Confessions of a Cranky Critic

housematehorror
Horror stories from the world of shared living spaces. EEK!

In my last post,  I discussed a controversy that was sparked in Chicago earlier this year when the About Face Theatre decided - for whatever reason - to ignore a very specific direction from the playwright  that requires two male actors in a particular scene to be nude. Douglas Carter Beane, the author of "The Little Dog Laughed,"  was none too happy about the change, and the production was nearly shut down because of it.

The question I posed in my last post was theoretical: Was the director within his rights to make the change, given that Beane's stage direction is quite clear on the matter?

Guy Sanville, artistic director of The Purple Rose Theatre Company, posted a very insightful reply - check it out below if you haven't read it - in which he concluded with a very important question: "Do they actually have to be naked, or does the audience have to believe they are?"

So rather than answer with yet another theoretical response, I waited until after I reviewed "The Little Dog Laughed" at Ann Arbor's Performance Network Theatre. And now that I've seen the show, here's my real-world reply:

Yes, they have to be naked in this particular scene - and here's why.

In "Little Dog," Mitchell Green is a closeted, up-and-coming actor who's up for a major role in a new movie in which he'd "play gay." His public persona is that of a handsome, suave and very heterosexual young man - which is what the moviegoing public seems to want in such roles - but what he hides from public view is his taste for male prostitutes. Along comes Alex into his life - a young and adorable hustler who arrives at Mitchell's hotel room expecting nothing more than a night of paid sex. But that doesn't happen; Mitchell is too drunk to stay awake, so Alex collects his fee without having to earn it - and lifts from the sleeping actor's pockets a few extra "goodies" as his tip.

However,  there's a strong attraction between the two from the moment they meet.  And while neither man identifies himself as gay - Alex has a girlfriend and says he works in the field simply to pay his bills - a relationship quickly develops between them.

As written by Beane - and exceptionally well-staged by Ray Schultz and perfectly executed by actors Barton Bund and Jacob Hodgson - the budding relationship is at first sex-free, but the electricity and tension between them builds quickly. Finally, they toss caution to the wind and give in to their passion. 

Now think about it: You're young, you're horny, and you've got a major league case of the hots for someone. The pent-up emotions have been building over the past couple of get-togethers, and when they finally erupt into a physical coupling, do YOU keep your underwear on?

Nope.  I didn't think so.

But that's not all.

Here we have two men who profess to be straight - who are now face-to-face, filled with lust and love for one another. To keep their undies on at such a pivotal, life-changing moment is to cheat the playwright, the actors and the audience out of a very powerful moment when the two strip away not only their clothes, but their pretenses. Their nakedness not only reveals their private parts, but also their willingness to stand before each other and admit to themselves and to one another that they are indeed gay men. Their secrets stand revealed as their shame drops away.

So keeping their underwear on robs them - and us - of the scene's important lesson. Its significance gets lost - which means it then becomes simply about the sex. 

If you were the author whose work was screwed with in this way, wouldn't YOU wage war over it, too?

I would.

dwseason4
A journal where the alternative fourth season of the TV show Doctor Who is being written.

lol_comics
Keep youself smiling at the little things with some funny comics.

bikes
A community for everyone who loves bicycles, motorbikes, and more.

knitted_wedding
Follow one woman's quest to knit an entire vow-renewing wedding. Encouragement is encouraged.

brigits_flame
For writers interested in an ongoing competition that tests your narrative chops.

hollow_art
A longstanding art, icon and base archive centered around RPGs.

As I was doing some research for my preview of The Little Dog Laughed at Performance Network Theatre yesterday, I came across a discussion that merits further exploration. Which means this: I'd like to know what YOU would do if you found yourself in a similar situation.

First, the background:

Earlier this year, the About Face Theatre in Chicago staged the area premiere of The Little Dog Laughed, but director Eric Rosen chose to ignore playwright Douglas Carter Beane's very specific stage direction that the two male characters are to be nude at a certain point in the story. Instead, he had them in their underwear. When Beane attended the opening night performance at the theater's request, he was so upset about what he viewed as a significant altering of his work that he threatened to pull the rights to the show. (Beane also claimed a few lines of dialogue were altered to reflect the lack of nudity, which Rosen neither confirms nor denies.) Dramatists Play Service and attorneys intervened - and the play continued, with the actors still in their undies and a note from the director sent to the media that explains the dust-up.

Each side in the dispute has its own version of the facts, of course - and my goal here is not to take sides in this particular case. Or to debate the facts. Rather, I'd like to have a philosophical debate - one which I'm sure actors, directors and playwrights struggle with all the time, but not in public.

Until now.

Personally, I find it odd that a celebrated LGBT (gay) theater would choose to produce a play that requires male nudity - and then opt to ignore the nudity.

Director Rosen DID have a point, however, when he (supposedly) explained why he chose to have the two men in their underwear rather than naked in the disputed love-making scene: If these two guys were really so in to each other, wouldn't they be sexually aroused (which would, in many places, be against the law to show)? Hence, two flaccid penises would take the audience "out of the moment." Therefore, leaving them in their underwear would allow audience members to visualize for themselves what was happening underneath the BVDs.

But was that within his rights to change - given that Beane's stage direction is quite clear on the matter?

Or, as Barton Bund (who plays one of the two men in the Network production) says in my preview, "Pick another play if you don't want to do (the nudity)."

So: What do YOU think?

* * * * * *

You can read more of the debate by following these links: 

http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/theater/26368/nude-descending-a-copyright-case

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/114892.html

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2008/02/no-new-nudity-a.html

http://www26.learn-japan.org/kk/aHR0cDovL3N0b3JlZnJvbnRyZWJlbGxpb24udHlwZXBhZC5jb20vYmxvZy8yMDA4LzAyL2Fib3V0LWFib3V0LWZhYy5odG1s.html