **need for politicians. I follow you as an example David. I had **never been called "pathologically emotionally dishonest" until I **cyber-met you during one of your open minded, objective **discussions.
>Rubbish, Leah. Who I am as a person has nothing to do with it. >If you like the play, and agree with my take on it, you do it. End >of story.
**Who you are as a person has everything to do with it. A lot of **the time an actor takes a part because of the integrety, **reputation and personality of the director. A young female **actor may be interested in the play and your take on it, but if **you were Dean Schulze or Jarrod Buttery, well a girl would **have to think twice. (And for all you watching at home, if you **look carefully at the above quoted bit of Davids previous post **you will find another example of his "open-minded objective" **style of discussion.)
**Once again I am very sorry David if I offened you or you were under the impression I had accused you of being "sleazy". I don't know you well enough to form an opinion on that and even if I did I don't beleive I would air my veiws so publiclly. I try (TRY) to keep things above the belt.
**I don't think anyone should produce theatre with explicit sexuality, excpecially if it linked in some way to cruelty torture or abuse, mental or physical. And I don't think this shouldn't happen because I worry about the motives of the directors. That didn't actually enter my head until I read your post. I worry about the desensitising and objectifying effect this kind of production has on society as a whole.
**And now I bow out of this discussion (Good time to take your best shots David). You know I enjoy a good stoush of this nature but I don't like the idea that anyone would think their personal integrety, especially their sexual integrety, was being questioned. My post about "doing something nice" was actually supposed to be a tounge in cheek shot at how dark the material you seem to chose is. I see now that I didn't word it well. And now I'm tired....
**(Mental note...no more circus freak jokes...)
Thou droning bat-fowling giglet!
"Droning"...??!! I thought this button was supposed to insult the readers, not the writer. Last time I use the damned thing...
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···