One of my former youth group kids, “Holly” contacted me last week. Holly’s 17, an aspiring theater actress, and just landed her first lead role in a summer production. She has a boyfriend, Ferdinand — and Ferdinand isn’t happy about the part Holly’s taken. In one scene in the play, Holly’s character needs to kiss her “husband”; it’s an indispensable part of the show. Ferdinand has been in a funk ever since he found out Holly was going to do the show, and until he relented last week, threatened a break-up if she went ahead with her plans to take the role.
Holly and I talked on Friday about her relationship, the problem of ultimata, and what it meant to play a part on stage. This little quarrel raises some important issues about trust and fidelity, of course, but also about the vital distinction between the form and the content of a physical act. (I blogged at length about “form” and “content” in this post about faith and sexuality from July 2008.) To be concerned with form is to be concerned with a particular act, like kissing; to be concerned with content is to be concerned with what that act signifies to the two people involved. These aren’t mutually exclusive concerns, of course, but understanding the distinction is vital, as I explained to Holly.
For example, touching another person’s genital region generally has the form of sexual intimacy. At the same time, there’s a world of difference (one does rather hope) between the way a woman might be touched by her OB/GYN and by her lover. Even if both doctor and boyfriend (or girlfriend) touch her vagina in an act of similar form, the content of the touching is radically different. Even Ferdinand, surely, doesn’t object to Holly seeing a physician. Anyone who’s been to the doctor intuitively grasps the form/content distinction.
Another example lies in art: in a figure drawing course, one is often required to draw a a picture inspired by a live nude model. In our puritanical culture, where the body is so often concealed, steadily gazing at a naked human being has the form of something sexual. But the content of the act (drawing from a nude figure) isn’t sexual; the concern of the student artist is usually something like “How the hell am I going to get that calf muscle right?” and not “Oh my goodness, I’m so turned on right now.” That doesn’t mean sexual arousal can’t happen in a figure drawing class — it may. But sexual arousal can come in any number of unexpected ways and in unexpected places. It would be unreasonable, I think, for a boyfriend or a girlfriend or a spouse to say to their beloved “I don’t want you taking a studio art class where you draw naked people”, just as it would be unreasonable to say “I don’t want your doctor touching your private parts.” Form and content are, in these instances, distinct.
And the same, of course, is true in Holly’s situation. Those who have little experience with acting may marvel at the apparent ease in which movie stars portray passion on the screen; one reason why actresses in particular (Halle Berry, Kate Winslet, etc.) win Oscars after making films in which they did explicit scenes is because we marvel that anyone, particularly a woman, could so expertly separate form and content. (Winslet, whose husband is the director Sam Mendes, has talked often about the inability of some folks to accept her ability — and her spouse’s — to separate the brilliant realism of her “form” from the content of her heart.)
An actor is as much a working professional as a doctor. Each may be called into close proximity with the naked flesh of another human being as part of their professional responsibilities.. Obviously, Holly isn’t a professional actress yet, and she isn’t doing a nude love scene: she’s merely kissing an actor on the lips. Everyone will stay clothed; it will be at most a PG-rated act. But Holly, who is head-over-heels in love with Ferdinand, is quite clear about her own ability to distinguish between the form and the content of what it is that she will do. And it seems as if her beau is slowly coming around to seeing things her way.
Of course, in a romantic relationship one generally wants form and content to go together. When we make love with a partner, for most of us the goal is to have the thoughts in our heads and the feelings in our hearts be radically congruent with what we are doing with our bodies. Though that isn’t a universal ideal, it’s certainly a widespread desire. For many of us, monogamy is also an ideal. We don’t want our partners being sexual with other people. But we need to understand what Kate Winslet understands: not everything that has the outer appearance of being sexual really is.
When two actors feign passion, their on-screen or onstage kisses and caresses are no more authentically sexual than a pelvic exam down at the women’s clinic. That doesn’t mean co-stars can’t fall in love with each other; they often do. But when two teenage actors in a summer stock production embark on a romance, it’s usually because the experience of working together on something each believes in so passionately is itself a powerful aphrodisiac. Onstage kisses are hardly the cause.
When a senior in high school, I got the part of Cpt. Bluntschli in Shaw’s “Arms and The Man”.
The director–don’t recall if it was in Shaw’s stage directions–wanted me to kiss the girl playing Raina just before the final curtain.
We did.
I enjoyed the rehersals. We made it look good. We didn’t gross each other out and we didn’t annoy her boyfriend. And, running into her at the tenth-year class reunion, she seemed to be remarkably free from angst.
What on earth could possibly be wrong with her?
The whole form/content thing…OK, fine. But the bottom line is, she can’t hope to be an actress who doesn’t play parts requiring kissing or romance, so either the boy gets over it or she needs to move on. What am I missing?
I’m twice that girl’s age and, while doing community theatre, I always read scripts ahead of time to decide whether or not I’m going to audition. If it involves that type of kissing, I won’t try out for the role, and probably won’t even try out for the play, in general. It shouldn’t be a problem, but too many playwrights feel they have to ticky-tack a romantic sub-plot into a play, or else the play won’t “have everything.”
As an art model who has posed nude for art classes and professional artists, I liked your form/content distinction. I used the term “intent” rather than content to make this point in my book The Art Model’s Handbook.
Speaking from experience (which you were there to witness) she may separate the form and the content but I’ll bet that the lad she’s kissing onstage won’t.
Hugo,
I like the form/content distinction, but from what I can tell from a bit of experience with actors and actresses, it’s never *that* easy. Acting at least occasionally is an immensely emotional thing. It’s not becoming someone else, but still being that other person and embodying him/her. But, of course, the influence isn’t a one-way-street. You cannot isolate your dopamine circuit to be entirely non-reactive to what’s going on on stage, particularly if your body is pumped with adrenaline. Good acting, thus, in a way, transcends the form/content separation. Of course, that doesn’t mean that people can’t shoot a love scene without falling in love. But it would also be wrong to say that the form doesn’t have *any* effect on the substance. In the case you mention, my guess would be that on-stage kissing and dopamine rush would have an effect the boyfriend in question would rather enjoy…
I know that you’re a mentor(-type-thing, as perhaps distinct from your more formal mentorships) to Holly, Hugh, and not her drama teacher. But protecting yourself-the-artist is pretty advanced stuff that most theatre programs don’t get into until a student is in college, and is clearly serious about a career in the field as opposed to doing plays for fun.
Because it may not have been precisely imparted to her yet, you might want to discuss with Holly the idea that being able to separate yourself from a character is as important to the craft of acting as “getting into character” It just plain starts to wig you out long-term if your body and your subconscious aren’t as aware as your consciousness that you’ve made your exit and are back to real life. Many artists just do this through warming up before and “shaking out” after a scene or exercise, but plenty have full and intricate physical and mental routines for going into, and coming out of, that separate space.
I say all that not because your post gives reason to believe that Holly doesn’t or can’t do this, but because it doesn’t sound like she has the vocabulary yet to communicate (to her boyfriend, in this case) that distinction between staged action and felt action and how she experiences them differently.
/theatre geekery
If the guy’s threatening to break up over a stage kiss, I’ve gotta wonder if he’s controlling in other areas as well.
Hmmmm, a tiny bit off-subject, but, Hugo: how do you think a wife should feel about her husband taking artistic nude photographs of a woman for a photography project–and the photo shoot is done in a private space? Of course one remembers the Renaissance painters painting nude women in their studios, alone. Even if the differences between form and content are understood by everyone involved, shouldn’t married artists stay away from this kind of thing (the privacy of the photo shoot being the main problem)?
Ask Jennifer Aniston about the Mr & Mrs. Smith leading to Bradelina. Even experienced actors have trouble separating form and reality. I agree with Gigi, this boyfriend sounds like a controller. I would worry about his potential for being an abuser way more than artistic integrity.
but I’ll bet that the lad she’s kissing onstage won’t
Right. Because every man in theater is heterosexual.
Ferdinand needs to get over himself.
Good point. I was speaking as heterosexual actor. My bad.
Kristen, I had a girlfriendyears ago who did nude modeling, and she always, always, had someone on set with her. It was never, ever, ever just her and the photographer alone — and she made it very clear that any photographer who insisted on working alone was unprofessional. Most of her friends in the business felt the same way.
Male doctors generally have a nurse present when they examine a female patient; someone (you, a friend of the model) ought to be present when this is done. A pro will feel more comfortable, not less, having someone else there.
It was only a matter of time before “Ferdinand’s” position was described as controlling. He is simply uncomfortable with an act of affection he would like to be an exclusive thing between him and “Holly” also being shared by “Holly” and another fellow, whether there is romantic feeling tied to the stage kiss or not. Perhaps this isn’t the best analogy, but it’s like a married couple, in which one person is a pornography actor who has intercourse with other people. I doubt the non-actor will be comforted to know that the actor “doesn’t feel the same emotional attachment” while (s)he is literally attached to people not his/her spouse.
With so many people “Ferdinand’s” age (and much younger) treating kissing (…or oral sex…or intercourse…) the way people used to treat waving hello to someone, there is something nice about his wanting it to remain special.
Being concerned about theatrical affection is kinda strange IMO, but not controlling. However, bmmg39, this is not what the boyfriend did. He outright threatened to break up with his girlfriend based on a theatrical role. That is absolutely controlling.
No, not if he had said something to the effect of, “I have to be honest and say I’m not comfortable with this, and you can do the part if you want, but I’m not sure I can be with you anymore if you do. But make whatever decision you feel is best.” Believe it or not, he’s part of their relationship, too. His feelings do matter.