SonofRobbieJ said: "Dancingthrulife2 said: "In Angels, if the actor playing Joe does not take off all of his clothes in a certain scene, he is not doing his job right--the scene requires nudity to make sense and work. In Boys, however, I don't see what Mantello is trying to achievethat scene by having Bomber go half nude other than some eye candy gimmicks. It takes the audience right out of the world of the play without a legit reason to do with."
I have yet to see BOYS...but I disagree with everything in this post.
David Marshall Grant did not fully disrobe in the 'winter Atlantic' scene in the original Broadway prodcution (nor did his replacement Jay Geode). I've since seen the scene played with the full nudity and I don't think anything was lost in the original production by not revealing Joe's genitals.
And I disagree that nudity at that moment of Boys in the Band is a gimmick. It established the comfort Donald has with Michael and with his surroundings.
"
And I also politely disagree. In that scene, Joe screams "Anything. Whatever you want. I can give up anything. My skin." And Joe specially referred his undergarment as his skin in a previous scene. The actor playing Joe doesn't have to show his genital to the audience, which can be done with meticulous staging, but the "skin" has to be off. If not, it would suggest that Joe is not really willing to give up "anything" for Louis, and would defeat the whole purpose of the scene. The scene is also where Joe is being truthful to himself, relishing in the temporary freedom void of any human pretense. To keep anything on just does not make any sense under scrutiny.
The problem I have with the nudity in Boys is not the nudity itself, but rather the way it is staged. Sure, with close friends it is normal to do things that one wouldn't do in front of strangers. However, the way it is staged feels like they are trying to evoke a certain response from the audience than just telling the story.
Updated On: 5/9/18 at 10:36 PM