Equus ... and high school?!?
Romeo13590
*very* risque Equus. (Remember? The play about a boy who blinds a couple horses
with a metal spike?)
I haven't seen the play for about ten years...but I do remember that the
language was very explicit and the last ten minutes or so were done completely
in the nude. How would a high school get away with this?
Don't get me wrong...I'm in complete favor of high schools performing
sophisticated material. But ... *Equus*?
Has anyone seen this play performed at a high school? How in the world did they
get away with it? ;)
Alsager
for competition. The nuditity was going to be attempted with a body stocking
and parental permission. The actress who played the role (forget the name)
went on to do some serious work, so the parents accepted the effort as a part
of her dedication and training, etc. Alas, the scene was never performed.
-Al
You know what to do to email me.
ICQ me at 16653760.
sarah thiboutot
romeo...@aol.com (Romeo13590) wrote:
I've seen it done (not in a high school, tho) with only partial
nudity...the girl in a bra and jeans, and the boy in his undershorts. It
did lose some of the shock-effect, but the meaning behind the scene was
perfectly clear...it just "froze" a few seconds earlier, and the boy went
on to do the last few scenes in his underwear.
i don't recall the language as being any more explicit than i recall
hearing in a high school hallway.....
and the major characters in the play ARE supposed to be high-school aged.
it always amazes me when people don't think their teenagers should be
reading/seeing/hearing about things people their own age are doing.....
GEORGE M. THOMSON
We did it at UNCG (univ. not high school) and only had partial nudity and
it worked quite well.
******************************************************************************
Today is a gift. That is why
it is called the present.
-Unknown
******************************************************************************
Nicola Bailey
We decided that our small town wasn't quite ready for the language and nudity, so
we cut all but one of the extreme swear words, and our couple at the end performed
in bra and knickers for the girl, boxer shorts for the boy.
In my opinion it lost none of the effect whatsoever. The power of emotion from
the actors was more than enough to get the audience in tears.
By the way - there's one pic from our production of Equus on our theatre group's
website:-
http://freespace.virgin.net/nicola.bailey/pics.html
NicB
--
************************************************
nicola...@virgin.net
http://freespace.virgin.net/nicola.bailey/hello.html
************************************************
Daniel Schrader
>
> I've read that some high schools have successfully performed Peter Shaffer's
> *very* risque Equus. (Remember? The play about a boy who blinds a couple horses
> with a metal spike?)
>
> I haven't seen the play for about ten years...but I do remember that the
> language was very explicit and the last ten minutes or so were done completely
> in the nude. How would a high school get away with this?
>
> Don't get me wrong...I'm in complete favor of high schools performing
> sophisticated material. But ... *Equus*?
>
> Has anyone seen this play performed at a high school? How in the world did they
> get away with it? ;)
I have never understood why people think there "has" to be nudity in
this show. I have seen very powerful performances of it where stripping
down to underwear was all that happened. The play does touch on some
very adult themes but so do many plays done by highschools. Grease is
very popular among highschools and it is full of adult/risque material.
I think it all boils down to how you handle the material.
ghoti
>The wire-frame heads and the arena style setting (merely the original
>designer's concept, and therefore optional, but still - for some reason
>- rigidly adhered to) are theatrical devices. So too is the nudity. You
>mention emotional nakedness. What better physical - theatrical -
>representation of emotional nakedness can there be than physical
>nakedness?
I have seen many fully-clothed performers achieve emotional nakedness to a
greater degree than nude performers. Emotional nakedness is a thing in
itself, and does not require physical nakedness to represent it. Physical
nakedness in Equus is as much a theatrical device as the wire heads of the
horses, and IMO a much less effective one. Physical nakedness is a crutch
for the actor (or more likely the director) and a sop to the least
imaginative members of the audience.
>As a device, nudity can be enormously effective, and Shaffer knows this.
>In this scene, we see nudity that represents vulnerability and sexuality
>within moments of each other.
I would prefer the actors to be vulnerable and sexual rather than having
them rely on the cheap device of stripping off to eliminate the need for
them to reach that level of emotional engagement.
I find that the sudden switch from abstract representation to literalism
is distracting and takes me out of the play, rather than bringing me in. I
saw the play on Broadway twice, once with Anthony Hopkins and Peter Firth,
and once with Richard Burton and Tom Hulce (I sat on stage for that one),
and both times I found the sudden change in production style to be a
nuisance. It completely interrupted my involvement in the emotional
through-line of the play and jolted me back into awareness of the
mechanics of presenting it. Not what Shaffer had in mind, I'm sure.
>It is my opinion that EQUUS cannot work at all if the nude scene is not
>played to the fullest level of intensity.
That goes without saying.
>Spurious justifications from
>insecure or 'moral' actors wishing to avoid the exposure can never be
>allowed to interfere with the task of presenting the play to its fullest
>level of intensity. Full-frontal nudity is essential to achieve this,
>IMO.
IMO literal nudity is not necessary to achieving the full emotional impact
of the scene. Since I have never been considered for a role in Equus, my
opinion is not based on a personal desire to avoid literal exposure in the
play, on grounds of insecurity, "morality," or anything else. (And, if I
had been engaged to appear in Equus, I would have had no problem
fulfilling my contractual obligations, I assure you.) My considered
opinion is based on a lifetime in the theatre as both audience and
participant, and my own aesthetic. I can imagine that there might be a few
plays in which I would consider literal nudity essential, but Equus, a
play designed in every other respect for non-literal production values, is
not among them.
ghoti
<redhe...@tuna.net>
<:)))>><(
David
>
> In article <372B22...@bigpond.com.fenork>, n...@home.now wrote:
>
> >The wire-frame heads and the arena style setting (merely the original
> >designer's concept, and therefore optional, but still - for some reason
> >- rigidly adhered to) are theatrical devices. So too is the nudity. You
> >mention emotional nakedness. What better physical - theatrical -
> >representation of emotional nakedness can there be than physical
> >nakedness?
>
> I have seen many fully-clothed performers achieve emotional nakedness to a
> greater degree than nude performers. Emotional nakedness is a thing in
> itself, and does not require physical nakedness to represent it.
I never said (and would never say) that emotionally intense scenes
*require* nudity, but rather that EQUUS' does. In other plays, nudity is
a useful and valid option.
Physical
> nakedness in Equus is as much a theatrical device as the wire heads of the
> horses, and IMO a much less effective one.
Then this is a clash of opinions, rather than a discussion of what is
appropriate to the play. I'm have no interest in the former. Your
opinion as to what is 'effective' is not what matters. Nor is mine. The
nudity is important this piece, that is clear from a detailed and
non-judgemental reading of the text. How 'effective' you personally
might happen to find the nudity is a nice indulgence, but it is the play
that counts.
> Physical nakedness is a sop to the least
> imaginative members of the audience.
So we should compromise the presentation for the sake of a few
illiterates who should have gone to strip club?
> >As a device, nudity can be enormously effective, and Shaffer knows this.
> >In this scene, we see nudity that represents vulnerability and sexuality
> >within moments of each other.
>
> I would prefer the actors to be vulnerable and sexual rather than having
> them rely on the cheap device of stripping off to eliminate the need for
> them to reach that level of emotional engagement.
>
> I find that the sudden switch from abstract representation to literalism
> is distracting and takes me out of the play, rather than bringing me in. I
> saw the play on Broadway twice, once with Anthony Hopkins and Peter Firth,
> and once with Richard Burton and Tom Hulce (I sat on stage for that one),
> and both times I found the sudden change in production style to be a
> nuisance. It completely interrupted my involvement in the emotional
> through-line of the play and jolted me back into awareness of the
> mechanics of presenting it.
Now I'm confused. You say that the sudden change from representation to
literalism distracts you. And yet before you agreed with my earlier
statement that the nudity is as much a representational device as the
wire frame horse heads. So where is the switch when the nudity happens?
Where exactly are you distracted by the switch to literalism? If the
horse heads and the set are as 'representational' as the nudity, what's
the problem?
I suspect that your opinion is based more on your own personal
discomfort at watching actors 'grit their teeth and do it for their
art', than a serious and accademic analysis of the play itself.
> >It is my opinion that EQUUS cannot work at all if the nude scene is not
> >played to the fullest level of intensity.
>
> That goes without saying.
Did you read what I wrote? "...the NUDE scene...".
Not "...the ATTEMPTED LOVEMAKING scene...".
> >Spurious justifications from
> >insecure or 'moral' actors wishing to avoid the exposure can never be
> >allowed to interfere with the task of presenting the play to its fullest
> >level of intensity. Full-frontal nudity is essential to achieve this,
> >IMO.
>
> IMO literal nudity is not necessary to achieving the full emotional impact
> of the scene. Since I have never been considered for a role in Equus, my
> opinion is not based on a personal desire to avoid literal exposure in the
> play, on grounds of insecurity, "morality," or anything else. (And, if I
> had been engaged to appear in Equus, I would have had no problem
> fulfilling my contractual obligations, I assure you.)
And therein lies the rub. You have just confirmed my deeply held
suspicions about audiences, practitioners and critics who find nudity
'unnecessary', or 'indulgent'.
Nudity should never be merely a 'contractual obligation'. It should
spring from a desire to serve the piece, to underline elements of a
piece that can be served in this way to a level perhaps unachievable in
other ways, to open elements in a perhaps revolutionary new way (in an
interpolated nude scene) or to stress specific aspects of the author's
intentions (in a work that has the nudity written in).
The societal expectations that dominate so much of the debate over the
usefulness or not of nudity in theatre are not only counterproductive,
they are entirely irrelevant. External concerns undoubtedly play a part
in whether the nudity becomes an issue, but my concern is to what extent
they should be allowed to do so.
My considered
> opinion is based on a lifetime in the theatre as both audience and
> participant, and my own aesthetic. I can imagine that there might be a few
> plays in which I would consider literal nudity essential, but Equus, a
> play designed in every other respect for non-literal production values, is
> not among them.
Let's explore this 'literal' thing (if you insist). Despite us both
having agreed that the nudity is representational (even if you did
conveniently forget this in your last response), I also agree that the
nudity in the scene is also literal.
As a director, I find it essential that any nudity be BOTH literal and
representational, and I use the following scenari:
1/ A couple arrive home from a party, take of their clothes in full view
of the audience and, naked, get into bed.
Literal nudity. Realism. "That's what they would actually do". But does
it say
anything about the characters?
2/ The couple leave the party angry with each other and, in a stylised
void, have an argument. During the argument, they open up old emotional
wounds and reveal painful truths about the nature of their relationship.
As a symbolic, stylised, representational gesture, the director has them
disrobe to full-frontal nudity.
Symbolism. Representation. A theatrical device designed to show the
emotional nakedness of the characters in a physical way. But does it
look 'real'? Does it
make sense literally?
3/ The couple arrive home from the party angry with each other, and as
they argue - inflicting wounds and revealing truths, they disrobe for
bed.
The perfect symbiosis. It is literally true, as they are readying for
bed, and
it is theatrically true, as it gives them a physical mirror to their
respective
emotional conditions.
EQUUS' nude scene is this third kind of scene. That is why it's great
theatre, and that is why the nudity is important. It works both
literally and symbolically.
Moral arguments, or performer or audience 'comfort' ones, should never
interfere with the pursuit of the perfectly pitched production.
I'm talking theatrical altruism here. I always get into trouble when I
do that.
D.
bantr...@my-dejanews.com
Boy I hate to jump into another person's conversation (and I do it rarely)
but after reading all of this conversation I picked up on a final line: "I
can imagine that there might be a few plays in which I would consider literal
nudity essential, but Equus, a play designed in every other respect for
non-literal production values, is not among them." (Actually what I picked
up on was this part: "play designed in every other respect for non-literal
production values" (but I hate to snip too short).
Actually, the nude scene is very "non-literal" as it *represents* the
vulnerbility of the characters. As a representation it is, therefore, the
same as the wire-headed horses played by men. If the nudity was to solely
display sex or a sexual instance, then it would be literal and not fit into
Shaffer's scheme of things.
It's funny, too, how all the people that I've met, read about or talked to
that have seen the play (with Tom Hulce and Tony Perkins) that objected to
the use of nudity were audience members. Tom, himself, recalled that the
scene felt "totally natural" and was not a problem to play at all. As an
actor, he saw the nudity as a successful vehicle to *expose* the vulnerbility
in the characters. He also recalled that he noticed, in just about every
performance, that when this scene was on many audience members "suddendly
realized something they had left in their purse or pocket that they had to
get out at that very moment." One woman said, "Why do they have to have the
lights so bright?"
It's my slant that nudity within a play not dealing, directly or primarily,
*with* nudity, can and does tend to make the audience uncomfortable and that,
sad to say, can play a large part in their missing the true meaning of the
use of the nudity. (Not trying to impose that rationale on you at all,
ghoti.)
So, I must agree that the nudity does work in Equus and to have the actors
clothed, no matter how talented they are (which goes without saying for
Hulce), to achieve that *sense* of vulnerbility without being nude would
simply not work.
ps: I'm curious, ghoti, since Equus played in NYC & Los Angeles in the
mid-70s, may I ask how old (about) you were at the time you saw it? Age
might be a factor ... I stress *might* ... in your opinion even though
time usually changes our views; but not always.
:-) Thanks for letting me (like I asked first <g>) butt in! This
really is one of the best posts to Dejnews I've read in ages!!
==================
In article <redherring-02...@dial-up053.infohouse.com>,
redhe...@tuna.net (ghoti) wrote:
> In article <372B22...@bigpond.com.fenork>, n...@home.now wrote:
>
> >The wire-frame heads and the arena style setting (merely the original
> >designer's concept, and therefore optional, but still - for some reason
> >- rigidly adhered to) are theatrical devices. So too is the nudity. You
> >mention emotional nakedness. What better physical - theatrical -
> >representation of emotional nakedness can there be than physical
> >nakedness?
>
> I have seen many fully-clothed performers achieve emotional nakedness to a
> greater degree than nude performers. Emotional nakedness is a thing in
> itself, and does not require physical nakedness to represent it. Physical
> nakedness in Equus is as much a theatrical device as the wire heads of the
> horses, and IMO a much less effective one. Physical nakedness is a crutch
> for the actor (or more likely the director) and a sop to the least
> imaginative members of the audience.
>
> >As a device, nudity can be enormously effective, and Shaffer knows this.
> >In this scene, we see nudity that represents vulnerability and sexuality
> >within moments of each other.
>
> I would prefer the actors to be vulnerable and sexual rather than having
> them rely on the cheap device of stripping off to eliminate the need for
> them to reach that level of emotional engagement.
>
> I find that the sudden switch from abstract representation to literalism
> is distracting and takes me out of the play, rather than bringing me in. I
> saw the play on Broadway twice, once with Anthony Hopkins and Peter Firth,
> and once with Richard Burton and Tom Hulce (I sat on stage for that one),
> and both times I found the sudden change in production style to be a
> nuisance. It completely interrupted my involvement in the emotional
> through-line of the play and jolted me back into awareness of the
> mechanics of presenting it. Not what Shaffer had in mind, I'm sure.
>
> >It is my opinion that EQUUS cannot work at all if the nude scene is not
> >played to the fullest level of intensity.
>
> That goes without saying.
>
> >Spurious justifications from
> >insecure or 'moral' actors wishing to avoid the exposure can never be
> >allowed to interfere with the task of presenting the play to its fullest
> >level of intensity. Full-frontal nudity is essential to achieve this,
> >IMO.
>
> IMO literal nudity is not necessary to achieving the full emotional impact
> of the scene. Since I have never been considered for a role in Equus, my
> opinion is not based on a personal desire to avoid literal exposure in the
> play, on grounds of insecurity, "morality," or anything else. (And, if I
> had been engaged to appear in Equus, I would have had no problem
> fulfilling my contractual obligations, I assure you.) My considered
> opinion is based on a lifetime in the theatre as both audience and
> participant, and my own aesthetic. I can imagine that there might be a few
> plays in which I would consider literal nudity essential, but Equus, a
> play designed in every other respect for non-literal production values, is
> not among them.
>
> ghoti
> <redhe...@tuna.net>
> <:)))>><(
>
--
Please visit:
"The Tom Hulce Ultimate Webpage!"
http://www.geocities.com/~tomhulce
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ghoti
>Actually, the nude scene is very "non-literal" as it *represents* the
>vulnerbility of the characters. As a representation it is, therefore, the
>same as the wire-headed horses played by men. If the nudity was to solely
>display sex or a sexual instance, then it would be literal and not fit into
>Shaffer's scheme of things.
This is a matter of opinion, and mine differs from yours. I think the
nudity is an unnecessary "literalization" of the vulnerability of the
characters; unnecessary because any actor worthy of the name can convey
vulnerability while dressed; unnecessary because the vulnerability of the
character is implicit in the writing of the play and therefore does not
need to be made explicit. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I do
insist that my point of view is as valid as yours or anyone else's in a
discussion of theatrical aesthetics.
I saw Equus shortly after it opened, with Anthony Hopkins and Peter Firth,
and again, later, with Richard Burton and Tom Hulce. In the first
performance that I saw, Peter Firth was utterly, devastatingly convincing
as the boy. I believe he would have been just as convincing had he kept
his clothes on, or removed only some of them. The pivotal moment of the
play was fully realized, despite the annoying distraction of his nudity.
In the second performance, Tom Hulce was flat, unconnected, and completely
unengaging as the boy. The pivotal moment was forced and unbelievable, and
was certainly not helped or improved by Hulce's nudity. Richard Burton, on
the other hand, fully clothed in a suit and tie, was completely vulnerable
and "naked."
(Since you are a fan of Mr. Hulce's, allow me to stress that my opinion of
his performance is just that, an opinion, and I don't insist that you
share it! Moreover, I'm perfectly prepared to accept the possibility that
I caught him on a rare "off" day. However, all I have to go by is what I
saw, and what I saw was singularly unimpressive. I have liked his work
better in some of his later roles.)
>It's funny, too, how all the people that I've met, read about or talked to
>that have seen the play (with Tom Hulce and Tony Perkins) that objected to
>the use of nudity were audience members.
Which supports my point that the nudity does not work, or at least that it
does not work for everyone. Theatre is done for the audience, not for the
actors. If a theatrical device or design or acting choice puts off a
significant number of audience members, it is practical and IMO wise to
question the validity or usefulness of that device, design, or choice.
Ultimately you may decide to trust your own artistic instincts and stick
with your choice, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't question it
seriously.
>Tom, himself, recalled that the
>scene felt "totally natural" and was not a problem to play at all.
I'd expect that of a professional actor who accepted the engagement. But
how he felt about his own nudity is not especially relevant to its
usefulness as a factor in storytelling.
>He also recalled that he noticed, in just about every
>performance, that when this scene was on many audience members "suddendly
>realized something they had left in their purse or pocket that they had to
>get out at that very moment." One woman said, "Why do they have to have the
>lights so bright?"
So he admits that he _lost_ many members of the audience when he took off
his clothes. They ceased to be engaged in the story. So how was his nudity
_helping_ the production? How was it helping get the story across? How
necessary could it be when it was destroying the audience's absorption in
the play?
>It's my slant that nudity within a play not dealing, directly or primarily,
>*with* nudity, can and does tend to make the audience uncomfortable and that,
>sad to say, can play a large part in their missing the true meaning of the
>use of the nudity. (Not trying to impose that rationale on you at all,
>ghoti.)
I agree with you so far. (And I appreciate your disclaimer.) I assure you
that I did not miss the point of the play, but that I did resent the
distraction forced on me by what I considered then and now a wholly
unnecessary and counterproductive staging choice.
>So, I must agree that the nudity does work in Equus and to have the actors
>clothed, no matter how talented they are (which goes without saying for
>Hulce), to achieve that *sense* of vulnerbility without being nude would
>simply not work.
Here I part company with you and wonder how you arrive at your conclusion.
If the audience is made uncomfortable and withdraws from the play due to
an actor's nudity, surely it would not only work but be preferable to cast
an actor who could convey the necessary vulnerability while clothed, and
to stage the play accordingly. The scene is, as the other poster pointed
out in somewhat different terms, not about nudity, but about the boy's
devastating failure to achieve intimacy. There are many ways in which that
can be conveyed. Nudity is only one possible choice, and it seems to have
failed miserably with quite a lot of people, judging not only from my own
experience and observations, but also from what you report of Mr. Hulce's
observations.
>ps: I'm curious, ghoti, since Equus played in NYC & Los Angeles in the
>mid-70s, may I ask how old (about) you were at the time you saw it? Age
>might be a factor ... I stress *might* ... in your opinion even though
>time usually changes our views; but not always.
I was in my teens on both occasions. However, I represent the
third-generation of my family in show business, had been attending
Broadway and other New York theatre regularly since I was three (I saw
about 80 shows in the 1974-75 season, for example), worked in a children's
repertory company in my early teens, and in my mid-teens began
apprenticing/interning with professional New York and regional theatre
companies. (I also produced and directed a play at my high school for
elective credit one year when there was no theatre department and I'd
completed my English credit requirements.) So not only my age but my
experience and background are relevant factors in the development of my
opinion on this subject in particular and my theatrical aesthetic
generally. (Come to think of it, experience and background would be
factors for anyone, but you get the idea, I hope.) FWIW, I saw Hair during
the same era (maybe a bit earlier?). The nudity in that show was neglible
and IMO quaintly dated by the time I saw the play near the end of its
Broadway run.
The nudity in Oh! Calcutta!, which I saw a few years later (I had a friend
in the cast) was IMO entirely appropriate, but the show was nowhere near
as clever and amusing as it strove to be. It aimed for sophistication and
shock value, but mostly seemed tired and sad and depressing--like a little
kid who has just discovered his pee-pee and makes a nuisance of himself
showing it off to grown-ups who have long ago discovered pee-pees and
developed a sensible perspective on the subject.
I don't think that was the kind of shock that Shaffer and his director
were aiming for, though I'm sure the producers were just as happy to
collect box office receipts from folks who attended hoping for titillation
as from folks who attended for other reasons. I'm not anti-nudity at all
costs, let alone anti-sex. I thought that I made my reasons for finding
the nudity in Equus unnecessary (not offensive, just not wholly or
universally useful) clear in my earlier post. I think that vulnerability
can be conveyed without literal visual cues such as nudity; I think that
when nudity takes a large segment of the audience's attention away from
the story just when they should be most gripped by it, it is an unwise
choice--an inefficient method of achieving the storytelling goal, and
inelegant to boot.
Interestingly enough, while Shaffer originally insisted the nudity was
essential, and made its use a condition of granting production rights, in
latter years, this restriction has been lifted. (I mentioned this in an
earlier post). So it would appear that the playwright has come around to
my point of view, at least as regards necessity.
>:-) Thanks for letting me (like I asked first <g>) butt in! This
>really is one of the best posts to Dejnews I've read in ages!!
Usenet is for everyone. It wasn't a private conversation. Thanks for
helping to restore some civility to the debate. I'm happy to agree to
disagree with you.
Cheers,
ghoti
<redhe...@tuna.net>
<:)))>><(
sarah thiboutot
redhe...@tuna.net (ghoti) wrote:
Why is making the audience uncomfortable bad? There are a lot of things
the average audience member is ignorant about and is made uncomfortable
by. If part of the purpose of theatre is to teach the audience something,
isn't it GOOD to make them squirm????
ghoti
sar...@mindspring.com (sarah thiboutot) wrote:
>Why is making the audience uncomfortable bad? There are a lot of things
>the average audience member is ignorant about and is made uncomfortable
>by. If part of the purpose of theatre is to teach the audience something,
>isn't it GOOD to make them squirm????
It depends on what is making them squirm. If the audience is disturbed by
Alan's plight and/or the blinding of the horses, or his doctor's reaction
to this, that is arguably a very good thing indeed. But if the audience is
disturbed by an actor's nudity to the point where it loses the thread of
the story and is more interested in watching the actor's penis (or trying
not to watch the actor's penis) than it is in Alan's story, what he does
to the horses, what happens next, how that affects the doctor, and so on,
then it is, IMO, a bad thing.
My contention is that the play is in itself moving and disturbing for any
number of right reasons, but that including nudity in its production is
too often disturbing and upsetting for the wrong reason--it distracts too
many members of the audience from the play itself. Production values and
staging choices that take an audience out of the play instead of bringing
them into it and keeping them there are in my opinion generally not a good
thing. There are exceptions, of course: Brecht's theatre, so far as I
understand it (there are others on this list that know very much more
about Brecht than I do), was intended to be experienced at some
intellectual distance, and his audience was not expected to lose itself in
his stories, but to appreciate his form _in_the_moment_ as much as his
content. Shaffer, however, is not a writer in this school, or at least I
have never thought of him that way.
In case I have not made my position clear, I do not think that the use of
nudity in Equus is necessarily wrong. My point is that it is not
necessarily right, and moreover that there is plenty of justification for
considering it counterproductive, and not the best, most efficient, most
elegant way of telling that part of the story--and most certainly not the
only valid way to tell it. I believe that if the original production had
not included nudity, nobody would miss it or even have considered using it
in subsequent productions, let alone thought it was necessary. The play
is, IMO, strong enough to stand on its own without resorting to that
particular staging device.
ghoti
<redhe...@tuna.net>
<:)))>><(
Calvin MacLean
>In article <sarah_t-0605...@user-2ive117.dialup.mindspring.com>,
>sar...@mindspring.com (sarah thiboutot) wrote:
>>Why is making the audience uncomfortable bad? There are a lot of things
>>the average audience member is ignorant about and is made uncomfortable
>>by. If part of the purpose of theatre is to teach the audience something,
>>isn't it GOOD to make them squirm????
>It depends on what is making them squirm. If the audience is disturbed by
>Alan's plight and/or the blinding of the horses, or his doctor's reaction
>to this, that is arguably a very good thing indeed. But if the audience is
>disturbed by an actor's nudity
<pardon the snip>
....maybe a poor choice of words...
Sarah makes a good point, I think.
I remember the moment vividly after twenty some years: Jill was
unashamed by her nudity, Alan very ashamed by his. I felt then, still
do, that we were meant to experience his discomfort and guilt. It was
very clinical, despite being sexually charged. And it made me sit
quite still. But I was fully absorbed. In 1975 (or whenever) it
seemed to me that everyone was very absorbed....but embarrassed,
shocked, lots of different reactions. My mother (who was with me and
had very strong opinions at the time on the subject of "Nudity in the
Theatre") was crying....she was very moved.
It seems to me that your opinion, however valid, does not explain
either the moment in "Equus" or the audiences reaction to it with any
real reliability. A certain percentage of any audience, then and now,
will be offended, embarrassed, or otherwise propelled from the play by
the nudity.....a certain other percentage will not be. Whose
experience matters? Or is more "correct"? At what percentage of
"disturbed" people to "absorbed" people in the audience can it be said
that the moment is a failure? More than half? Less? If only 10% of
the audience is "absorbed" but the house sells out every night (as
"Equus" did in the 70's) is the nudity an aesthetic failure?
My mother thought the nudity was unnecessary and wrong before she saw
the play....after, when I asked her about it, she said it was
"beautiful." That's good enough, I think.
My point: "Equus" was written for a specific cultural time and place.
As you probably already know (I do not wish to seem patronizing, as I
respect your view), it took advantage of the experiments of the 60's
and brought it to a middle class theatre. Made a bunch of money.
(And IMO some rather overwrought points about who was more pitiable,
the boy or the doctor.) It seems to me that suggesting that Schaffer
proves your point by releasing his restrictions on the "nudity" is
questionable. It is a different time and place. And the moment hits
us differently today -- to me it seems rather quaint and I notice how
much it appropriated Schechner and others. Maybe Schaffer thinks so
too.
So the nudity doesn't work for you...ok. It certainly did for me in
the 70's, although I might agree with you now (at least in the case of
"Equus"). But I don't think that's the fault of the nudity itself,
nor do I think that "nudity on stage" creates in an audience some sort
of a priori response.
Now....to do the nude scene in "Equus" in a high school?? I can
imagine that creating quite a stir.....maybe inappropriate....maybe
highly absorbing. Depends on the character of the audience, and the
production.
NeilActs
was controversy about the nudity involved. Apparently, however, the issue was
resolved in this way: there is nothing implicit in the script that requires
ACTUAL nudity. Since the scene occured during one of the "regression
therapies" -- a flashback in Alan's mind -- and everything else in the scene is
mimed, the actors mimed taking their clothes off as well.
The choice in the original production to actually strip nude was the director's
choice -- but not the only choice. The scene worked just as well with the
mimed action, since the scene is NOT about Alan's shame over his nudity, but
his inability to perform sexually. Indeed, Alan should NOT be ashamed of his
nudity -- he feels quite comfortable, even exhilirated, when he strips naked to
ride the horse at the end of Act One.
bantr...@my-dejanews.com
Dejnews in ages! Now on to my reply:
In article <redherring-06...@dial-up044.infohouse.com>,
redhe...@tuna.net (ghoti) wrote:
> In article <7giset$pvl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bantr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Actually, the nude scene is very "non-literal" as it *represents* the
> >vulnerbility of the characters. As a representation it is, therefore, the
> >same as the wire-headed horses played by men. If the nudity was to solely
> >display sex or a sexual instance, then it would be literal and not fit into
> >Shaffer's scheme of things.
>
> This is a matter of opinion, and mine differs from yours. I think the
> nudity is an unnecessary "literalization" of the vulnerability of the
> characters; unnecessary because any actor worthy of the name can convey
> vulnerability while dressed; unnecessary because the vulnerability of the
> character is implicit in the writing of the play and therefore does not
> need to be made explicit. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I do
> insist that my point of view is as valid as yours or anyone else's in a
> discussion of theatrical aesthetics.
:::Yes, I agree we have different opinions here. But I cannot say that by
the use of nudity the actors are instantly unworthy of conveying the
vulnerbility simply because the director chooses to have them disrobe. I
think that is selling the actor short. Since neither Tom Hulce or Peter
Firth had the oppty to play the role clothed we will never know how well they
would have conveyed that vulnerbility. But I am at a standstill trying to
reason on your reasoning as to how a non-literal use of nudity can be seen as
a literal use. The nudity did not represent actual physical nakedness so, to
me, it sounds like a loop in the logic (not loop hole, a loop as in
backtracking).
>
> I saw Equus shortly after it opened, with Anthony Hopkins and Peter Firth,
> and again, later, with Richard Burton and Tom Hulce. In the first
> performance that I saw, Peter Firth was utterly, devastatingly convincing
> as the boy. I believe he would have been just as convincing had he kept
> his clothes on, or removed only some of them. The pivotal moment of the
> play was fully realized, despite the annoying distraction of his nudity.
> In the second performance, Tom Hulce was flat, unconnected, and completely
> unengaging as the boy. The pivotal moment was forced and unbelievable, and
> was certainly not helped or improved by Hulce's nudity. Richard Burton, on
> the other hand, fully clothed in a suit and tie, was completely vulnerable
> and "naked."
>
> (Since you are a fan of Mr. Hulce's, allow me to stress that my opinion of
> his performance is just that, an opinion, and I don't insist that you
> share it! Moreover, I'm perfectly prepared to accept the possibility that
> I caught him on a rare "off" day. However, all I have to go by is what I
> saw, and what I saw was singularly unimpressive. I have liked his work
> better in some of his later roles.)
>
:::Perhaps you got Tom in an *off-night*, can't say. But I've spoken to many
who saw his performances and all recall him as quite unforgetable. But
that's also a matter of opinion and one that I won't say anyone can't have.
I am not an admirer that feels the world must embrace Tom Hulce as the
greatest actor of all time. That would be an unfair demand. (All though, I
must admit, I wish it were so.)
> >It's funny, too, how all the people that I've met, read about or talked to
> >that have seen the play (with Tom Hulce and Tony Perkins) that objected to
> >the use of nudity were audience members.
>
> Which supports my point that the nudity does not work, or at least that it
> does not work for everyone. Theatre is done for the audience, not for the
> actors. If a theatrical device or design or acting choice puts off a
> significant number of audience members, it is practical and IMO wise to
> question the validity or usefulness of that device, design, or choice.
> Ultimately you may decide to trust your own artistic instincts and stick
> with your choice, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't question it
> seriously.
>
:::I see that I really didn't elaborate enough when I first posted this
comment. I feel that the fact that the audience felt uncomfortable with the
nudity really doesn't mean the director (or actors) made a wrong call. It
could easily be attributed to the *times* or the audiences not being prepared
for the nudity when, as I mentioned, it was not nudity for the sake of
nudity. And I wonder how many even knew that it would be in the play. Most
I've talked to that had no theatrical background didn't know the scene was in
the play and were caught off gaurd. This, tho, can happen with other things
besides naked people. And I don't think that being caught off gaurd and thus
being uncomfortable with that makes it a bad call either. New things need to
be tried out and they must be tried out on the audience. While many may not
like a thing tried out on them, that can't (IMO) always mean it was a bad
thing.
> >Tom, himself, recalled that the
> >scene felt "totally natural" and was not a problem to play at all.
>
> I'd expect that of a professional actor who accepted the engagement. But
> how he felt about his own nudity is not especially relevant to its
> usefulness as a factor in storytelling.
>
:::This is true. But as a professional actor who commented on it after-the-
fact, I can feel that he was speaking from the whole experience as well as
his own personal involvement. My slant, anyway.
> >He also recalled that he noticed, in just about every
> >performance, that when this scene was on many audience members "suddendly
> >realized something they had left in their purse or pocket that they had to
> >get out at that very moment." One woman said, "Why do they have to have the
> >lights so bright?"
>
> So he admits that he _lost_ many members of the audience when he took off
> his clothes. They ceased to be engaged in the story. So how was his nudity
> _helping_ the production? How was it helping get the story across? How
> necessary could it be when it was destroying the audience's absorption in
> the play?
>
:::Admitting that audience members were uncomfortable is, again, not truly an
admission that the decison was wrong. Just an observance of the audience.
To admit otherwise would have been denial. Just because some audience
members were uncomfortable does not mean that the *non-literal* use of nudity
was wrong, just missed by these audience members. Again, I feel the times
may have played a great deal into this uncomfortablness. Most, I'd wager,
didn't have the exposure that you or I had to theater and a full
understanding of what *can* happen unexpectedly.
> >It's my slant that nudity within a play not dealing, directly or primarily,
> >*with* nudity, can and does tend to make the audience uncomfortable and that,
> >sad to say, can play a large part in their missing the true meaning of the
> >use of the nudity. (Not trying to impose that rationale on you at all,
> >ghoti.)
>
> I agree with you so far. (And I appreciate your disclaimer.) I assure you
> that I did not miss the point of the play, but that I did resent the
> distraction forced on me by what I considered then and now a wholly
> unnecessary and counterproductive staging choice.
>
> >So, I must agree that the nudity does work in Equus and to have the actors
> >clothed, no matter how talented they are (which goes without saying for
> >Hulce), to achieve that *sense* of vulnerbility without being nude would
> >simply not work.
>
> Here I part company with you and wonder how you arrive at your conclusion.
> If the audience is made uncomfortable and withdraws from the play due to
> an actor's nudity, surely it would not only work but be preferable to cast
> an actor who could convey the necessary vulnerability while clothed, and
> to stage the play accordingly. The scene is, as the other poster pointed
> out in somewhat different terms, not about nudity, but about the boy's
> devastating failure to achieve intimacy. There are many ways in which that
> can be conveyed. Nudity is only one possible choice, and it seems to have
> failed miserably with quite a lot of people, judging not only from my own
> experience and observations, but also from what you report of Mr. Hulce's
> observations.
>
:::I come to this conclusion because whether or not some audience members were
uncomfortable with the nudity or not does not, to me (or I'd guess Shaffer),
delete the symbolisim of what the nudity stood for and does not mean that the
actors were not capable of doing the same job or better had they been clothed.
I feel the nudity works because I think it is a beautiful way to express the
vulnerbility of man and express how exposed we are with nothing to *hide
behind.*
> >ps: I'm curious, ghoti, since Equus played in NYC & Los Angeles in the
> >mid-70s, may I ask how old (about) you were at the time you saw it? Age
> >might be a factor ... I stress *might* ... in your opinion even though
> >time usually changes our views; but not always.
>
> I was in my teens on both occasions. However, I represent the
> third-generation of my family in show business, had been attending
> Broadway and other New York theatre regularly since I was three (I saw
> about 80 shows in the 1974-75 season, for example), worked in a children's
> repertory company in my early teens, and in my mid-teens began
> apprenticing/interning with professional New York and regional theatre
> companies. (I also produced and directed a play at my high school for
> elective credit one year when there was no theatre department and I'd
> completed my English credit requirements.) So not only my age but my
> experience and background are relevant factors in the development of my
> opinion on this subject in particular and my theatrical aesthetic
> generally. (Come to think of it, experience and background would be
> factors for anyone, but you get the idea, I hope.) FWIW, I saw Hair during
> the same era (maybe a bit earlier?). The nudity in that show was neglible
> and IMO quaintly dated by the time I saw the play near the end of its
> Broadway run.
>
:::I took a guess that you were about that age. I cannot and will not impose
that your *teenage views* have not changed and that you have clung to the
feelings you had from those years. But the ppl I've spoken with that saw it
as young people vs those that saw it as adults (with one exception that comes
to my mind) had the difference of opinion that you and I have. I spoke
with a woman just a few weeks ago (when in NYC) that had seen it as a teen
(actually sat in the bleachers on stage) and she has, still, a very teenage
memory of it ... finds it hard to recall the nude scene without giggling. But
also admitted, she thinks, that had she seen it at her age now she would have
viewed it differently. At least that's her perspective of her own mind.
> The nudity in Oh! Calcutta!, which I saw a few years later (I had a friend
> in the cast) was IMO entirely appropriate, but the show was nowhere near
> as clever and amusing as it strove to be. It aimed for sophistication and
> shock value, but mostly seemed tired and sad and depressing--like a little
> kid who has just discovered his pee-pee and makes a nuisance of himself
> showing it off to grown-ups who have long ago discovered pee-pees and
> developed a sensible perspective on the subject.
>
> I don't think that was the kind of shock that Shaffer and his director
> were aiming for, though I'm sure the producers were just as happy to
> collect box office receipts from folks who attended hoping for titillation
> as from folks who attended for other reasons. I'm not anti-nudity at all
> costs, let alone anti-sex. I thought that I made my reasons for finding
> the nudity in Equus unnecessary (not offensive, just not wholly or
> universally useful) clear in my earlier post. I think that vulnerability
> can be conveyed without literal visual cues such as nudity; I think that
> when nudity takes a large segment of the audience's attention away from
> the story just when they should be most gripped by it, it is an unwise
> choice--an inefficient method of achieving the storytelling goal, and
> inelegant to boot.
>
:::I have no clue as to what shock Shaffer or the director were going for ...
or if they were even going for a shock at all. But I find it hard to
believe that they were hoping for any kind of titillation or there would have
been more of it in the play. I simply think they were striving for what was,
simply, a open expression of vulnerbility. And, again, I feel they achieved
it. To go deeper ... (and this thought just occured to me) the vulnerbility
of the naked characters actually caused those (fully dressed in the audience)
to realize that vulnerbility. *They* felt unclothed, so to speak. Hmmm ...
now wouldn't it be interesting if *that* was their goal? <g>
> Interestingly enough, while Shaffer originally insisted the nudity was
> essential, and made its use a condition of granting production rights, in
> latter years, this restriction has been lifted. (I mentioned this in an
> earlier post). So it would appear that the playwright has come around to
> my point of view, at least as regards necessity.
>
:::This too may be attributed to the times and "the times are a changin'"
A good writer, director or actor recognizes that change is good. To present
something *anew* is a good thing. A fresh approach shows they are not
stagnant and still trying to find new ways to say what they want to say. I
don't feel this is an admittion to having made an error but, simply, a try at
a new approach.
> >:-) Thanks for letting me (like I asked first <g>) butt in! This
> >really is one of the best posts to Dejnews I've read in ages!!
>
> Usenet is for everyone. It wasn't a private conversation. Thanks for
> helping to restore some civility to the debate. I'm happy to agree to
> disagree with you.
:::The same here. And thank you for the spice that the internet so sadly is
often lacking!
:-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> ghoti
> <redhe...@tuna.net>
> <:)))>><(
>
--
Calvin MacLean
>When I was in college, the Theatre Dept. mounted EQUUS. I recall that there
>was controversy about the nudity involved. Apparently, however, the issue was
>resolved in this way: there is nothing implicit in the script that requires
>ACTUAL nudity. Since the scene occured during one of the "regression
>therapies" -- a flashback in Alan's mind -- and everything else in the scene is
>mimed, the actors mimed taking their clothes off as well.
...sounds like a successful choice....
>The choice in the original production to actually strip nude was the director's
>choice -- but not the only choice. The scene worked just as well with the
>mimed action, since the scene is NOT about Alan's shame over his nudity, but
>his inability to perform sexually. Indeed, Alan should NOT be ashamed of his
>nudity -- he feels quite comfortable, even exhilirated, when he strips naked to
>ride the horse at the end of Act One.
Context is everything. He certainly seemed ashamed to be naked with
Jill to me. And not ashamed during his ride (when his nakedness
seemed both beautiful and natural -- despite the apparent
psychopathology of the context.) But hairs are being split....as you
say, the scene is during a regression therapy, and Alan relates his
shame of his experience with Jill. For me, the nudity (and their
contrasting feelings about it) added to the impact and clarity of
Alan's shame.
I'm curious: did the college production then mime the nudity with the
horse (what's his name? Nugget?) Or did Alan strip off his clothes?
Perhaps we have different responses to what the scene with Jill is and
is not about because of these staging choices.
ghoti
>:::[...] I cannot say that by
>the use of nudity the actors are instantly unworthy of conveying the
>vulnerbility simply because the director chooses to have them disrobe. I
>think that is selling the actor short. Since neither Tom Hulce or Peter
>Firth had the oppty to play the role clothed we will never know how well they
>would have conveyed that vulnerbility.
I think making an actor take his clothes off to convey vulnerability is
selling the actor short. An actor can be vulnerable under any
circumstances and in any costume or he isn't an actor. I'm not a big fan
of Tom Hulce, but I've seen enough of his work to know that he is a solid
professional actor, and his full range of emotions is accessible to him.
Same for Peter Firth. Neither of them needs to take off their clothes to
convey vulnerability.
>But I am at a standstill trying to
>reason on your reasoning as to how a non-literal use of nudity can be seen as
>a literal use. The nudity did not represent actual physical nakedness so, to
>me, it sounds like a loop in the logic (not loop hole, a loop as in
>backtracking).
Of course the nudity literally represented physical nakedness. If
emotional nakedness was all that was required, the actors would not have
been told to disrobe. They simply would have acted "naked." And since wire
heads represented horses, and benches represented stables and a doctor's
office, the logical choice would have been to have the actors mime
disrobing and act as though they were physically naked, rather than
suddenly switching from abstract representation to literal representation.
What the Broadway production did was to establish a specific design and
staging convention, and then break its own rules. It was this
inconsistency I found annoying and distracting. It interferes with
suspension of disbelief, and distracts one from the action of the play.
>:::I see that I really didn't elaborate enough when I first posted this
>comment. I feel that the fact that the audience felt uncomfortable with the
>nudity really doesn't mean the director (or actors) made a wrong call. It
>could easily be attributed to the *times* or the audiences not being prepared
>for the nudity when, as I mentioned, it was not nudity for the sake of
>nudity.
But it WAS nudity for the sake of nudity! There is nothing in the script
that requires literal disrobing--unless you do an old fashioned literal
set with numerous scene changes, and have real horses on the stage instead
of actors in abstract horse costumes, too.
>And I wonder how many even knew that it would be in the play.
Anyone who read the reviews or listened to word of mouth, I should think.
I certainly knew about beforehand.
>Most
>I've talked to that had no theatrical background didn't know the scene was in
>the play and were caught off gaurd. This, tho, can happen with other things
>besides naked people. And I don't think that being caught off gaurd and thus
>being uncomfortable with that makes it a bad call either. New things need to
>be tried out and they must be tried out on the audience. While many may not
>like a thing tried out on them, that can't (IMO) always mean it was a bad
>thing.
If people stopped paying attention to the play and instead concentrated on
their own discomfort so that they lost the thread of the story, how good
can that be? Was the woman who asked why the lights had to be so bright
interested in what was happening to Alan? Did she care at that moment what
was going to happen next in the story of Equus?
>Again, I feel the times
>may have played a great deal into this uncomfortablness.
This of course explains the plethora of reviews this year that ignored
Nicole Kidman's nudity in Blue Room, and the total concentration on every
other aspect of her performance. The times have changed so much that
nobody even noticed she took her clothes off!
>:::I come to this conclusion because whether or not some audience members were
>uncomfortable with the nudity or not does not, to me (or I'd guess Shaffer),
>delete the symbolisim of what the nudity stood for and does not mean that the
>actors were not capable of doing the same job or better had they been clothed.
>I feel the nudity works because I think it is a beautiful way to express the
>vulnerbility of man and express how exposed we are with nothing to *hide
>behind.*
Well, I didn't think it was all that lyrical. I thought the actors took
their clothes off because the director and playwright didn't have the
courage of their convictions as far as non-literal staging was concerned;
also that they displayed a critical lack of trust in the play's ability to
convey its own meaning and the audience's ability to understand that the
characters were naked if the actors weren't naked.
>:::I took a guess that you were about that age. I cannot and will not impose
>that your *teenage views* have not changed and that you have clung to the
>feelings you had from those years. [...] I spoke
>with a woman just a few weeks ago (when in NYC) that had seen it as a teen
>(actually sat in the bleachers on stage) and she has, still, a very teenage
>memory of it ... finds it hard to recall the nude scene without giggling. But
>also admitted, she thinks, that had she seen it at her age now she would have
>viewed it differently. At least that's her perspective of her own mind.
Please do not confuse me with your immature friend. She sounds like an
idiot. And kindly do not condescend to me because you have some idea of
what teenagers are like and imagine that it applies to me. Did I say the
nudity made me uncomfortable? Did I say I giggled? Or did I point out that
I was working in professional theatre at the time, had seen nudity on
stage before and not been shocked by it, and that I had serious problems
with the use of physical nudity in Equus because it was inconsistent with
the rest of the staging and design choices and therefore a distraction? I
sat in the front row of the first mezzanine to see Hopkins and Firth; I
wasn't shocked by Firth's nudity, I was annoyed by an illogical staging
choice that interfered with the aesthetic world set up by the rest of the
staging and design choices. It took me out of the play because I was
wondering why they had suddenly switched gears so completely.
I was hardly likely to be shocked by the fully expected nudity when I sat
in the bleachers to see Burton and Hulce, but I was no less annoyed by the
sudden change in aesthetic approach. As it happens, Burton, fully clothed,
wiped the stage with Hulce, who was flat when he wasn't overacting. Taking
his clothes off didn't make him any more compelling or his performance any
better. He was nothing compared to Firth, who was electric on stage at
every moment, clothed or not.
I don't object to nudity on stage when it makes sense. I do object to it
when it doesn't make sense. I object to any aesthetic choice or result
that doesn't make sense, such as anachronistic costumes and set pieces, or
actors speaking with the wrong accent or doing an accent badly. Literal
nudity didn't make sense to me in the Broadway production of Equus because
it violated the stage convention set up by every other aesthetic
consideration in that production. That it also took a substantial portion
of the audience right out of the play at the very moment when they should
have been most drawn in is another indication to me that the choice to
employ literal nudity in Equus was counter-productive, and certainly not
necessary.
I think it's just as stupid to have actors on film in bedroom scenes
wrapping sheets around themselves or turning their backs on the camera so
that we won't see their naked bodies, when it's obvious that nudity is
appropriate for the time and place being represented on film, which is
ordinarily (granted, not always) a much more literal medium than the
stage. _Then_ I find the use of body covering a distraction and an
annoyance. I'm taken right out of the story and left wondering why they
didn't use a body double, or why the star has problems with his or her
body image to the point of letting it affect his or her performance on
screen.
>>So it would appear that the playwright has come around to
>> my point of view, at least as regards necessity.
>>
>:::This too may be attributed to the times and "the times are a changin'"
>A good writer, director or actor recognizes that change is good. To present
>something *anew* is a good thing. A fresh approach shows they are not
>stagnant and still trying to find new ways to say what they want to say. I
>don't feel this is an admittion to having made an error but, simply, a try at
>a new approach.
I'm not interested in novelty for its own sake. I prefer to see a play
done correctly to a play done in a new manner if the new manner does not
serve the play and its audience. I'm sick to death of directors and
producers indulging themselves at the expense of both. To my mind, change
is good only if the status quo is bad. Otherwise, my motto is "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it."
ghoti
<redhe...@tuna.net>
<:)))>><(
NeilActs
:>I'm curious: did the college production then mime the nudity with the
>horse (what's his name? Nugget?) Or did Alan strip off his clothes?
Yes, the nudity in this sene was mimed again, since the re-enactment ocurs
while Alan is under hypnosis