The ethics of acting
We had a fascinating discussion this morning, on-air, about the ethics of acting. It was prompted by some statements by Catholic bishops in Italy about the legitimacy of erotic scenes in films. The actor-director Dan Gordon and the actress Maggie Cronin drew on their professional experience for us, while a priest and pastor debated the ethics of nude scenes and simulated sex.
In films such as Shortbus and 9 Songs, actors performed in "unsimulated sex" scenes -- in other words, they had real sex with each other. If the actor in question is married, would such a performance constitute a breach of his or her marriage vows? Would it amount to adultery? What about kissing, fondling, displays of nakedness and "simulated" (faked) sex? David McIlveen was clear in his own mind that displays of nakedness are always wrong -- a judgment that would take in both the play Equus and the film Schindler's List. Others were equally clear that nakedness can be justified for artistic reasons even if it is difficult to specify the criteria that need to be met on those occasions.
The debate continues here. How should actors and directors depict sexual encounters, experiences and affections on the stage and screen? If it is possible to cross the line, where is the line?
Comments
I missed that part of the programme.
Now I'm sitting here trying to imagine how one could possibly argue that it wouldn't be adultery.
#1
Because its acting!
The line is only crossed when the sex is no longer simulated, the majority of actors don't have a problem with this distinction.
David McIlveen thought that even kissing in a film was adultorous so if we left it up to him, we would have to erase 90% of cinematic history. Thankfully it isn't up to him - can you imagine anything worse than a free presbyterian theocracy in Northern Ireland. Makes me shudder even to think about it.
At least the rest of the panel were more pragmatic in their approach.
Did David McIlveen really say displays of nakedness are always wrong? He should visit the (admittedly NOT Free) Presbyterian Cathedral in Glasgow which has a huge stained glass window of Adam and Eve in all their innocent glory before the Fall.
I suspect many spouses of actors and actresses have qualms about their spouses work - and after Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie they'd be right.
One line is fairly clear to anyone with any moral sense and that is having sex with someone not your spouse is wrong and doing it for art makes it worse, not better - it's prostitution.
Other lines are far more debatable. Most sex in films is gratuitous and a lot of nudity is as well. But nudity per se isn't a bad thing. As William pointed out - Schindler's List has nudity.
I remember an interview with an actress from, I think Showgirls. She was talking about the strippers and their lives and degredation etc - and the interviewer surprised her with a question - something like "what's the fifference between what they do in stip clubs and what you do on film?" and she had no answer - she sat there stunned.
Smasher- I dont know why she sat there stunned, that seems like an easy question to answer. The difference is that she isnt a stripper, she is portraying a stripper! Thats a very very clear difference. Its like asking an actor who plays a Hitman, whats the difference between what Hitmen do and what you are doing on film. He isnt killing people for real.
It's just simple, old-fashioned prudery. dp is right. If we had McIlveen in charge, we'd be just as screwed as the characters in the movies he doesn't want to see.
Sam, thank you you for your example. The difference between a hitman and an actor portraying a hitman is that the hitman actually kills people, while the actor only pretends to. The difference between a stripper and an actress portraying a stripper is that the stripper actually takes her clothes off, while the actress only pretends to ... hang on, she does actually take her clothes off, and for a much bigger audience.
It's difficult to describe in words when nudity is appropriate and when it isn't - one of those things you know when you see it.
Oh right so a priest and pastor on stage debating this. Why is it that religious leaders get more of a platform to air their views than atheists and agnostics? For one thing, it gives a gender-skewed view given most of these religious folk are men. I know Maggie Cronin was on the panel - but why a pastor and a priest? Does that not imply that aetheists are also a-ethical - that only religious people have views on the 'ethics of acting'? Another thing, these 'religious leaders' always seem to be telling women what they can, or more often can't do with their bodies. Reminds me of a scene from a recent Simpsons episode:
To Flanders: Why don't you take him to court?
Flanders: Oh please, the only thing the American courts are good for is telling women what they can do with their bodies.
On the subject of ethics, how ethical is it to cast aspersions on an individual (such as maliciously posting an image of them on a blog about fraudulent gambling) from behind the shield of anonymity?
I note that while Smasher Lagru has found time to post two comments here, he has not had time to answer the question I asked him on the 'Bishop in training' entry, three threads down! Maybe he could go to that thread and answer it?
Andy, blame the ±«Óătv. I (actually better check again before posting this) did post a comment on the other thread, only, like many posts on this blog, it disappeared. Sometimes they appear two days later.
The photo was of a policeman. I did a google image search for "RUC catholic church" and that was the image thrown up.
And apparently, bookies don't regard it as fraud - just good information like knowing a horse has a bad cold before the race.
Gwyeth - reason they have clergy on is because it's Sunday Sequence. Atheists can do their bit the rest of the weak. And if you read the piece again you will see it didn't focus on women - that's just your hyserical feminist presumption that when we're talking about erotic scenes it's about women - it usually takes two to tango.
Do atheists have ethical systems? How charming; what are they based on?
Smasher do you have an ethical system'? I think we can rule out Christian ethics as a non-starter, judging by some of your comments on your own website.
As for 'hyserical' (I presume you meant hysterical - easy enough to miss a key.) What would you describe a rant about 'girlfriend killing-by-accident, overweight, child murdering Ted Kennedy' (Is today the day?, smasher-lagru.blog.com/?page=2/) or the more than slightly racist comment about a 'Kenyan, muslim agent' (Is today the day?, smasher-lagru.blog.com/?page=2/). Could this be a reference to Barack Obama or is this also something that just appeared on a "google image search"?
On that subject have conducted a number of “google image searches” and cannot find that photograph using the words 'RUC catholic church'(even tried google.ie, as you claim to be from the south. Still wasn’t there!). Did do a "google image search" using the individuals name and surprise, surprise there it was. I think you searched for and used his image purposely, and that’s a disgrace!
#9
whats the fact that its called Sunday Sequence got anything to do with it. The podcast is called everyday ethics and to be fair to William he has had secular humanists (the ethical wing of the atheists - for sake of argument on this occasion)on the show before.
You might want to consider the Humanist manifesto - a much more considered response to ethics than the ancient dogma of the old testament.
Gwyeth (#7) raises a serious point. Smasher's assertion that atheists, humanists etc can do their bit on ethical issues the rest of the week apart from Sunday is disingenuous. Secularists are not normally identified as such unless they belong to a secular group or are specifically asked for a 'secular' opinion. So whether or not a secular viewpoint is being expressed is not likely to be apparent.
This is compounded by the fact that the media tend to identify secularists unjustly as simply 'non-believers' rather than positively as people with ethical viewpoints to express. So, when a secularist is identified as such it is usually in this negative context.
During the Troubles, whenever an atrocity occurred the media frequently called on a local cleric to express moral revulsion at the incident, but to my knowledge they never asked a self-styled secularist to do so. Why not?
The bottom line is that the media tend to give churches a kind of moral monopoly. They have regular religious columns in newspapers, for example.
And Gwyeth is quite right: since most clerics are women, a stultifying patriarchal morality prevails.
On the ethics of acting and art, I tend to agree with Oscar Wilde said of literature: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written".
I would add, though, that restraint is often more effective than explicitness, or laying it on with a trowel.
This is true not only in an erotic sense but also in terms of pathos. Schindler's List has been mentioned. The scene in Plaszow camp where Jews are made to strip naked to be sorted out works because it conveys perfectly their humiliation at the hands of Nazis. On the other hand, Spielberg does restrain himself, for example, by not taking us into a gas chamber (though he does tease us about it) because that would be exploitative and in any case beyond all imaginings.