Religious Actors- Page 2

[firescape]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 6:49pm

First of all I am a follower of Christ. I believe this is important for you to know because Christians are who you need to hear from on this. I am also an actor and to answer your question, I believe that it all depends on what your role requires of you. This shouldnt be an opinionated answer because it doesn't matter about my opinions or anyone elses. If you are a follower of Christ, His is the only opinion you need. The best source for His opinion is obviously the Bible. As far as playing a certain character I would say it would all depend on what you must do as you portray this character. I believe in the power of telling a story. Look at any faith based production be it stage or one of the recent movies. You must have these characters to tell a story. As I said the line is drawn in what you must do. The Bible clearly states to not let any vain, or profain word come from your mouth. There are also other acts such as the "sex scene" that you spoke about. Obviously a secular director will not block or script these things out of a show. You must then make a moral decision as far as what you are willing to compromise.

I guess the real question is.....are you just wanting so badly to use the gifts and talents that God has given you that you are willing to take any role that comes along, or are you just seeking fame and the bright lights of Broadway and are willing to do what ever it takes? The other side is to continue honoring God with your talent and be very picky with what roles require you to do in secular production. Or have fullfillment by being part of a faith based production. Many don't realize that there are many incredibly professional faith based theaters spread throughout the country and they pay well! Ultimately the decision has to be yours. Remember "whether therefore you eat or drink or whatever you do do all to the glory of God."

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 8:37pm

Broadwaygirl, acting isn't about exploring humanity. That's a playwright. Acting is about telling stories as was previously said. Your responsibility is to the playwright and director primarily. It's about fulfilling their vision. Exploring humanity is nice but you always have a guide there with the script and sometimes score. You can't really interpret what you want on top of that.

I don't understand your veiwpoint of religion and acting being oxymoronic. Are all actors supposed to be atheists? Devoid of religion? Most actors I know will wholeheartedly disagree with that. AS a matter of fact theatre started as a religious experience. It was sacred and there were most def things that one did not portray onstage, lest they offend the gods. I personally don't need acting to expand my human experience. That's called living. Art is there to teach perhaps and inform but if something is morally offensive then don't do it. What about minstrel shows and blackface? That was playing in many theatres. That's not exploring the human condition. That's offensive. It's the same reason why every black actor doesn't want to walk around playing slaves and mammies moaning in shackles. There are some stories you simply don't want to tell as an actor. That's a personal choice.

That decision happens long before you're exploring a character or acting in the moment. You have to prioritize. What's more important your acting career or being guided by God. Honestly though, you've got a conscience for a reason. I believe it's God speaking to you. If you have a question about whether a role is good for you just pray about it and ask. I mean that's the reason why Kristin did Charlie Brown instead of Annie Get Your Gun. She let the spirit guide her decision and hence Tony award. Take it on a case by case basis. take it to God and then listen to Him speak.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 8:59pm

"Broadwaygirl, acting isn't about exploring humanity. That's a playwright. Acting is about telling stories as was previously said."

It's not one or the other for the playwright or the actor..both are telling stories, both explore humanity. Different arts, yes, but how often does one act and not explore? I mean, like Meryl Streep says, an actor wonders what it's like to be another person. I guess I don't understand how one could say they only wonder what it's like to be people who don't use profanity, who don't do drugs, who aren't promiscuous, etc. I don't understand the actor who only wonders what it's like to be the moral human being.

"I don't understand your veiwpoint of religion and acting being oxymoronic. Are all actors supposed to be atheists?"

Well, I'm certainly not atheist, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that actors or artists should BE atheists. I suppose the idea of following an existing moral code that's told to us rather than exploring morality and having an ever-growing moral code by exploring various perspectives seems to work in opposition with that. Religion is tradition, and often art attempts to defy that. Would a religious person not do something like See What I Wanna See because it seems to toy with the idea that the truth even exists? Could a religious person commit to that if he/she is holding on so tightly to religion? I guess that's what I don't understand.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 9:12pm

Well like I said, it's about priorities. Personally acting isn't all, God is. So yes,I'm not gonna play certain characters that require things that are against my moral code. I mean let's look at something that's not necessarily a religious thing. Nudity. You don't have to be religious for you not to ever want to play a character who has to be naked. That's a story I choose not to tell. I think you're taking it to the extreme. I don't know too many people who are christian actors who won't play a murderer or a prostitute. So if an actor finds a character who deals drugs or swears offensive, then there's nothing wrong with refusing to play that. Like I said before there's plenty of black actors refusing to play "the humble darkie". People don't seem to have a problem with that. It's the same concept I think. It's a personal choice and it varies from person to person.

Personally, as a christian actor, I'd totally do something like See What I wanna See. it's about truth yes but it's not about defining it, it's about finding it. Whatever your personal truth is (which can and do coincide with absolute truths)

[LostLeander]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 9:23pm

Well, it's hard, because an actor certainly develops an reputation for the parts they've played, and the things they've been in.

And I feel that there is a difference between playing a drug dealer, and playing Joe Shmoe from a Mamet play who does nothing but drop the F-bomb for 2 hours, or being nude onstage.

These are moral things that you have to navigate yourself. I, personally, as a Christian, don't think cursing is a sin (unless of couse you're taking God's name in vain). But I'd like to think I'd draw the line at nudity. I'm not sure I could even play someone like Prior who has that monstrous monologue in Perestroika about the abscense of God. Even though it's one of my favorite plays.

It hits a bit too close to home, and I would feel uncomfortable having to say that nightly.

The character of Satan has been present in plays since the Medieval Period, so playing "evil" characters wouldn't be sinful.

It's a hard road to compass, and you might have to sacrifice, but I believe God always provides.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 9:25pm

"Like I said before there's plenty of black actors refusing to play "the humble darkie". People don't seem to have a problem with that. It's the same concept I think. It's a personal choice and it varies from person to person. "

I don't think that's the same thing at all. When you're talking race, it's an entirely different animal because not taking the role of some sort of black buffoon, I think, would be more about not taking a role that's actually demeaning to an ethnic group and about not promoting a negative stereotype.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 9:29pm

I mean that's the reason why Kristin did Charlie Brown instead of Annie Get Your Gun. She let the spirit guide her decision and hence Tony award.

Does that mean the spirit liked the other nominees less?

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 10:15pm

God, Christ and religion are metaphors about realizing our potentialities as humans, nothing more. Anything else, including all dogma, is pure concrete nonsense and defeats the purpose and nature of religion. If, as an actor, you have a problem representing ALL of human nature in its totality, then you have no business being in this business.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 10:48pm

ah sarcasm. Of course. Well ya know what? This isn't a debate about religions, but more about role selection.

As far as playing roles that would denounce God etc. I don't have a major problem with that. It's not about believing that but it's about connecting to a moment where you can identify with what a character goes through. Every person goes through periods where they feel that maybe God was absent or maybe you've been so angry at someone you've wanted to take action.
Like it or not we ALL have those aspects hidden somewhere in us.

[LostLeander]

Posted: 3/5/07 at 11:18pm

I absolutely agree, Jazzy, but it might be easy for Joe Shmoe audience member to take that as your personal philosophy in a way that's they wouldn't if you were playing a murderer or rapist.

For me, denouncing God would go into the same "unnacceptable for a Christian to do onstage" category as nudity.

There can't be a standard, so it's all in the boundaries you set up for yourself - I think everyone should do that, Christian or not.

[freeadmission]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 2:40am

Here's my newborn term paper on the topic (sans footnotes, lemme know if you want 'em).

Life upon the Wicked Stage: Wading through the Ethical Quagmire of the Entertainment Industry

The modern entertainment industry suffers from a gross lack of excellence. There is no truth in the gritty realism of Sundance, no goodness in the bright lights of Broadway, and no beauty in the plastic films of Hollywood. They have thrown unnecessary blood at us by the bucketful, paraded increasingly obscene sexuality before our eyes, and opened fire on our brains with magazine after magazine of putrid language and filth. In the blessed, holy, and matchless name of Realism, amen.

It is in this festering swampland that God calls Christian actors to express, clarify, and communicate truth, goodness, and beauty through excellence in their craft. But, in our fallen world, truth is seldom beautiful and the presence of evil often serves to illuminate the good. As one writer put it, “Because of the nature of sin, Christians should create characters that are both confused and confusing.” But as we stand on stage, spewing the hate-filled language or displaying the promiscuities that bring our confused characters to life, Jiminy Cricket begins chirping in the back of our minds, worried that we might be taking this acting thing too far. We realize that, at some point, the presence of sin in entertainment ceases to be a means of exhortation and becomes mere exploitation.

The problem comes in finding that point of distinction. After all, “one person’s sense of exploitation may simply illustrate his own prudery, while another person’s tolerance may actually be her own indulgence and besetting sin.” In considering roles that depict sin, Christian actors must humbly look to Scripture as a guide to exercising godly wisdom and discernment.

When Denzel Washington first received the script for Training Day, he sent it back to the director with “The wages of sin is death” scrawled across the cover page because the original screenplay failed to kill off the crooked cop, Alonzo Harris. Washington understood the importance of the director’s intentions – to leave Harris alive would be to exhibit violence for its own sake. In contrast, Scripture presents sin as a matter of fact, an historical narrative. The intentional difference brought about by Harris’s death in the reworked screenplay calls attention to the chasm between narrative sin and the presence of sin for sin’s sake – a difference that Christian actors must resolve before accepting or rejecting a role.

Though sin may be present as a matter of historical fact, it must also be depicted appropriately. Scripture depicts violent, base, and disgraceful acts more as manifestations of our need for redemption than the obsessive focus on gratuitous and exploitative scenes we see in entertainment today. As Brian Godawa puts it: "When David cuts off Goliath’s head, we are not indulged in a slow-motion close-up of the sword piercing the neck and carotid artery spurting blood as the eyes pop and the flesh rips." The Scriptural norm is to avoid such pornographic storytelling. And because we are to imitate Scripture, this means voyeuristic sex scenes, indulgent violence, and purposeless crass language all land their respective scripts in the discard pile.

Sin is sin is sin is sin. Unfortunately, most Hollywood directors have chucked this memo in the name of “exploring morality” and proceed to make any sin a virtue and any virtue a sin. But in God’s story, sin has consequences. David took pride in the size of his kingdom and God smote his people with a plague (2 Sam 24:10-15). Judas betrayed Christ, then took his own life (Matt. 27:3-9). Satan will be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone to be tormented day and night, forever and ever (Rev. 20:10). Celluloid sin depicted without celluloid consequences exchanges the truth of God for a lie. And for the Christian actor who strives for truth in story, this glorification or normalization of sin cannot be tolerated. When there is no king in Israel, everyone will do what is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6).

But what of that sexually promiscuous character? Many sugarless stories involve the reality of loose women, hookers, and whores, showing just enough skin to get the point across. Though watching these stories can be edifying, we must look to the reasons for Biblical modestly in order to decide whether or not the role is appropriate for a Christian actress. Men respond visually to women and they will gawk at immodesty on the stage or screen just as they do immodesty on the street. Since God commands modesty in women (1 Tim 2:9) in order to protect them from attracting the wrong kind of attention, Christians should refrain from immodesty on the stage and let the pagans proudly display their golden snout-rings (Pr. 11:22).

That just leaves us with the troublesome character who constantly insists that God damn various people, places, and things. Let the dialogue be painted in the various and sundry shades of black and blue language, but throw a “God damn it!” or “Jesus Christ!” in the mix and most Christians will battle the onslaught of such blasphemous language with the bravery of Forrest Gump. But unlike immodesty, we cannot equate blasphemy in the mouth of a character with blasphemy in the mouth of the actor. If we did so, we would be forced also to condemn David for quoting blasphemy: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Ps. 14:1) If the fact of the blasphemy is presented as sin with consequences – neither normalized nor glorified – then Christian actors should have no problem speaking it as the character. The sinful actions of characters are not imputed to the actor.

With intent, depiction, context, and the presence of consequences churning in our minds, we can let Scripture inform our decisions to accept or reject roles that illustrate sinful behaviors. These roles can be hard to find, let alone land, in an industry characterized by rampant and unrepentant sin, but as Christians faithfully pursue their callings as incarnational storytellers God will redeem our little corner of the world, too.

Updated On: 3/6/07 at 02:40 AM

[galindagirl2]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 3:02am

I'm SO glad you started this thread. I'm a devout, growing Christian who has also struggled with these very questions. Where do I draw the line? What's appropriate and what's not?

I've come to the conclusion that each show and character must be examined exclusively. I've set myself some basic guidelines beforehand (no nude scenes, etc.), but other than that, I pray about EVERYTHING. I also think it's important to examine the overall message/perspective of the play, movie, etc. Our job as actors is to portray real people. According to the Bible, real people sin and mess-up their lives. However, does the show glorify these practices and decisions? Or does or portray them the way God would want them portrayed? Human beings can be very influenced by art, and it's important that we use that influence wisely. By playing a certain part, am I going to cause someone else to stumble in his or her life?
Above all, ask God to help you with these decisions. If He has given us the talents and motivation to pursue this as a career, we at least owe it to Him to follow His will in how we use his gifts.
Hope that helps...I'm young and certainly not an expert. I would definitely suggest trying to find someone older than you that you trust as a believer who is involved in this business. See what they have think.
God bless, everybody!

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 9:19am

Send a letter to Kristin Chenoweth and Vikki Clark. They'll know.

[avab802]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 10:54am

freeadmission - How can you justify blasephemous language by saying that the actor is only portraying a character, but not give promiscuity or violence the same license? Wouldn't the violent or promiscuous behavior be that of the character and not of the actor portraying said character, just as the language is that of the character and not of the actor? It just seems rather hypocritical to allow some un-Christian-like behaviors for artistic license but not others.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 11:00am

This isn't a debate about religions, but more about role selection.

I thought it was how one balances his religion with being an actor. At any rate, it's not me who implied that prayer begets Tony Awards.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 11:19am

"Are all actors supposed to be atheists? Devoid of religion? "

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if EVERYONE was an atheist. This exercise in mass delusion really is completely out of control. That said, if you can't do your job as an actor because of a religious belief, then you need to find another job. I get tired of reading articles about pharmacists and county clerks refusing to do their job functions because of their religious beliefs. If you can't do what is required of you in your job, you need to find a new job. As an actor, you can refuse a role, but if you are refusing roles, perhaps you should re-examine what it is you want to do with your life, because clearly you don't want to be a well-rounded performer (and I'm not saying "you" specifically; I mean "you" in the general sense). Playing yourself is not acting. Actors are *supposed* to want to stretch themselves...show a range lest they be typecast. If you cannot separate yourself from a character you might be playing, then I would suggest seeing a psychologist to help you see that you are NOT the character you are playing.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 12:25pm

Soooooo take everything that comes down the pike? You've never refused a role? I have and it's never been a religious reason. Every actor I know is refusing roles. That has nothing to do with whether they should be acting or not. No single actor has an obligation to the business. If they want to take 2 roles a year, then that's their business. If a mother wants to spend more time with her children and therefore refuses roles, does that mean she shouldn't be doing this? An actor choosing what they perform is the same as a store owner choosing what merchandise to carry or a plastic surgeon choosing not to do a certain surgery. In each case the consumer can go someplace else to get what they want. It doesn't mean the store owner should close up shop, or the surgeon give up his practice. That seems a little foolish to me. I think it's the same with an actor. He or she has the absolute right to refuse a role for NO reason. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be acting...esp if they're making a living at it. On the contrary that means you're doing really well. If only we all had the luxury to be turning down roles.



Kringas, do you really have something to had here or do you just think your sarcasm funny? Well for a brief moment I'll actually take you seriously. Nowhere did I implied prayer begats Tony awards. You infered that. I simply implied that Kristin was guided to make the right decision. The Tony award is a result of that decision. If I meant that the Holy Spirit begat Tony Awards, then it wouldn't have mattered what show she chose because she "has the Holy Spirit".

[AJ1985]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 12:48pm

As a former christian myself the best advice I can give is to think of the message the piece communicates. If the actor is good he can play any part and not leave the audience wondering about his internal beliefs. As an actor you get to wear masks and portray different aspects of humanity, some good, some really bad, but in the end consider if the play communicates a strong moral. If for personal reasons you cannot do anything except plays without strong language or nudity or violence, then how can you grow as an actor and a Christian?

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 12:52pm

How am I being sarcastic? You said, "if you have a question about whether a role is good for you just pray about it and ask. I mean that's the reason why Kristin did Charlie Brown instead of Annie Get Your Gun. She let the spirit guide her decision and hence Tony award."

Perhaps it's a flaw in the sentence construction.

[srgr8]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 1:05pm

i also think its important to recognize how you're honoring God outside of acting. While I definitely see how you can gain a reputation for the roles you play, you also gain a reputation as the kind of actor you are. This is where you can show your faith and let God's light shine through you.

I'm not saying either way if you should participate in certain activities in a role. As others have said, its important to take all aspects into consideration (what specific blocking/acting is there, whats the overall message of the piece, God's guidance, etc.)
i guess there is no one answer that will satisfy everyone...it may not even satisfy you for your entire career. but good luck to all those struggling with this situation and God Bless!

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 1:20pm

Jazzy, I think you missed my point. I obviously have to spoon-feed you what I meant. My point was that if you are refusing for religious purposes, then clearly you don't belong in the profession. Clearly, if an actor cannot differentiate between himself and the character he/she plays, he is in serious need of medical attention. I'm not sure why religion would play a role in what role one plays. If one isn't comfortable playing a pedophile that is one thing, but how that affects one religion is an entirely different concept. The actor him/herself isn't really a pedophile (or murderer, or rapist, etc.) so I don't see how there is a problem. Personally, I think this whole thing is a lot of nonsense. If you really have objections to playing a part, then don't audition. It really is that simple.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 1:37pm

Did Idina beat Kristin for the Tony because she's one of the chosen people?

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 1:40pm

Umm that's the same thing you said before. You've explained your point no better. Frankly, I don't understand all this nasty sarcasm going around. The funny thing is you didn't spoon-feed anything. You said the same thing you said before.

And if you really think actors can seperate themselves so easily, I'd talk to the countless actors who've fallen in love with co-stars. Now before another rediculous sarcastic comment is hurled, I don't think that actors think they ARE their characters. But there are plenty of people who take some of their work home with them.

[pemberlee]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 4:24pm

As long as you are not appearing in a propaganda piece advocating violence or something else awful I think you are ok.

[freeadmission]

Posted: 3/6/07 at 6:42pm

freeadmission - How can you justify blasephemous language by saying that the actor is only portraying a character, but not give promiscuity or violence the same license? Wouldn't the violent or promiscuous behavior be that of the character and not of the actor portraying said character, just as the language is that of the character and not of the actor? It just seems rather hypocritical to allow some un-Christian-like behaviors for artistic license but not others

It's not hypocritical at all. It's a matter of understanding the spirit of the law, and not just the letter. I would say that immodesty is either the only or one of the few sins that it's NOT okay to portray on stage or screen. The reason is that the immodesty involved in acting promiscuous directly (and often immediately) leads others to sin. Speaking blasphemy doesn't, neither does violence, greed, etc.