Spotlight On Being Naked
Written by Khris Lewin who plays Roland in Fêtes de la Nuit
————————————–
I was asked, as someone who’ll be taking his clothes off in the show, to write a little bit about being
Khris Lewin doing a tango move in rehearsal
naked on stage. I’m not much of a blogger– aside from a few overly expository Facebook comments, I don’t think I’ve ever blogged before– but I’m willing to give it a go; as with taking one’s clothes off, I suppose you just do it one pantleg at a time.
I’ll start by saying that I’ve heard a lot of people–and I don’t disagree with them– say that when they see nudity in the theatre, they often find it distracting; and by distracting, I mean that, in such cases, one has been drawn into a story, and has to some degree lost oneself in the lives of the characters onstage, when suddenly, one is startled out of it all at the sight of a bare boob. I’m not sure why it happens that way… and, of course, there are so many different scenarios in which people have gotten naked onstage. I don’t want to generalize. That said, I’ll try and venture a few ideas.
Many times, I think it’s because it just doesn’t feel organic to the scene. It’s as if the playwright and/or director said, “she takes off her clothes at this point,” and when I see the show, the stage direction is so transparent that I can almost hear the playwright/director’s voice, calling for it. I’m reminded of a story in which the British director Peter Hall was having some trouble with a ten-hour Greek epic, and candidly made a plea to the chorus, saying something along the lines of, “you all signed a nudity clause in your contract. I’m aware you may not want to do it. But we need it. This show needs it. And with that in mind, I need… three volunteers.” And boy oh boy, if any scene in that play seemed contrived, that was sure it.
Or– having mentioned Peter Hall, now I’m thinking of Peter Brook– maybe it’s because of the empty space– here we all are in the same big room, and someone with whom we are sharing a mix of nitrogen and oxygen starts removing their clothes. It can be a little jarring.
Bryen, the dungeon master of this virtual Fêtes de la Nuit online world, asked me, if I wanted to address it, to write a little as well about the gratuitousness of nudity in films versus how it’s portrayed in theatre; but having thought about it, I don’t think there’s that much of a difference. I mean, of course, in the theatre, people are getting naked right in the same room as the audience; and in the movies, sometimes it’s Kate Winslet or Halle Berry (or even John Malkovich, for the few of you who saw The Sheltering Sky) who’s getting naked… and in the movies, there’s obviously a ton of money on the line… but overall, I feel it’s not that different. When I don’t buy it, I don’t buy it, regardless of it being on the stage or screen.
Sometimes, of course, it’s not bad at all. Sometimes it really works. The human form is, after all, quite miraculous in its beauty; and when it’s revealed to us in a way that seems authentic, and in the world of the play as it’s being presented to us, in such cases the experience can be transformative… for the performer and audience alike. Without too much elaboration– (I really dislike “spoilers,” in movies or in plays) — I think this may be one of those shows. I don’t know why exactly… something about the very honest set of situations that Chuck Mee has created, in conjunction with Kim’s pristinely clean aesthetic, and, of course, the work of the entire ensemble that makes it all come together. Like I said, I don’t know. But I believe in it, and I hope that if you’re reading these words, you’ll get a chance to decide for yourself.
If you haven’t ordered your tickets yet, you can go to Brown Paper Tickets. Seats are only $18 and the show runs from February 8 through February 27, with American Sign Language performances on February 20 and 24 at 8 p.m.
As a hetero man watching theater with nude women on stage. I say a little goes a long way. It can be distracting, and remove one from the story that’s being told.
One might liken it to salt and cooking, too much of it and you might spoil the soup.
A nude person on stage initially is quite distracting.I find myself reduced to dealing with being in the room with someone so exposed. My hearing shuts down till I’m able to find my center again. I must then attempt to reconnect to the story that’s developing before me. At some point the nudity may lose it’s initial distraction, yet the potential for distraction is there for as long as the clothes are missing.
Nudity on film and stage not comparable.. Apples and Oranges.
The human body a beautiful art form? yes it is.
To appreciate such, then one turns to the medium that carries that message well. Sculpture, Photography, Paintings. not the stage. The stage is not a Gallery,or a rose Garden. It’s a tight rope. Oh please let it be a tight rope.
I’m glad that you’ve started our comments off with on a good, confrontational note, Chet. Actually, I think we agree more than we disagree, in so far as I too find most of the nudity I see on stage to be distracting. I think that we both fall prey to the dangers of generalization, though. Theatre has been around for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years, and I feel pretty confident saying that there are no hard and fast absolutes as to what is good or bad in theatre. Sometimes, nudity can work. Sometimes, people can take off their clothes in a theatre, and the tightrope walk continues. Does that happen often? I doubt it… but I reject outright the idea that nudity categorically does not belong on the stage in any situation. There are simply too many varieties, genres, styles and cultures of theatre to justify that assertion.
At least, that’s what I think. I appreciate, and in fact applaud, your right to disagree.
Also, for the record, I don’t think that what I’m doing in the above picture can be accurately described, as it is in the caption, as “Khris Lewin doing a tango move in rehearsal.” I think a more on-the-mark description might be, “Khris Lewin making an ass of himself in rehearsal.”
Hmmm…quite an interesting discussion is afoot here. I suppose I’ll throw my hat into the ring and say this: I agree with both points thus far, to one degree or another. Perhaps nudity on stage could, at some point, lose its initial distraction—for someone other than myself. My various neuroses render me incapable of feeling comfortable in a room with nude people. I tend to think that a theatrical setting is a little too intimate and my inclination is to want to look away out of embarrassment….or at least just take intermittent peeks through my hands covering my face. I mean, it’s impolite to look at a naked person, right? I feel like the purpose of the play is to suspend disbelief so that you are not aware that you are in a theatre, and therefore, not supposed to be looking at a naked person. I don’t know, maybe my neuroses are coming to the surface here….
Sorry, Khris. I do feel that theatre and movies are apples and oranges, although I could perhaps be persuaded otherwise. (It’s the nature of being a libra.)
I’m curious to hear other points of view on the subject at hand, so I shall keep abreast (ahem) of this conversation.
It takes a great deal of focus to be nude on stage. unlike film, there is a certain measure of intimacy. The audience is in the same room. All of the things that make us self conscious are exposed for the world to see. Remaining in character in such an exposed state is a testament to your craft!
I am fascinated by the possibility of nudity on stage being able to produce the same effect on an audience as nudity on film; in particular, I am intrigued by whether nudity on stage can create the kind of profound effect that some instances of nudity on film have.
Last year I heard an Indian film star talk about a film she’d done where she’d removed all her clothing. She was (unusually, as this was in Mumbai) not a Bollywood film star, but an art film star, and a well-respected one. However, when the film with the ‘infamous’ nude scene came out, scores of people said it was gratuitous, that she was a sellout, that the scene was far too distracting for its own good. But these people had not yet seen the film; they’d only heard about it. The actress described the shooting of the scene; and said that she had been nervous that whole morning because she’d never done a nude scene before, let alone taken off her clothes in front of so many strangers before. In the end, she was determined to do the scene without any shame–she decided that that was what made people uncomfortable with nudity to begin with; seeing the nude person’s shame. (Here one might think, ah, but the human being, especially males, are more prone to sexual arousal at the mere sight of a naked, usually-covered body part, and of course would be driven to distraction; but read on.) The film was shown to a test audience of people who paid very little to get into the theater, which is typical in the Indian film industry. The audience was full of street hawkers, cab drivers, and mostly the kind of people that usually whistled and catcalled their approval of naked women on screen. When the nude scene began, and the actress began taking off her clothes, the whistling began as predicted. However, as she stood naked in the scene without any trace of self-consciousness, the actress says there was a ‘pin-drop silence’ in the theater. She believed it was because the audience was now being asked to watch a ‘real’ person with a sense of self, and they continued to watch the scene as they did any other part of the film.
I remember thinking when she told this story, that if anything like that could ever happen in theater, it would be pretty amazing. It’s true theater and film are vastly different media….but what if?
I haven’t seen this new iteration of ‘Fêtes’ (I’m going on the 12th of February), though I saw the premiere a few years ago at Columbia. I remember there being a nude scene, though I don’t remember it well; I don’t think it was terribly distracting for me.
There is something to be said about each individual having a right to their own personal reaction to something they are watching, whether it be film or stage or anything else. There is also something to be said about those moments on film or stage when the entire audience is on the same wavelength and reacting to what they are watching as a single, organic whole. Both kinds of reactions are valid, I think. The latter is more fun, though.
Man oh man. This is a deep conversation. I believe that any form of art replicates real life. To that end, I don’t see the controversy (sp) of nudity. We are all too comfortable with our private flaws, and private eyes that are viewing those flaws… somewhat like me being married to the same man for years, and not really worrying that he might see me nude weighing more than I ever have. Yet do I care that I am going grey in public? That clothes hide but so much of my weight gain, that I am getting older, have wrinkles, laugh lines, age spots appearing? Do I really care that much about my appearance from privacy to public? No. Well groomed and doing the best I (we) all can… sure.
I do think the human body is beautiful, naked or clothed, male or female. There are so many intricate, subtle differences to be enjoyed and appreciated- other than a boob or a weener flashing about. We are living in a generation of shock value, as have many before us. Look at the whole Janet Jackson/superbowl thing. I don’t get why we make such things so important, or “wrong”. Society is a society of norms. It believes what we tell it, teach it, and show it as we live it, and it is ever changing. It used to be Taboo for a woman to wear slacks, or show a knee, let alone wear a mini skirt. Just horrible for men to be wearing pants that hang down and show their underwear and belly buttons… let alone the top of their hips. Well what the heck about the plumber who shows his butt “you know what” as he bends over? (Generalization, I know, but makes the point). Do you stare and gawk, or are you fascinated unable to turn away, like a bad train wreck, do you ignore it, or turn away? It entirely rests upoon your own moral code, and what YOU find acceptable.
Short answer is, I don’t give a flip if you’re naked or not Khris. I am sure you are beautiful, and if it is within your’ own moral code to strip down for the sake of art.. go for it. I myself would not turn away horrified, anymore than I would if a woman did so on stage. Not so long ago… even… Elvis was censored for wiggling his hips, do I find it offensive, suggestive, or sensual? Hardly, I find it another physical outlet that naturaly came from his work of art, his craft, and often, our physical representations exude the craft we practise, and physically, the art which we are creating.
I think it is damaging to teach a society that the physical body, and nudity, is wrong to look upon, or even appreciate for the work of art IT is. Society is just much more comfortable with selling magazines of skimply clad women and men, with their greek God builds, oversized boobs and all… more comfortable with pornography which can be taken to your own private lair to be ogled and enjoyed.
We as a society are sure comfortable with the marketing on the basis of sex and the sexuality of a person – while we buy one more car, drink one more beer, buy one more thing that the image of their godforsaken body and sexuality has sold us. Sarcastically said and to be noted.
Anywho, Khris, be your own artist, work for the sake of art, exude what you will, naked or clothed… I have known you since we were kids, and you’re beautiful no matter what you wear or don’t wear. That quality of beauty you have, and always have had, comes only from within your own heart, warm smile, loving, and “gentle hearted” nature. K? And if I missed the point of this entire discussion, sorry. I find the question interesting, but wonder why we must pose it or even discuss it. Just another spark to the powdercage which really doesn’t advance our own “moraled” society. (Must go… I have world peace to get in order now). Jkn We love you anyhow Khris, be not ashamed!
An old friend- Michael