More Theatrical Than What, Exactly?

...or, Put a Sock on It.

Got myself a free two-week subscription to the New York Times going on right now. The fun about the paper, as opposed to the website, is that it's easier to just keep wandering from section to section. Sister-in-law picked up the theater pages today and read from a piece about the increasing frequency of full-frontal male nudity onstage. It contained this gem:

Mr. Nicola, by contrast, argues that there is no such thing as gratuitous nudity. "Maybe a naked male is threatening, maybe it's fear, or homophobia," he said. "I think an artist who chooses to use nudity is trying to communicate something. And I think a penis is more theatrical."

I may be going out on a - ahem - limb here, but I'd wager that most people outside of an explicitly sexual situation don't find a naked man particularly threatening. I think he's more likely to be found just a touch ridiculous. But it's that last line that's so fabulously fabulous.

"It's showtime, little buddy! Let's go out there and give 'em the ol' razzle-dazzle! Yes, yes, the rubes lined up to see Nicole Kidman naked onstage because she's beautiful and famous. But...but...I sense a showtune coming on..."

But you, little chum, are the realest of deals
Bald head and all, you've got Broadway appeal.

Though you lack a face
You've got charm and grace
You've got heart
Heck, you're Art!

If someone cries "Cheap!"
When I drop my robe
I'll reply, "Listen, creep!
You're a rank homophobe!"

We've got something to say
Me and my little friend
There's a message this play
Is trying to send."

So while all you women
May get more applause
When you doff, before swimmin',
Your garments of gauze

Just remember we menfolk
Have concerns that are textual
It's clear that a penis
Is much more...theatrical.

(And this is how I return to blogging? Oh, the shame of it. The stinging shame.)