Nudity in Company? — Page 3

With all due respect, a director should be allowed to stage and/or update the scenes any way he/she wants to fit their vision of the production. If it doesn't work, it can always be re-worked later. There is NOTHING wrong with on-stage nudity, gratuitous or integral to the plot. I would be curious what some of the purists on this board would think if a group of posters immediately started bad-mouthing John Doyle's minimalist cut-down interpretation of Sweeney Todd before actually seeing the finished show. I know of many who found the ST revival staging distracting (myself included), but that judgment was based upon viewing the finished production. However, many posters were literally inventing superlatives to heap on the ST revival. Conversely, I thought the more ribald and exuberant staging of the Cabaret revival (which included brief nudity by the emcee) was far more effective than just going with the original staging (which I found lacked edge and energy). Based on that, I would never immediately jump in and start crying foul and that something "couldn't" or "shouldn't" be done in a revival production until you see the finished vision of that specific director. It may well work better than anyone has a right to expect.

"PASSION was different. The opening is one of the most beautiful things I have seen in a musical. It's too bad Marin had to cover up for the filmed version. But it's not like they showed penis and vagina. Maybe a boob here or there in the Bobby and April scene. But I don't need penis and vagina, especially when I'm trying to enjoy a show with my parents."

I might put that in my signature.

I love full frontal nudity (preferably male) and will pay top dollar to see it ANY show! I'm extremely superficial.

---

Updated On: 11/6/06 at 11:03 AM

So let's see pics of these actors in question and we can then judge.

Updated On: 11/6/06 at 11:19 AM

There was some in "Little Dog Laughed" that we swa yesterday. No big deal. Esparza was partially nude for a bit in "The Normal Heart". Was some nudity in Dracula, but it certainly didn't help ticket sales. Don't really see a problem if that's what the director wants.

This is cool with me. COMPANY has always been one of my favorite shows, but around "Barcelona", I do start to get a little restless. Nudity would wake me up, I think.

Yeah, but then, shouldn't he shun costumes altogether? An all-nude production of COMPANY? "Esparza's Bobby is the most vulnerable Bobby yet," the critics could say.

I can't really read your tone. If you're being snarky in that "oh, sure, my opinion doesn't matter!" kind of way, that's totally uncalled for. But if you're at least conceding that having not seen any such scenes to work one way or the other, than thank you for at least admitting that. To know how you feel about something like that, you have to have seen it, I think. And sometimes seeing it can prove that it works -- sometimes. You can have views on nudity all you want, but I really just think you have to have seen it in a theatrical context to contest that it can't work, ever, or that it can't be a really important dramatic tool.

Anyway. Keaton, that occurred to me, too. This is all totally speculative, but in a way, props beyond what is absolutely necessary might be seen as a distraction from what's really important. So... maybe having the actors take off their clothes would be seen in the same regard? There's also symbolism in the fact that they're fully clothed for the entire Bobby/April sequence, but that's a bit of an aside. I just wonder if maybe they *don't* strip down because that's a distraction from things going on that have been deemed most important. So in that sense, a costume-less, all-nude production would be so shocking that would take attention away from the story being told. So rather than assuming that the costumes are treated like props, I'm assuming that their absence might be.

---

Haha, that'll get people into the theater, no?

---

luvtheEmcee, i was not being sarcastic, i was admitting i was wrong:)

I think that the reason why John opted out the nudity is: it would be very hard to play an instrument and take your clothes off on the same time...

I would like to point out that--as someone who has actually had sex--it is usually done naked. I always giggle a little when I see a movie or play where people have supposedly just had sex and they get out of bed wearing underwear--clean underwear at that with no stains (which would be unavoidable if you were actually having sex. The same as in plays or movies where people shower or bathe in underwear (like the recent LaChuisa piece at a theatre in Los Angeles).

I think it is likely the nudity would be distracting to the audience but it could probably be staged in such a way that it wasn't.

Also, in this play there is usually a degree of nudity--whether it's Robert in bed shirtless and presumably naked under the covers and April running around getting dressed.

The reactions to this question were over the top and kind of weird--"pervert"? You don't know what a pervert is.

---

One more statement...

If you're horny. Get some porn, don't go to the theatre to satisfy your needs.