barely reason

I know I should be talking about Bolten or about Gates giving schools money, but this has been sitting in my draft pile since last week, so here it goes.

Let me state ahead of this that I read Freeman's blog regularly and find him interesting and he seems to be a good guy. I also have a friend who has written one of the shows for Standards of Decency. So it is not his person or his play that I am taking issue with, rather the line that is there between art and body. This casting notice for the play he wrote for Standards of Decency really bothered me.

The role requires someone who is willing to be fully nude in an objectifying situation. I've had several actresses look at it and say that they wouldn't be comfortable. I think that's important to stress.

I do need someone immediately, it's a great opportunity to meet nine fantastic playwrights, actors and directors.

I guess I am wondering where the line is.

Is there a line?

Is there a point when it is not acting, but rather just being a body? Is there a place that it is no longer about finding a good actor, but rather finding someone willing to be naked and 'objectified'?

When you say to an actor, 'you can work with these great directors and writers if you strip nude and objectify yourself' aren't there warning flags and bells that go off?

I know I am a hypocrite on this. I have expressed my appreciation for the likes of Sarah Kane, among others, who do more than just nudity on stage. I am also passionate in my belief in freedom of expression. I have not read any of the shows being performed and take no issue with them, or the project. It is more likely that the shows will spark great conversations about America's perverse idea of what we consider decent and what we don't.

Will nudity somehow make a piece more edgy? Therein lies my biggest frustration because it has been rare, in a piece of theatre, that the nudity enhanced the show instead of disrupted it for me. There have even been times where the nudity was just tiresome in the way it was used. It is as if the show is saying 'Oh look, here is the part of the show that has naked parts, now everyone in the audience will know how singular we are.'

I had a friend (a director) tell me to get over my issue with being naked on stage. Why? Why should I get over it? My only issue with being naked on stage is that I have yet to be offered a part where I thought the nudity would make it better. It usually strikes me as a cop out. Like the cliché choice of writer or director. As cliché as the actor who resorts to over long pauses or yelling to make their point.

I recently took a role where they wanted nudity and I said no. I was surprised that they compromised and gave it to me anyway. Later, when in performance, I realized how ludicrous it would have been to do that 20 minute scene topless. It would have completely hijacked the purpose, the intent of the scene. How could the playwright not see that? I am so glad the director did.

I wish the folks involved with Standards of Decency all the best, but I also urge actors to hold strong. I do believe there is a line between actor and body. We need to be cognizant of it in order to make the right decisions for ourselves.