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.
Walter PlingeTue, 22 Jan 2002, 05:46 pm
Really, 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.
Walter PlingeTue, 22 Jan 2002, 07:11 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
well...
i @!#$ your mum last night, and it was like a pipedream!
(sorry, couldnt resist!!)
i @!#$ your mum last night, and it was like a pipedream!
(sorry, couldnt resist!!)
Amanda ChestertonSun, 27 Jan 2002, 02:26 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Well, 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
Leah MaherSun, 27 Jan 2002, 03:50 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
Really, 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)>
**Totally fracas-free. I promise.
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.
** I don't have much to say on this subject that I havn't already said. Theatre is created not only in the minds of those who produce it, but in the minds of the audience who give it life through their interpretation. It is because this is the way meaning is made of theatre that I doubt that nudity and simulated sex on stage can ever be anything but exploitative. You go cast some women who are not thin and gorgeous in this play, see how the box office goes and then come an talk to me again David.
** But I did have something to say about all of this that probably isn't quite the debate David expected. At the risk of sounding like my Nan; why can't you do anything NICE?? I am aware at a deep level that in the end we all sleep, love and die alone. MUST you make it your lifes work to keep reminding me of this? Why can't you put on, or even BE IN something that is about the best in people, not the worst. And I don't mean you have to put on The Importance of Being Ernest.
** I lay down this challenge. Mr Meadows, go off and find a really lovely upbeat happy play and put it on. Find a modern, possibly local text which will cause the audience to hug the person sitting next to them and walk out with a big smile on their face, their faith in human kind restored.
** Go on. I bloody dare you.
-------------------------------
Really, 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)>
**Totally fracas-free. I promise.
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.
** I don't have much to say on this subject that I havn't already said. Theatre is created not only in the minds of those who produce it, but in the minds of the audience who give it life through their interpretation. It is because this is the way meaning is made of theatre that I doubt that nudity and simulated sex on stage can ever be anything but exploitative. You go cast some women who are not thin and gorgeous in this play, see how the box office goes and then come an talk to me again David.
** But I did have something to say about all of this that probably isn't quite the debate David expected. At the risk of sounding like my Nan; why can't you do anything NICE?? I am aware at a deep level that in the end we all sleep, love and die alone. MUST you make it your lifes work to keep reminding me of this? Why can't you put on, or even BE IN something that is about the best in people, not the worst. And I don't mean you have to put on The Importance of Being Ernest.
** I lay down this challenge. Mr Meadows, go off and find a really lovely upbeat happy play and put it on. Find a modern, possibly local text which will cause the audience to hug the person sitting next to them and walk out with a big smile on their face, their faith in human kind restored.
** Go on. I bloody dare you.
Walter PlingeSun, 27 Jan 2002, 04:24 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
David,
If you do find actors who are more than willing to take off their clothes and simulate sex but their acting sucks, would you still put on the show?
Cheers,
Gill
If you do find actors who are more than willing to take off their clothes and simulate sex but their acting sucks, would you still put on the show?
Cheers,
Gill
Walter PlingeSun, 27 Jan 2002, 05:01 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
>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.
Walter PlingeSun, 27 Jan 2002, 05:25 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
>cast some women who are not thin and gorgeous
>in this play, see how the box office goes and then
>come an talk to me again David.
As it so happens, one of the women I approached for this play is... how can I put this... "not exactly slim".
I don't want thin, gorgeous people for this play. I want real people, with saggy bits and pimples. One female character is described by one of the male characters as "bony", so I guess she'd have to be skinny. But based on "bony", I guess we're talking Calista Flockhart skinny here, not Elle MacPherson skinny.
At the risk of starting that fracas I wanted to avoid (is this a fracas I see before me?), the idea that I am after supermodels and bodybuilders is a product of your cultural assumptions, Leah, not mine.
And besides, if my concern was box-office, I most certainly would *not* be doing a play as dark as this one, and I certainly wouldn't be doing it at the Blue Room, which seats about 60 people max.
>At the risk of sounding like my Nan; why can't you do anything NICE??
Nice??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NICE???????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>I am aware at a deep level that in the end we all sleep,
>love and die alone. MUST you make it your life's work
>to keep reminding me of this?
Yes.
>Why can't you put on, or even BE IN something that is
>about the best in people, not the worst.
It's a radical idea, I'll admit... but I guess I could try.
>And I don't mean you have to put on The Importance
>of Being Ernest.
What then, O worthy opponent o'mine? Make suggestions.
>I lay down this challenge. Mr Meadows, go off and find a
>really lovely upbeat happy play and put it on.
Such as...?
>Find a modern, possibly local text which will cause the
>audience to hug the person sitting next to them and
>walk out with a big smile on their face, their faith in
>human kind restored.
Ooooh, "faith in human kind"? Now you're really pushing it. I am, after all, a fully accredited misanthrope.
>Go on. I bloody dare you.
I double dare you..... find me a play that does it. And if it's not the most insipid, apologetic, politcially correct piece of fluff under the sun, I'll put it on.
David M.
Thou goatish toad-spotted malt-worm!
>in this play, see how the box office goes and then
>come an talk to me again David.
As it so happens, one of the women I approached for this play is... how can I put this... "not exactly slim".
I don't want thin, gorgeous people for this play. I want real people, with saggy bits and pimples. One female character is described by one of the male characters as "bony", so I guess she'd have to be skinny. But based on "bony", I guess we're talking Calista Flockhart skinny here, not Elle MacPherson skinny.
At the risk of starting that fracas I wanted to avoid (is this a fracas I see before me?), the idea that I am after supermodels and bodybuilders is a product of your cultural assumptions, Leah, not mine.
And besides, if my concern was box-office, I most certainly would *not* be doing a play as dark as this one, and I certainly wouldn't be doing it at the Blue Room, which seats about 60 people max.
>At the risk of sounding like my Nan; why can't you do anything NICE??
Nice??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NICE???????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>I am aware at a deep level that in the end we all sleep,
>love and die alone. MUST you make it your life's work
>to keep reminding me of this?
Yes.
>Why can't you put on, or even BE IN something that is
>about the best in people, not the worst.
It's a radical idea, I'll admit... but I guess I could try.
>And I don't mean you have to put on The Importance
>of Being Ernest.
What then, O worthy opponent o'mine? Make suggestions.
>I lay down this challenge. Mr Meadows, go off and find a
>really lovely upbeat happy play and put it on.
Such as...?
>Find a modern, possibly local text which will cause the
>audience to hug the person sitting next to them and
>walk out with a big smile on their face, their faith in
>human kind restored.
Ooooh, "faith in human kind"? Now you're really pushing it. I am, after all, a fully accredited misanthrope.
>Go on. I bloody dare you.
I double dare you..... find me a play that does it. And if it's not the most insipid, apologetic, politcially correct piece of fluff under the sun, I'll put it on.
David M.
Thou goatish toad-spotted malt-worm!
Walter PlingeSun, 27 Jan 2002, 05:35 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Gill wrote:
>If you do find actors who are more than willing
>to take off their clothes and simulate sex but their
>acting sucks, would you still put on the show?
We're talking semantics here, but if someone's acting sucked, I wouldn't consider them actors. So therefore, I wouldn't cast them.
My "Salome " folded when the actor in the title role pulled out over the nudity. I tried to find a replacement, but couldn't. The play folded. That -- to me -- is infinitely more preferable to putting something on half-baked.
If I cannot find acceptable actors for "3 Parts", I won't do it. It's too important a play (in my opinion) to screw up.
Maybe I'm pushing shite up hill, but I really want to do this play... therefore I really want to find actors prepared to take it on.
David M.
>If you do find actors who are more than willing
>to take off their clothes and simulate sex but their
>acting sucks, would you still put on the show?
We're talking semantics here, but if someone's acting sucked, I wouldn't consider them actors. So therefore, I wouldn't cast them.
My "Salome " folded when the actor in the title role pulled out over the nudity. I tried to find a replacement, but couldn't. The play folded. That -- to me -- is infinitely more preferable to putting something on half-baked.
If I cannot find acceptable actors for "3 Parts", I won't do it. It's too important a play (in my opinion) to screw up.
Maybe I'm pushing shite up hill, but I really want to do this play... therefore I really want to find actors prepared to take it on.
David M.
Walter PlingeSun, 27 Jan 2002, 09:38 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Hey Dave
I would be very interested in reading a copy of this play. I did try and respond to your posting via e-mail.
When were you thinking of putting it on?
Cheers
Ben Sorgiovanni
I would be very interested in reading a copy of this play. I did try and respond to your posting via e-mail.
When were you thinking of putting it on?
Cheers
Ben Sorgiovanni
Walter PlingeMon, 28 Jan 2002, 03:33 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Ben Sorgiovanni wrote:
>I would be very interested in reading a copy of this play.
>I did try and respond to your posting via e-mail.
You need to remove ANTISPAMDEVICE from my e-mail addy.
>When were you thinking of putting it on?
If it's accepted, it will be in one of the first three slots in the Blue Room's next bracket... so anywhere between the 11th of June and the 20th of July.
I'll bring you a copy of the script on Saturday.
David M.
>I would be very interested in reading a copy of this play.
>I did try and respond to your posting via e-mail.
You need to remove ANTISPAMDEVICE from my e-mail addy.
>When were you thinking of putting it on?
If it's accepted, it will be in one of the first three slots in the Blue Room's next bracket... so anywhere between the 11th of June and the 20th of July.
I'll bring you a copy of the script on Saturday.
David M.
Walter PlingeTue, 29 Jan 2002, 02:53 am
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
I was hoping you'd say that! Good luck with it.
Cheers,
Gill
Cheers,
Gill
Leah MaherTue, 29 Jan 2002, 08:28 am
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
At the risk of starting that fracas I wanted to avoid (is this a fracas I see before me?), the idea that I am after supermodels and bodybuilders is a product of your cultural assumptions, Leah, not mine.
**Sorry David. I didn't express that well. I don't for a minuet assume you are after supermodels. I would sooner assume you were after circus freaks. I was attempting to make a comment about explicit sexuality on stage and peoples perceptions of it, hence the "Box Office" comment. I meant that because people would read the on stage antics as purely sexual in nature, live porn if you will, and hence exploitative (down Meadows, fracas-free remember), that they would pay in droves to see supermodels getting their kit off but not your average size 14 women. This was meant to prove the point that your average punter would not see beyond the t&a to the I'm sure very worthwhile (if morbidly depressing) message underneath.
**I don't think I expressed it any better there but I did want to apologise if it came across that I didn't beleive your impassioned and earnest plea for the "need" for shock value and thought you just wanted to see your actors get their kit off.
** And one more thing; this play "needs" to be done? Oh to be as positive that I speak for the whole of society as you are David. To be so utterly utterly sure of myself. Wait, there's a word for that isn't there? Ah yes here it is in my trusty dictionary; "arrogance".
-------------------------------
At the risk of starting that fracas I wanted to avoid (is this a fracas I see before me?), the idea that I am after supermodels and bodybuilders is a product of your cultural assumptions, Leah, not mine.
**Sorry David. I didn't express that well. I don't for a minuet assume you are after supermodels. I would sooner assume you were after circus freaks. I was attempting to make a comment about explicit sexuality on stage and peoples perceptions of it, hence the "Box Office" comment. I meant that because people would read the on stage antics as purely sexual in nature, live porn if you will, and hence exploitative (down Meadows, fracas-free remember), that they would pay in droves to see supermodels getting their kit off but not your average size 14 women. This was meant to prove the point that your average punter would not see beyond the t&a to the I'm sure very worthwhile (if morbidly depressing) message underneath.
**I don't think I expressed it any better there but I did want to apologise if it came across that I didn't beleive your impassioned and earnest plea for the "need" for shock value and thought you just wanted to see your actors get their kit off.
** And one more thing; this play "needs" to be done? Oh to be as positive that I speak for the whole of society as you are David. To be so utterly utterly sure of myself. Wait, there's a word for that isn't there? Ah yes here it is in my trusty dictionary; "arrogance".
Walter PlingeTue, 29 Jan 2002, 06:36 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
>I would sooner assume you were after circus freaks.
Is that an insult? :o/
>I meant that because people would read the on stage antics
>as purely sexual in nature,
Well, they are. Until.....
>your average punter would not see beyond the t&a to the
>I'm sure very worthwhile (if morbidly depressing) message
>underneath.
Maybe not. Worth a try, though, isn't it?
>And one more thing; this play "needs" to be done?
Yes.
>Oh to be as positive that I speak for the whole of society
>as you are David.
Just for the parts of society that think they have it all under control.
(hahahahahaha!!!! poor fools)
David M.
Thou spleeny plume-plucked clack-dish!
(whoa! that's a corker!)
Is that an insult? :o/
>I meant that because people would read the on stage antics
>as purely sexual in nature,
Well, they are. Until.....
>your average punter would not see beyond the t&a to the
>I'm sure very worthwhile (if morbidly depressing) message
>underneath.
Maybe not. Worth a try, though, isn't it?
>And one more thing; this play "needs" to be done?
Yes.
>Oh to be as positive that I speak for the whole of society
>as you are David.
Just for the parts of society that think they have it all under control.
(hahahahahaha!!!! poor fools)
David M.
Thou spleeny plume-plucked clack-dish!
(whoa! that's a corker!)
Walter PlingeTue, 29 Jan 2002, 06:56 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Gill wrote:
>I was hoping you'd say that! Good luck with it.
Thanks. I think I'm going to need it.
David M.
>I was hoping you'd say that! Good luck with it.
Thanks. I think I'm going to need it.
David M.
Leah MaherWed, 30 Jan 2002, 01:52 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
>I would sooner assume you were after circus freaks.
Is that an insult? :o/
**I am horrified and mortally wounded that you would spread such blasphemous lies and slander me in this way. Why to suggest I would ever be deliberately insulting is an act of libel!! I'll thank you to keep your unseemly and hurtful accusations to yourself.
**And no, that particluar bit was not supposed to be insulting. I was referring to the people you would be looking for to CAST in your play (ie more likely to be circus freaks than supermodels).
**Hope that's cleared that up. Insulting.....me!.....preposterous......
-------------------------------
>I would sooner assume you were after circus freaks.
Is that an insult? :o/
**I am horrified and mortally wounded that you would spread such blasphemous lies and slander me in this way. Why to suggest I would ever be deliberately insulting is an act of libel!! I'll thank you to keep your unseemly and hurtful accusations to yourself.
**And no, that particluar bit was not supposed to be insulting. I was referring to the people you would be looking for to CAST in your play (ie more likely to be circus freaks than supermodels).
**Hope that's cleared that up. Insulting.....me!.....preposterous......
Amanda ChestertonWed, 30 Jan 2002, 09:07 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
I've been quiet(ish) but it must be said...
Salome - nudity
Clockwork Orange - nudity
Midsummer Night's Dream - hasn't been done yet but poster grab-line: 'Wanna Puck' with suggestions of nudity and bondage
Romeo & Juliet - THAT poster
Crave - to be done nude from start to finish
Thought in 3 Parts - THAT middle section
A stage version of 101 Days of Sodom - self explanatory really
He did suggest a 'nice' show to me, Leah - 'The First Nudie Musical'
Now, understand that I respect you deeply as a person and a director, and that this is a rhetorical question which I'm asking on behalf of those who haven't met/seen you and don't realise you're deeply Christian and a eunich:
What is your freakin obsession with nudity?? I understand that directors like to have their themes and motifs, but, really, reapeated nudity isn't something I'd consider to be on a par with Mike Leigh's character work or as original as Baz Luhrmann's art direction. How are we meant to believe you're not just creepy?
Amanda Chesterton
Thou villainous full-gorged boar-pig!
Uncanny...I swear to Christ that thing does a brain scan before it puts up an insult...
Salome - nudity
Clockwork Orange - nudity
Midsummer Night's Dream - hasn't been done yet but poster grab-line: 'Wanna Puck' with suggestions of nudity and bondage
Romeo & Juliet - THAT poster
Crave - to be done nude from start to finish
Thought in 3 Parts - THAT middle section
A stage version of 101 Days of Sodom - self explanatory really
He did suggest a 'nice' show to me, Leah - 'The First Nudie Musical'
Now, understand that I respect you deeply as a person and a director, and that this is a rhetorical question which I'm asking on behalf of those who haven't met/seen you and don't realise you're deeply Christian and a eunich:
What is your freakin obsession with nudity?? I understand that directors like to have their themes and motifs, but, really, reapeated nudity isn't something I'd consider to be on a par with Mike Leigh's character work or as original as Baz Luhrmann's art direction. How are we meant to believe you're not just creepy?
Amanda Chesterton
Thou villainous full-gorged boar-pig!
Uncanny...I swear to Christ that thing does a brain scan before it puts up an insult...
crgwllmsWed, 30 Jan 2002, 11:25 pm
RE: superfreaks
Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
>I would sooner assume you were after circus freaks.
Hey guys,
Please be careful about making assumptions on behalf of us performing freaks.
Come and see "After The Fair" (last show @ 8pm Thurs 31st) and see for yourself why what I do with my voice and my knees qualifies me as a human freak!
The Human Zooman
<8>-/====/------------
Thou blunt monster with uncounted heads!
-------------------------------
>I would sooner assume you were after circus freaks.
Hey guys,
Please be careful about making assumptions on behalf of us performing freaks.
Come and see "After The Fair" (last show @ 8pm Thurs 31st) and see for yourself why what I do with my voice and my knees qualifies me as a human freak!
The Human Zooman
<8>-/====/------------
Thou blunt monster with uncounted heads!
Walter PlingeWed, 30 Jan 2002, 11:40 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
>I've been quiet(ish) but it must be said...
>
>Salome - nudity
Failed attempt.
>Clockwork Orange - nudity
Failed attempt.
>Midsummer Night's Dream - hasn't been done yet
>but poster grab-line: 'Wanna Puck' with suggestions
>of nudity and bondage
Don't know *where* you got the bondage thing from... but nudity, absolutely.
>Romeo & Juliet - THAT poster
But -- as discussed at some length on this very forum -- none in the show.
>Crave - to be done nude from start to finish
*IF* I can find actors in this godforsaken town who are committed enough to do it.
>Thought in 3 Parts - THAT middle section
See above.
>A stage version of 101 Days of Sodom - self explanatory really
That's 120 days, Amanda. And if I use the Lindsay Kemp version, there's no nudity. At all.
>He did suggest a 'nice' show to me, Leah - 'The First Nudie Musical'.
And what a show *that* would be if the copyright holder didn't make a habit of chickening out every time I got my end of the ball rolling.
>Now, understand that I respect you deeply as a person
*ahem!*
>What is your freakin obsession with nudity?
Hmmm, let me see....
Innocent Bystanders - no nudity
Summer of the Seventeenth Doll - no nudity
Romeo & Juliet - no nudity (in the show)
After Aida - no nudity
Britannicus - no nudity
The Bear (coming this year) - no nudity
Taking Sides (which I was doing with Old Mill until I had to pull out) - no nudity
Hard to tell, Amanda.
>How are we meant to believe you're not just creepy?
To be honest, I don't care. If you're into the work, you're into it. Otherwise, leave it alone.
Why you and Leah seem so concerned with why I'm doing a certain show, or a certain show a certain way, when you're neither involved in it, or even remotely interested in *being* involved in it, is beyond me.
David M.
Thou dankish full-gorged minnow!
(hehe)
>
>Salome - nudity
Failed attempt.
>Clockwork Orange - nudity
Failed attempt.
>Midsummer Night's Dream - hasn't been done yet
>but poster grab-line: 'Wanna Puck' with suggestions
>of nudity and bondage
Don't know *where* you got the bondage thing from... but nudity, absolutely.
>Romeo & Juliet - THAT poster
But -- as discussed at some length on this very forum -- none in the show.
>Crave - to be done nude from start to finish
*IF* I can find actors in this godforsaken town who are committed enough to do it.
>Thought in 3 Parts - THAT middle section
See above.
>A stage version of 101 Days of Sodom - self explanatory really
That's 120 days, Amanda. And if I use the Lindsay Kemp version, there's no nudity. At all.
>He did suggest a 'nice' show to me, Leah - 'The First Nudie Musical'.
And what a show *that* would be if the copyright holder didn't make a habit of chickening out every time I got my end of the ball rolling.
>Now, understand that I respect you deeply as a person
*ahem!*
>What is your freakin obsession with nudity?
Hmmm, let me see....
Innocent Bystanders - no nudity
Summer of the Seventeenth Doll - no nudity
Romeo & Juliet - no nudity (in the show)
After Aida - no nudity
Britannicus - no nudity
The Bear (coming this year) - no nudity
Taking Sides (which I was doing with Old Mill until I had to pull out) - no nudity
Hard to tell, Amanda.
>How are we meant to believe you're not just creepy?
To be honest, I don't care. If you're into the work, you're into it. Otherwise, leave it alone.
Why you and Leah seem so concerned with why I'm doing a certain show, or a certain show a certain way, when you're neither involved in it, or even remotely interested in *being* involved in it, is beyond me.
David M.
Thou dankish full-gorged minnow!
(hehe)
Leah MaherThu, 31 Jan 2002, 08:00 am
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
David Meadows wrote:
-------------------------------
Why you and Leah seem so concerned with why I'm doing a certain show, or a certain show a certain way, when you're neither involved in it, or even remotely interested in *being* involved in it, is beyond me.
**Whoah there big guy, you ASKED! 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 have attempted to be, as requested, fracas-free and, with huge amounts of effort, I beleive suceeded relatively well considering my strong veiws on the topic.
**Now I obviously don't know you as well as Amanda and can't speak for her, but like it or not, when you express your veiws (as you did so eloquently and in detail when asked why you wanted to do the play) you have to be prepared for people to argue with you. To argue with your arguments AND with you as a person. Otherwise, censorship may raise it's ugly head (oh no! censorship! someone save us!!)
** But we have deviated from what was ostensibly the original question. How far would I go on stage? Not too deep into stage left if I can help it (my profile needs to be considered). Sorry that wasn't very good. I'll try again; how far would I go on stage? Kissing on the mouth if my priest said it was OK. Nope no good either. It seems that, like a lot of people, I can't answer that question until I have totally considered the play, the director, the probable audience, the pay packet.... However having said that I have appeared on stage sitting on a bed with simply a white sheet covering my front half. (They had to put "surprise pink"'s into the lighting so you could tell me from the sheet.) (And that's a true story. I preferr lily-white, but it has been said that I am a very light shade of blue.)
-------------------------------
Why you and Leah seem so concerned with why I'm doing a certain show, or a certain show a certain way, when you're neither involved in it, or even remotely interested in *being* involved in it, is beyond me.
**Whoah there big guy, you ASKED! 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 have attempted to be, as requested, fracas-free and, with huge amounts of effort, I beleive suceeded relatively well considering my strong veiws on the topic.
**Now I obviously don't know you as well as Amanda and can't speak for her, but like it or not, when you express your veiws (as you did so eloquently and in detail when asked why you wanted to do the play) you have to be prepared for people to argue with you. To argue with your arguments AND with you as a person. Otherwise, censorship may raise it's ugly head (oh no! censorship! someone save us!!)
** But we have deviated from what was ostensibly the original question. How far would I go on stage? Not too deep into stage left if I can help it (my profile needs to be considered). Sorry that wasn't very good. I'll try again; how far would I go on stage? Kissing on the mouth if my priest said it was OK. Nope no good either. It seems that, like a lot of people, I can't answer that question until I have totally considered the play, the director, the probable audience, the pay packet.... However having said that I have appeared on stage sitting on a bed with simply a white sheet covering my front half. (They had to put "surprise pink"'s into the lighting so you could tell me from the sheet.) (And that's a true story. I preferr lily-white, but it has been said that I am a very light shade of blue.)
Sharon MalcolmThu, 31 Jan 2002, 08:20 am
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Amanda Chesterton wrote:
-------------------------------
> Thou villainous full-gorged boar-pig!
>
> Uncanny...I swear to Christ that thing does a brain scan before it
> puts up an insult...
I did some fine-tuning over Christmas.
:-)
Cheers
Grant
Thou puny idle-headed pumpion!
See?
*ducks and runs away quickly*
-------------------------------
> Thou villainous full-gorged boar-pig!
>
> Uncanny...I swear to Christ that thing does a brain scan before it
> puts up an insult...
I did some fine-tuning over Christmas.
:-)
Cheers
Grant
Thou puny idle-headed pumpion!
See?
*ducks and runs away quickly*
Walter PlingeThu, 31 Jan 2002, 12:24 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
>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.
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.
In projecting her indoctrinated cultural assumptions about male heterosexual directors requesting nudity, Amanda has -- whether deliberately (ie: it was a joke, Joyce) or not -- successfully managed to negate two years of personal acquaintanceship with me and my work as a director.
My work as a director is motivated by nothing more than a desire to create outstanding work... work that will hopefully generate excitement about theatre here in Perth, and in doing so perhaps play some small part in rejuvenating our terminally ill theatrical community. To suggest otherwise is to insult my integrity as an artist.
>I have attempted to be, as requested, fracas-free
For which I am grateful.
>and, with huge amounts of effort, I believe suceeded
>relatively well considering my strong veiws on the topic.
May I respectfully suggest that these pre-assumed "strong views", by default, prevent you from having an objective, open-minded debate on the subject?
>like it or not, when you express your veiws (as you did
>so eloquently and in detail when asked why you wanted
>to do the play) you have to be prepared for people to argue
>with you.
Absolutely. But not to point of questioning my personal integrity and calling me a "sleaze".
>To argue with your arguments AND with you as a person.
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.
If I'm sleazy in the rehearsal room... then fine, feel free to make it a factor. But otherwise -- and this is a serious question -- what the hell difference does it make?
>How far would I go on stage?
>It seems that, like a lot of people, I can't answer
>that question until I have totally considered the play,
Which only one person thus far has asked to read.
>the director
Who has a fine track record, a proven reputation, and who even his most vociferously critical occasional collaborator acknowledges is someone worth working with.
>the probable audience
The smart, hip, intellectually capable crowd at the Blue Room.
>the pay packet
Like all fringe experimental theatre in Perth - tiny.
David M.
Thou pox-marked folly-fallen moldwarp!
>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.
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.
In projecting her indoctrinated cultural assumptions about male heterosexual directors requesting nudity, Amanda has -- whether deliberately (ie: it was a joke, Joyce) or not -- successfully managed to negate two years of personal acquaintanceship with me and my work as a director.
My work as a director is motivated by nothing more than a desire to create outstanding work... work that will hopefully generate excitement about theatre here in Perth, and in doing so perhaps play some small part in rejuvenating our terminally ill theatrical community. To suggest otherwise is to insult my integrity as an artist.
>I have attempted to be, as requested, fracas-free
For which I am grateful.
>and, with huge amounts of effort, I believe suceeded
>relatively well considering my strong veiws on the topic.
May I respectfully suggest that these pre-assumed "strong views", by default, prevent you from having an objective, open-minded debate on the subject?
>like it or not, when you express your veiws (as you did
>so eloquently and in detail when asked why you wanted
>to do the play) you have to be prepared for people to argue
>with you.
Absolutely. But not to point of questioning my personal integrity and calling me a "sleaze".
>To argue with your arguments AND with you as a person.
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.
If I'm sleazy in the rehearsal room... then fine, feel free to make it a factor. But otherwise -- and this is a serious question -- what the hell difference does it make?
>How far would I go on stage?
>It seems that, like a lot of people, I can't answer
>that question until I have totally considered the play,
Which only one person thus far has asked to read.
>the director
Who has a fine track record, a proven reputation, and who even his most vociferously critical occasional collaborator acknowledges is someone worth working with.
>the probable audience
The smart, hip, intellectually capable crowd at the Blue Room.
>the pay packet
Like all fringe experimental theatre in Perth - tiny.
David M.
Thou pox-marked folly-fallen moldwarp!
Leah MaherThu, 31 Jan 2002, 03:06 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Geeze 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...
Walter PlingeThu, 31 Jan 2002, 04:13 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
>> 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.
Hey!!! Wait a minute! Dean, mate, I think we've been insulted? (Hard to tell with that spelling....) Admittedly, an insult from the vestal Miss Prudence Maher is equivalent to a hearty congratulations from just about anyone else, but still.....
Contrary to libellous insinuations from the popcorn gallery, I would like to ensure all young actresses that auditions for mine and Dean's upcoming all-nude-except-for-the-jello production of "The Importance of Being Earnest" will proceed as planned. Please bring your own whipped cream and video camera.
JB
Thou artless fat-kidneyed flirt-gill!
Hey!!! Wait a minute! Dean, mate, I think we've been insulted? (Hard to tell with that spelling....) Admittedly, an insult from the vestal Miss Prudence Maher is equivalent to a hearty congratulations from just about anyone else, but still.....
Contrary to libellous insinuations from the popcorn gallery, I would like to ensure all young actresses that auditions for mine and Dean's upcoming all-nude-except-for-the-jello production of "The Importance of Being Earnest" will proceed as planned. Please bring your own whipped cream and video camera.
JB
Thou artless fat-kidneyed flirt-gill!
Walter PlingeThu, 31 Jan 2002, 05:16 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
>>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!))
Walter PlingeThu, 31 Jan 2002, 11:50 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Insult? What insult?
I thought by saying a young girl would have to think twice, Sister Mary Maher was saying that the obvious first thought would be "not on your sweet Nelly" but on second thought, could be fun hangin' around with a couple of perverted old farts like Buttery and Schulze. I saw it more as a bit of promotion for any future productions of "Slurp, Dribble Enterprises"
As for you Meadows, hope this doesn't negate our agreement that if I stay out of the nudie debate I get to be Wardrobe Master for any of your future shows (not much work invovlved and the perks are brilliant - and I do love a good set of perks).
(Too scared to press Insult button since Grant revealed it scans the brain first. All this nudie talk could result in a most unsavoury quote!)
I thought by saying a young girl would have to think twice, Sister Mary Maher was saying that the obvious first thought would be "not on your sweet Nelly" but on second thought, could be fun hangin' around with a couple of perverted old farts like Buttery and Schulze. I saw it more as a bit of promotion for any future productions of "Slurp, Dribble Enterprises"
As for you Meadows, hope this doesn't negate our agreement that if I stay out of the nudie debate I get to be Wardrobe Master for any of your future shows (not much work invovlved and the perks are brilliant - and I do love a good set of perks).
(Too scared to press Insult button since Grant revealed it scans the brain first. All this nudie talk could result in a most unsavoury quote!)
LouiseCCFri, 1 Feb 2002, 08:15 am
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
Geeze louise...you make one little circus freak joke..........
Yes?.... Sorry?... Wasn't listening properly..... Have I missed something?
LouiseCC
BarbZFri, 1 Feb 2002, 09:52 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
(Too scared to press Insult button since Grant revealed it scans the brain first. All this nudie talk could result in a most unsavoury quote!)
I dunno Dean .. could be very "revealing"!
BarbZ
Thou jarring pottle-deep lout!
I dunno Dean .. could be very "revealing"!
BarbZ
Thou jarring pottle-deep lout!
JoeMcSat, 2 Feb 2002, 02:27 pm
How low do tech's go?
Grant - maybe we should have a 'Warm Prop - Page' - just a thought!
It seems the other forums are just not enough????
Joe
It seems the other forums are just not enough????
Joe
Walter PlingeMon, 4 Feb 2002, 02:06 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
I guess you won't need any help with props, then?
P.
Thou yeasty milk-livered bugbear!
Urrgh! Gross!! And very relevant considering the comment about whipped cream.....
P.
Thou yeasty milk-livered bugbear!
Urrgh! Gross!! And very relevant considering the comment about whipped cream.....
danni_skyeFri, 1 Mar 2002, 05:52 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
Well this is the first time I have entered the realms of the tech page and I was overwhelmed by the debate controlling it.
I agree with your point Amanda!
I'm sorry David I have never met you and I know I shouldn't pass judgement without knowing someone well. But!
You are obsessed with disvestment!!!!!
From your previous history we can see that you are not concerned with the content in the plays. But merely obsessed in shocking an audience!
Your'e just like the photographer Spencer Tunick (who photographs ordinary people off the steet in the nude) Its not the quality of his pictures that are appealing it is shock value that attracts the viewers. If these people wernt in the nude, would the photographs/characters have the same effect on an audience?
If this is your tactic then fair enough! Im all for it!
I have never read this play but would be very interested in having a look for curiositys sake.
I think the only reason I would not be intersested appearing nude would be my folks!
They come to see every show I'm in and invite their friends. I can hardly see my mum bumping into her friend at the shops and her friend saying
"So what show is Danni in at the moment?"
and mum replying
"Oh it's this wonderful play performed in the nude."
It could be interesting to adapt this play "Thought in 3 parts" and see how it can shock an audience not through nudity but through it's story and meaning. Is it possible to say what the writer wanted to say without the nudity and still have the same impact on the audience? I think this is the test of whether it is a good play or not!
Hope this message isn't to late but I couldn't refuse to comment!
Yours Truly
Danni
I agree with your point Amanda!
I'm sorry David I have never met you and I know I shouldn't pass judgement without knowing someone well. But!
You are obsessed with disvestment!!!!!
From your previous history we can see that you are not concerned with the content in the plays. But merely obsessed in shocking an audience!
Your'e just like the photographer Spencer Tunick (who photographs ordinary people off the steet in the nude) Its not the quality of his pictures that are appealing it is shock value that attracts the viewers. If these people wernt in the nude, would the photographs/characters have the same effect on an audience?
If this is your tactic then fair enough! Im all for it!
I have never read this play but would be very interested in having a look for curiositys sake.
I think the only reason I would not be intersested appearing nude would be my folks!
They come to see every show I'm in and invite their friends. I can hardly see my mum bumping into her friend at the shops and her friend saying
"So what show is Danni in at the moment?"
and mum replying
"Oh it's this wonderful play performed in the nude."
It could be interesting to adapt this play "Thought in 3 parts" and see how it can shock an audience not through nudity but through it's story and meaning. Is it possible to say what the writer wanted to say without the nudity and still have the same impact on the audience? I think this is the test of whether it is a good play or not!
Hope this message isn't to late but I couldn't refuse to comment!
Yours Truly
Danni
tomasfordTue, 12 Mar 2002, 03:30 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
RE 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
tomasfordTue, 12 Mar 2002, 03:30 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
RE 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.
Tomás
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.
Tomás
KristineTue, 12 Mar 2002, 10:59 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
do I have to be able to act?
Walter PlingeTue, 12 Mar 2002, 11:32 pm
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
It seems to me that Mr.Meadows is not the only person "obsessed with Nudity, however, it appears he IS the only one endeavouring to use it for creative purposes in these threads.
David from my experience and the oft mumbled praise of his peers is a fine & dedicated Actor/Director.
The insinuation that his interest in nudity in theatre is somehow simply to shock audiences,strikes me as particularly shallow and myopic.
Spencer Tunick's work would not have the same effect if its participants were clothed, no. But that is exactly the point!
If you are shocked by his work, perhaps some introspection is in order. These images of flesh en masse are there to perform a function, just as oil paint on canvas, notes on a music score, literary Iambic pentameter or the use of actors nude or otherwise on stage.
As a visual artist , I do not forsake one hue for another simply because it may offend.I use the colour that is appropriate.
As should Mr.Meadows. If as director, his "artistic vision" deems nudity appropriate, then nudity it is.
I understand & condone the right of any actor however to avoid being in any play for any reason, thats their choice.
I think that perhaps many of those in this thread are allowing their personal feelings about David to influence their judgement .
This said their views on Nudity are apparently at the least parochial, at the worst down right petty.
Good luck david, you will inevitably need it in this burgh.
Matthew
Walter PlingeWed, 13 Mar 2002, 10:50 am
post script
I would like to take this opportunity to invite all those NOT frightened by nudity to my upcoming exhibition "NAKED" at the ArtsHouse gallery, (behind the Blue Room) on 19th of April starting at 7pm.
Adorning the walls will be a plethora of images of Nude bodies, many in fact belonging to some of the finest actors I've had the pleasure to meet. None of them, I note happily, have posted against Nudity on stage in this thread.
Possibly Mr.Meadows could get some ideas as to who to approach to audition for him......
All are welcome, including the nay sayers, to come and have a drink and play spot the nude friend.
cheers, Matt
Adorning the walls will be a plethora of images of Nude bodies, many in fact belonging to some of the finest actors I've had the pleasure to meet. None of them, I note happily, have posted against Nudity on stage in this thread.
Possibly Mr.Meadows could get some ideas as to who to approach to audition for him......
All are welcome, including the nay sayers, to come and have a drink and play spot the nude friend.
cheers, Matt
Craig K EdwardsSun, 17 Mar 2002, 11:36 am
RE: how far would you go as an actor?
[I think the only reason I would not be intersested appearing nude would be my folks!
They come to see every show I'm in and invite their friends. I can hardly see my mum bumping into her friend at the shops and her friend saying
"So what show is Danni in at the moment?"
and mum replying
"Oh it's this wonderful play performed in the nude."]
Without getting too personal here, I think that this kind of typifies part of a problem with Perth independent theatre. Now I don't mean this in regards to people's individual choices as to whether to go nude or not (people get cautious about different things, and there is no shortage of successful, pro actors who draw limits with that kind of thing). Actually, I should probably point out that nothing of what I am about to say is intended to apply to Danni (who I quoted above) as I don't actually know her - it was just a convenient quote.
What I am referring to is the ex-high-school drama attitude of theatre being a little fun thing that you put on for friends and family. Now, speaking personally, the first question I would ask if told to go nude in a play (after ascertaining that it was artistically required) would be - will this play be any good. No-one wants to go nude in something that they consider amateur or low-grade - it would feel cheap and degrading to do so. Yet many of the same people who have issues about going nude in a local independent theatre production probably didn't blink an eyelid when nude scenes appeared in Shakespeare in Love, The Graduate, or countless other Hollywood and English films. Frankly, I think the problem here is that people don't rate themselves, or the productions that they are doing in Perth, to be worthy of being taken as serious works of art - ie something worth going nude for. Unfortunately, this is a bit of a catch-22 situation, because nobody is going to start taking independent theatre in Perth seriously unless the actors/directors etc are prepared to take their own work seriously - ie to start thinking about the artistic/challening merit of of their work - rather than simply thinking about how much fun it would be to put on that play you studied in high school and wouldn't it be great to get mum and dad and your friends along.
They come to see every show I'm in and invite their friends. I can hardly see my mum bumping into her friend at the shops and her friend saying
"So what show is Danni in at the moment?"
and mum replying
"Oh it's this wonderful play performed in the nude."]
Without getting too personal here, I think that this kind of typifies part of a problem with Perth independent theatre. Now I don't mean this in regards to people's individual choices as to whether to go nude or not (people get cautious about different things, and there is no shortage of successful, pro actors who draw limits with that kind of thing). Actually, I should probably point out that nothing of what I am about to say is intended to apply to Danni (who I quoted above) as I don't actually know her - it was just a convenient quote.
What I am referring to is the ex-high-school drama attitude of theatre being a little fun thing that you put on for friends and family. Now, speaking personally, the first question I would ask if told to go nude in a play (after ascertaining that it was artistically required) would be - will this play be any good. No-one wants to go nude in something that they consider amateur or low-grade - it would feel cheap and degrading to do so. Yet many of the same people who have issues about going nude in a local independent theatre production probably didn't blink an eyelid when nude scenes appeared in Shakespeare in Love, The Graduate, or countless other Hollywood and English films. Frankly, I think the problem here is that people don't rate themselves, or the productions that they are doing in Perth, to be worthy of being taken as serious works of art - ie something worth going nude for. Unfortunately, this is a bit of a catch-22 situation, because nobody is going to start taking independent theatre in Perth seriously unless the actors/directors etc are prepared to take their own work seriously - ie to start thinking about the artistic/challening merit of of their work - rather than simply thinking about how much fun it would be to put on that play you studied in high school and wouldn't it be great to get mum and dad and your friends along.
TweedSun, 12 Sept 2004, 12:00 pm
Re: How low do tech's go?
Is that THE Joe McCabe that used to do such stirling work at Titan? If so, please email me. Love to chat again.
[%sig%]
[%sig%]