This story contains an addendum.
Everybody just keep your pants on.
Or at least your underwear. That’s the direction Eric Rosen gave the cast of Douglas Carter Beane’s The Little Dog Laughed, which had its Chicago premiere last month. Beane was in town for About Face Theatre’s opening of his comedy about a rising Hollywood hunk trying to stay in the closet, and when he discovered that the nudity he’d written into the stage direction of a vital scene had been excised, he was not amused.
“It’s a crucial moment in the play. These two characters have been denying they’re gay for pages and pages,” Beane says. In the scene, said actor and the rent boy he ordered the night before strip down and get ready to pounce one another just as the actor’s piranha agent, Diane, interrupts them and immediately begins damage control on the client she desperately needs to be hetero.
When Little Dog opened in New York a year ago, the character of Diane was hailed by critics as the juiciest female comic role that had been written for the stage in ages, an embodiment of Hollywood’s cannibalistic PR practices. “[Removing the nudity] changes everything about Diane,” Beane says. “It makes her less ferocious. If she’s willing to break up something when both of them are naked, she’ll do anything.”
Last week Rosen issued a public apology: “I had made the directorial decision... and members of Actors Equity were therefore not notified that they would be required to appear nude when we auditioned the play. Though, Mr. Beane requested after seeing the production that the staging occur with nudity, we are unfortunately not able.”
The statement implies Actors Equity is the roadblock. But Equity guidelines state that if actors and director agree to include nudity after a contract is signed, it’s no sweat. (And according to Beane, he requested the staging occur with nudity before he saw it, not after.)
After he issued his written statement, Rosen declined our request for an interview. Beane claims his repeated attempts to have the nudity reinserted were met first by glibness from Rosen, then a total lack of contact. Only when lawyers got involved and Dramatists Play Service threatened a shutdown did Rosen make partial amends, keeping the Calvin Kleins but at least publicly acknowledging the mess.
The entire scenario could be on the syllabus of Irony 101, considering that Little Dog, a satire about an inside operation to cover up gay sex, now does that very thing. Beane’s play isn’t Moliere, but it’s a delicious skewering of American mores regarding sexuality, the hypocrisy within a self-proclaimed “liberal” entertainment community, and, in the play’s now most-ironic subplot, the veto of a playwright’s wishes when he puts his work in the hands of a producer over whom he has no control.
Beane says a number of marquee-name screen actors were interested in the role of the closeted star last year when the show transferred from Second Stage Theatre to Broadway, but none of them were willing to get naked and kneel in front of another naked man’s crotch, for which the stage direction calls. (“If it weren’t for stage directions,” Beane notes, “Hedda Gabbler would still be with us today.”) Arguably, that production, which closed in about three profitless months, might have had a longer Broadway run if Beane had compromised and allowed a recognizable screen star to play the scene in briefs, as Rosen’s actors do.
That’s what’s strangest about About Face’s choice to ban the nudity; the non-profit company has considerably less at stake commercially than the Broadway investors did. Even if the troupe didn’t have a built-in subscriber base and board of directors to buffer it against this kind of risk (to say nothing of a dream location for this show’s target audience, the Center on Halsted in north Boystown), About Face has often identified—even congratulated—itself as the nation’s premiere gay theater.
Yet it’s hard to pat “progress” on the back when it makes such miscalculated gestures to a potential mainstream audience, one whose tastes it either underestimates or refuses to challenge. We’re at the end of an era in which the most prominent representation of queers in media was via straight actors giving interviews about what it’s like to play gay, reality-TV minstrels teaching heteros to be trendy consumers, and Sean Hayes. One would think the stage, in particular the nonprofit stage, could be immune to such uptight nonsense.
Little Dog’s most rudimentary moral—so simple it borders on crude—is that fear of same-sex intimacy is, at its core, absurd. About Face in recent years has taken bold artistic strides—who else in Chicago would have tackled the strange, dynamic Gertrude Stein musical Loving Repeating, or the understated Mary Zimmerman solo work Monsieur Proust?— and has played male nudity for laughs, as it did in Take Me Out. But intimate nudity is something different.
And, apparently, not so easy to laugh away.
ADDENDUM
After this story ran online as written above, Eric Rosen asked to speak to us on the record. In Rosen’s version, the initial communication between him and Beane before the play’s opening went differently. According to Rosen, he initially requested Beane allow the scene to be performed without nudity, and was confident that they had reached an agreement. He was so confident, in fact, that About Face requested Beane’s presence at the opening.
“The first time I knew he was unhappy about it was intermission on opening night, which we invited him to, and paid for him to attend,” Rosen said. (The scene in question takes place in Act I.)
Rosen says he’s assuming full responsibility for the controversy. “If I had understood the situation more clearly, I would have done things differently. And that’s why I’ve apologized,” Rosen said.
Despite his apology, though, the briefs remain intact. Rosen claims that due to pending legal concerns, he can’t explain why the nudity was not reinstated. (As we noted in the article, Actor’s Equity would have no problem with the decision to add nudity, even if were it made this late in the game. This means the decision is coming from parties affiliated with the production, not the actors’ union.) As for his directorial rationale for excluding it at all, Rosen explained that he finds the idea of two naked gay men playing a love scene while flaccid too incredible to be believed. “This is an issue that’s [difficult] to talk about,” he allows.
But Rosen, who in a few months will leave Chicago to assume the reigns of Kansas City Repertory, took umbrage with our assessment that the choice not to use nudity had commercial or conservative motivations. “About Face loses money on every play we do. We put the ‘non’ in ‘nonprofit’. On this production we’re going to lose about $100,000,” Rosen claims. “I would argue that if we had commercial interests, you would probably see a lot more plays with a lot more naked flesh in them.” (Few producers from Florenz Ziegfeld to Roger Corman would disagree.)
And Rosen justly argues that he’s run a playwright-friendly organization during his tenure. Of the forty-plus productions About Face has mounted in its 12-year legacy, the company has only produced five plays that were previously produced, a claim few Chicago theaters can make.
At the end of the day, Beane threatened to shut down Rosen’s show for ignoring his request, Dramatists Play Service backed him up, and Rosen’s own attorneys advised him that a public mea culpa was appropriate. But the director’s motivation was not about money. When you’re losing a hundred grand just to produce satire, even the little dog—whose only expenses are bones—isn’t laughing all the way to the bank.
The Little Dog Laughed finishes its run on Feb 17 at Center on Halsted.
Features
Who cares? People are allowed to do their own interpretation of a play. This issue is only an issue because it is a gay scene and they gays thought they would see more than some skin. Get over it and enjoy theatre as it is.
I agree with what Jeff said. People need to think about the actors. You can't just tell people that they need to be naked on stage out of nowhere. If the actors had known this would be a different story.
About Face should not have cut the nudity, end of story. It's in the script, it's part of the playwright's vision, and should be there. If they didn't want a nude scene they should have picked another play. I have been nude on stage in three different shows, and I have no problem with it, as long as the script requires it to be there. When a company leases the rights to a script, they agree to do the entire script as intended. I hope Beane hits them hard legally and exercises his rights to the fullest extent available under law. If Mr. Rosen loses money, it's his own fault; there are plenty of companies that manage not to lose that much money every show, and then cry about it. He should be ashamed at his decision to censor Beane's art. Might as well put boxers on the statue of David. Yes, it would still be a great statue, but if Michelangelo wanted him clothed, he would have sculpted him that way. The exact same applies in this case, and every artist of every kind should be offended and outraged over this prudishness.
I have not seen the play, but I just want to argue with the idea that About Face refuses to do nudity for some profit margin. I seem to remember a production of Take Me Out which did not shy away from the staging of the locker room shower scenes. I think it is fine for a writer to not like a production of his play, but to threaten to shut it down is to try to shut down the artistic process.
This is quite an unfortunate article, and comes down heavily on the side of the playwright, without every getting the side of the company. And how can the company really say anything to the press when the playwright is hanging legal action over their heads? I am also quite frustrated at your continued insistence that Equity is not a roadblock. As an Equity stage manager, I can tell you that nudity is allowed to be added in after the show has opened IF the actors agree to sign a rider. If the actors do not want to be nude, and do not sign the rider to their contracts, they may not be required to perform nude. In that situation, the producer is allowed to give the actor two weeks notice and fire them, and then hire someone who is willing to be nude. How sad that the playwright would rather pull his show over a costume choice than see his work produced by a GLBT company.
I guess what's weirdest about this whole issue is everybody's general lack of concern for the actors' point of view on this issue. Every actor has to make a decision about content before they audition for a part, and these actors clearly understood that nudity would not be required of them. If that happened to me and was then told I had to suddenly be naked after the show had already opened, I would drop out of the production.
I saw the Chicago version/production and didn't believe the two guys were in any sort of relationship, physical or otherwise. I loved both of the female characters and felt the story could have just evolved around them - the guys had no spark/edge. Things felt played down between them with the end result being something that was mildly cute and ultimately forgettable.
Having seen both the New York production and the Chicago production, I can safely say, that as a sophisticated, adult, gay, regular theatre-going audience member, I did not see the impact of the scene lessened or the play altered in any way, shape, or form, in Chicago with the absence of an exposed penis. I felt the scene was totally gratuitous and unnecessary in New York. So Peter Brook altered a lot of the Samuel Beckett's detailed stage directions in his current production of "Fragments" at Chicago Shakespeare (as Timeout's very own review points out), but I don't hear anyone complaining about them or asking Chicago Shakespeare to shut the production down. I am not sure how Chris came to the giant leap of faith conclusion (after admitting that he did not speak to Eric or About Face)that Rosen's decision to play the scene in underwear vs having schlongs hang out is a "miscalculated gesture" to attract "mainstream audiences". Maybe Eric Rosen looked at the play wholistically and as part of his artistic vision decided that eliminating naked male flesh which is not inherently integral to the story is the right thing to do. Is anyone second guessing why Peter Brook decided to have the actress speak the monologue "live" in "Rockabye", one of the playlets in "Fragments", instead of having it played as recorded voiceover as Beckett specified in the script? Are some people hiding behind the concept of "dramatic integrity" to just see naked people onstage? I think that is the sadder commentary.
Chris Pomeroy brought up an excellent point. I'd also like to toss in: you skipped over a big "if" in that equity clause- IF actors and directors agree. it is possible that the actors genuinely weren't comfortable being nude. if they were cast with the understanding that it wasn't required, they would be well within their rights to refuse, and Rosen would be handling the situation well by deflecting the heat.
sorry - but this whole thing is a load of crap. the only reason anyone thinks the nudity is "vital" is because it's two young and good looking people. If it was a play about two bald, middle aged guys confronting their sexuality, no one would WANT to see them naked. it is not integral to the plot that they be naked, just intimate. And their is plenty of kissing and touching etc. And comparing that to the final stage direction in Hedda Gabler is ABSURD. First of all, that stage direction is the finale of the play, it is an ACTION, not a state of being, and second - the actress doesn't ACTUALLY kill herself. If you want to see hot guys naked, there are plenty of other places to do that. especially on Halsted. oh - and, seriously, is NAKED really a STAGE DIRECTION? or is it just a costuming (or lack of) choice?
What about the problem of the actors' flaccid members, when they are supposed to be fully aroused by each other? Doesn't this disconnect between the play's action and the reality onstage create a credibility problem for the audience? I thought Rosen handled this problem well (he has the actors cover their erections with pillows when Diane walks in). Anyone have any thoughts?
Glad Time Out addressed this issue. We had not seen the NYC production but heard there was nudity and were surprised it was cut out for Chicago. We assumed one of two things: a) Center on Halsted, with the youth-oriented focus of many of its programs, would not allow it as a provision for hosting the play on its stage; or b) the local producers thought Chicago audiences couldn't handle it (thus, might impact ticket sales). We still think one or the other may be the truth; in either case, so insulting, and disappointing. To add insult to injury is the suggestion from the following article that the nudity flies just fine in Hartford f'ing Connecticut, but not here in Chicago (see Chad Allen's comments on the importance of the scene to the message of the play, paragraph 4): http://www.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/12553