Drama dilemma

[hazliya]

So, I'm directing elenuial's play Walt and Wilde for New Voices next weekend (you should all definitely come see the festival! elenuial and I are involved in 5 out of 12 plays over the span of 2 hours!) and am having a small crisis.

One scene in particular calls for the actor playing Walt Whitman to be completely naked onstage, as he's drunk and brawling with Oscar Wilde. This is where my decision-making capacities fail me. The actor himself has said that while he's not really behind the necessity of said nudity, he'll go ahead and be fully naked if I tell him it's my creative decision as the director to do so. And elenuial, the playwright, has made it clear that while it's ultimately my call, he strongly prefers the nudity.

I am ambivalent, which is completely unhelpful to everyone involved. I need to make a decision, but I keep waffling and would really like some opinions. Thus, I list the arguments for and against full nudity:

FOR
Historical context ("Whitman's naked again - must be tuesday.")
Playwright's preference
Physical gag (for lack of a better term)

AGAINST
Children under 13 and squeamish adults in the audience
Quick change issues (which can be worked with creatively)
Actor covered in horribly anachronistic tattoos (which aren't really a problem)
Brawling naked may be hazardous to sensitive parts
Brawling naked on a stage unsafe for bare feet is definitely hazardous to bare sensitive parts

There are others, but those are the big ones. Personal safety, preferences, etc..

It's been suggested that he strip down to underwear, which gets him mostly naked and keeps up the drunk mannerisms, but it's been counter-argued that period underwear was long johns. That deflated Plan A, unless we can find other underwear. That's what I'd prefer to do at this point as a kind of compromise.

Something that worries me as well is the fact that when they fight, they knock each other around. A lot. Tackling, slamming onto the floor, etc. And it's a hot, sweaty theatre with splinters on the floor. It usually ends with Whitman landing on his back and/or butt, and I'm worried about the last two "against" points at that part of the show.

Another big thing is that if we do have full frontal nudity, it'll definitely set the tone of the rest of the play and has a shock factor. Also, I've been told that if it does come down to nudity, there are a bunch of people who won't come see the play because of it. Which is disappointing, but understandable. The audience thing is a big reason I'm leaning toward mostly nude rather than total.

And I don't want the audience to be so distracted by "HOLY CRAP NAKED" that they miss the play itself. This happened with another production that involved nudity, and as much as I want to avoid that, there's no way to ensure that the entire audience will be cool about it.

There's also the fact that I really want elenuial to enjoy the play, and the script calls for nudity. His script. Even though the director does make the artistic decisions, I want him to like those decisions.

The worst thing is that this is completely a judgment call. I can't cop out with something like "Oh, I just chickened out" or "Oh, I totally didn't notice he was naked. Was that bad?"

Comments, please.

-H

Comments

[zoupmachine.livejournal.com]

Long Underwear can still be naked recalling, couldn't it? Like....what does long underwear look like?

[zoupmachine.livejournal.com]

And be recalling, I meant reminiscent.

I had another thought. Adam didn't just submit the play and it got in because all the plays got in. What I mean is that the dramaturgs read the play and accepted it with the nudity in it knowing full well (I would hope) that the nudity could very well happen especially considering that nudity has already been done this year here at WPI. They took a chance on the nudity and accepted it. Which means the dramaturgs were okay with the nudity. So that's something to think about. Perhaps talking to your dramaturg could help?

And also, I like the idea of long johns, personally, if I'm imagining them right. Like, skin tight long underwear, right? and you could put rips in them or something.

I mean, to be honest, I don't particularly want to see Dom's chachas (I'm thinking it's dom because of the tattoo reference?). I like my Reid's chachas. Why am I calling them chachas? I don't know!

<3

My $0.02:

[kadath.livejournal.com]

The safety of your actors must take precedence over your artistic discretion.

Re: My $0.02:

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

That's what's really making me want to do the underwear. There's no way they can make the stage or the fight safe.

[dariusk.livejournal.com]

I recommend flesh-colored underwear with a wang drawn on it.

[ultimatepsi.livejournal.com]

I second this, it covers the safety and comfort of the actor while still clearly communicating the original artistic point. Socks or slippers would also be in order, as well as clothed practice brawls.

[dariusk.livejournal.com]

Ultimately, fake genitals are a boon to humankind.

[zoupmachine.livejournal.com]

STRAP ONS!

[jalawingedone.livejournal.com]

Of course, with fakes, you run into the same distraction problem as you had with the nudity, except now it's edgy and funny for a greater percentage of the audience who might have thought it was edgy and vulgar. The simulated route sounds like an OK compromise, but you'd have to very carefully avoid Greek comedy-style exaggeration.

[mneme]

I agree with Darius and Psi on simulated, rather than actual nudity.

Flesh-toned tights would give the impression of nudity without -actually- having the actor risk splinters and scrapes, and without the undesired shock value of actual nudity -- simulated genitals are decidedly optional, at that point.

[hntrpyanfar.livejournal.com]

Well, if Walt isn't Owen-sized, you could put him in panty hose. Which would keep everything tucked in, as it were, and would be less distracting than nudity. (You will probably need to buy him one pair for each performance and one for practicing in.) Even if he IS Owen-sized, there are places to get drag queen hose on the internet. Though Wal-Mart would be MUCH cheaper.

After all, if Richard Simmons could show up in a pantyhose onesie at my grade school to talk about the human body and no one called the cops, Walt should be okay. :)

[notplaid.livejournal.com]

Being well acquainted with WPI stages, I suspect that anything in the general category of pantyhose-type-object would be comically inadequate at preventing WPI-sized splinters. Accordingly, I would encourage the use of shoes. You walk out on stage in nothing but sneakers, you're still naked. Shoes completely don't count. Anyway, my impression is that you'd want at least a light cotton garment if splinter reduction is the goal. That's just something I'd add to the mix of issues for consideration.

[laurion]

Rather than full length long john underdrawers, what about doin the briefs style, more like bicycle shorts. Enough to communicate nudity and perodicity, while shielding and protecting both the actor and the audience.

[hazliya.livejournal.com]

Could you provide me with an example of say, 1850s underwear for men? I'm fuzzy on that.

[laurion]

http://www.pastpatterns.com/006.html

So, as you can see, somewhat like modern 'long johns', but not made out of a thermal 'henley' material (medium-weight cotton being suggested here). The small picture there shows a set of long drawers at ankle length, which are slightly loose around the ankle, and a set of what they call short drawers, which are mid-calf, and fitted. You could easily do something like that, which would have been considered nudity of a form in period, or you can go for something that is even shorter, just above the knee, and is fitted. Modern mens bicycle shorts are the closest equivalent to what I'm trying to describe, but obviously you wouldn't want them with all the lycra and stretch. *grin*