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, 05:16 pmWalter Plinge
>>I had rather hoped it would become a discussion about the play.
>
>You have been reading this board long enough to know better.
Know better than what, Leah? That some of the regular correspondents to this board (including you) might actually evolve a few ideas with a bit of prodding?
God forbid you might actually use a debate such as this as a way of evolving and expanding your opinions, rather than as a forum to beat to death the pre-determined ones you apparently can't live without.
>You even referred to me in your first post
>and asked me not to be upitty.
I asked you to show some restraint. Which you did until Amanda went below the belt, and you had the temerity to defend her.
>>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 truly am, and I certainly
>never meant to imply any such thing.
As I indicated above, I was referring to Amanda's comments.
>>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.
A wilful mis-interpretation if ever there was one. I listen. You wait to talk. Clear enough for you?
>I don't think anyone should produce theatre with explicit sexuality
And nothing I, or anyone else, will ever say or do -- no matter how hard they try -- will ever change your mind on the subject, am I right?
So tell me, how do you conduct an "objective, open-minded" debate when faced with such stoicism?
>I worry about the desensitising and objectifying effect this kind
>of production has on society as a whole.
This kind of production or this kind of material?
The material changes depending on the treatment it receives. You attack Mr Shawn's play and its content without ever having read it, or -- at the very least -- talking with me about how I'm going to approach it as an artist. "The Merchant of Venice" is not the same play when presented by "The Neo-Nazi Theatre Company of Berlin" as it is when presented by "Saltpillar Theatre".
>And now I bow out of this discussion (Good time to take
>your best shots David).
My best shots are always expensive.
David M.
Thou spleeny reeling-ripe nut-hook!
(nut-hook? Down, cheap-shot impulse! Down!))
>
>You have been reading this board long enough to know better.
Know better than what, Leah? That some of the regular correspondents to this board (including you) might actually evolve a few ideas with a bit of prodding?
God forbid you might actually use a debate such as this as a way of evolving and expanding your opinions, rather than as a forum to beat to death the pre-determined ones you apparently can't live without.
>You even referred to me in your first post
>and asked me not to be upitty.
I asked you to show some restraint. Which you did until Amanda went below the belt, and you had the temerity to defend her.
>>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 truly am, and I certainly
>never meant to imply any such thing.
As I indicated above, I was referring to Amanda's comments.
>>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.
A wilful mis-interpretation if ever there was one. I listen. You wait to talk. Clear enough for you?
>I don't think anyone should produce theatre with explicit sexuality
And nothing I, or anyone else, will ever say or do -- no matter how hard they try -- will ever change your mind on the subject, am I right?
So tell me, how do you conduct an "objective, open-minded" debate when faced with such stoicism?
>I worry about the desensitising and objectifying effect this kind
>of production has on society as a whole.
This kind of production or this kind of material?
The material changes depending on the treatment it receives. You attack Mr Shawn's play and its content without ever having read it, or -- at the very least -- talking with me about how I'm going to approach it as an artist. "The Merchant of Venice" is not the same play when presented by "The Neo-Nazi Theatre Company of Berlin" as it is when presented by "Saltpillar Theatre".
>And now I bow out of this discussion (Good time to take
>your best shots David).
My best shots are always expensive.
David M.
Thou spleeny reeling-ripe nut-hook!
(nut-hook? Down, cheap-shot impulse! Down!))
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···