Commentary -- The Naked Truth About The Increase In Nudity Onstage

Overheard at the Intiman Theatre last week: Two elderly patrons on their way into a performance of "Love! Valour! Compassion!" spot a sign advising them that the play contains "nudity and adult language." One woman turns to the other and says, "Elizabeth, prepare yourself."

Chances are, Elizabeth did prepare herself, and sat through the show's several episodes of full-frontal male nudity without bolting for the nearest exit. And in my view, it's about time.

Just a few years ago, the reaction of those two ladies might have been quite different. It was for the many playgoers who complained about the spector of male nudity in Intiman's 1991 staging of the British drama "The Grace of Mary Travers."

And in 1993, a moment of streak-by male nakedness in Seattle Repertory Theatre's production of "Six Degrees of Separation" drew a flurry of angry letters, some of which were printed in Prologue, the Rep's subscriber magazine.

The male anatomy gets far more exposure in Terrence McNally's "Love! Valour! Compassion!," a Tony Award-winning play about a circle of homosexual friends and lovers convening in a country vacation house.

As Broadway and regional theaters host an increasing number of plays with disrobed characters, especially male but also female, Seattle audiences apparently are less rattled by the sight of all that goosebumped flesh onstage.

Either that, or fewer people are bothering to complain about it.

According to audience sevices manager Mindy Rice, the Intiman has received only seven letters objecting to "Love! Valour! Compassion!." And one of those carped about the cigarette smoking in the play, not the feigned skinny-dipping and sunbathing.

Intiman subscriptions coordinator Jocelyn Whikehart reports that each night, several patrons vent their displeasure by walking out in mid-show. And a few read the warning sign in the lobby - which is certainly warranted - and cash in their tickets before the play starts.

But Whikehart also notes that "Love! Valour! Compassion!" is "the bestselling show we've had all year. The box office is going crazy. When people call up, we tell them about the adult language and nudity. But they still buy tickets."

In fact, nearly all the 15,285 tickets to the show (which closes Oct. 13) are sold. And if only 50 patrons complain or stomp out during the run . . . well, you do the numbers.

So what gives here? Is this evidence of a natural evolution of taste and tolerance? That would be the most obvious explanation, but not the only one.

Until a few decades ago, full nudity was verboten in most "legit" American theater - the legacy of a Puritan tradition dating to the 18th century, when some colonies banned all stage displays on moral and religious grounds.

By the 20th century, audiences in most American cities could see naked or near-naked performers in such risque venues as burlesque halls. But it took the countercultural uprisings of the 1960s, and the audacity of such experimental troupes as the Living Theatre and the Performance Group, to introduce naked bodies in an artistically theatrical context.

Broadway saw its first blush of nudity in the 1968 "tribal love-rock" musical, "Hair," and the 1969 erotica revue "Oh! Calcutta!" In both smash hits, the casts peeled to the buff in a joyful flaunting of skin.

Since then, playwrights have grown freer about disrobing characters, when it is effective to do so. Such Tony Award-winning dramas as Peter Schaeffer's "Equus," David Henry Hwang's "M. Butterfly" and Tony Kushner's "Angels in America" all performed without major incident in Seattle.

Of course, the breaking of the nudity taboo did not occur in a vacuum. There is also a freer use of profanity onstage, more explicit depictions of sexuality and a new frankness about homosexuality. These trends also are reflected in the increased baring-all and mouthing-off in Hollywood films, and in network and cable TV drama.

Yet if fleshly displays seem commonplace (sometimes boringly so) in today's cultural milieu, they're not always accepted gracefully.

People for the American Way, a censorship watchdog group, has charted numerous recent municipal flaps about nudity - over an "Angels in America" production in North Carolina, an "M. Butterfly" in Tucson, et al.

It is possible that some theater patrons are simply staying away from certain plays. Intiman's numbers indicate these folks can be replaced, when reviews and word-of-mouth opinions are positive. (It remains to be seen whether more full-season subscribers can be recruited to replace those who may be drifting off in search of less challenging fare.)

Even if they don't officially complain or walk, there surely are other viewers out there grumbling in private about the "poor taste" of bared breasts and genitals onstage.

I would agree that sometimes nudity is employed gratuitously. And often it is there for shock value. But it is also a valid artistic device, at the disposal of dramatic artists attempting to entertain, enlighten and (for good reason) rattle us.

Maybe the muted reaction to the nudity in "Love! Valour! Compassion!" means moral standards are getting lax. But I prefer to believe it means Seattle has grown up enough to stop confusing the mere public display of the miraculous human body with immorality. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Write an essay - or react to this one

Would you like to comment on an issue in the arts? Send your essay of no more than 500 words to Karen West, interim Arts and Entertainment Editor, The Seattle Times, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111; or fax to 464-2239; or e-mail to kwes-new@seatimes.com