Pages

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Dropping the Fluffy Pink Robe

Well, once again, Glee proudly exhibits its complete inability to portray reasonable or moderate view points.  (Please don't ask me why I watch; it's a combination of enjoying the music, and loving the drama in a train-wreck-can't-look-away sort of way.)

 For those of you who don't follow the show, in the most recent episode, appropriately dubbed "Naked", one of the show's protagonists, Rachel Berry, is faced with the great question: To strip or not to strip?  The episode centers around body issues, a popular theme on Glee, from male image pressure to emotional "nudity" (or vulnerability) to Rachel's very literal nudity.  As an aspiring actress attending the New York Academy for the Arts, she is offered an opportunity to star in a student film, with one string attached: she has to do a topless scene.

As an aspiring actress myself, it's an issue that hits home very deeply with me.  And I was completely dismayed by the viewpoints offered up in the episode.



In one corner, we have Brody, Rachel's charming, confidence-boosting boyfriend.  His stance?  She should do it.  But I'm sorry, Brody.  No, you do not have to "show your boobs to get an Oscar."  Wow.

And in the other corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have Kurt, taking the how-dare-you-not-be-ashamed-of-your-body approach.  Kurt is Rachel's closest friend and her roommate, often serving as her moral guide and support system.  Obviously, Kurt says Rachel shouldn't do the film.  But his implication that "serious" actresses don't do nudity is something I find disturbing. 

What saddens me the most is that these are both characters I love, and who I see as truly caring about Rachel and having her best interests at heart.  In fact, typically they come off as some of the more down-to-earth characters in a very tongue-in-cheek show.

You're probably wondering how I can disagree with them both at the same time.  I'll tell you.  None of them asked the right—or any—questions.  'What is the context?' for example.  'Is it a scene or film that you will be proud to have in your repertoire?'  'Do you care about the project?'  'How does your nudity contribute to the storyline?'  'Is it necessary or just trying to shock the audience?'

I don't think the human body is something to be ashamed of and I do believe that in the right films (or stage plays) at the right times, it can contribute to the story in a powerful way.  But at the same time it can also be degrading or tasteless, and it's not a choice that any actor should take lightly.  Do I think that Rachel should do the specific project in her situation?  Personally, no.  It's so early in her career that she doesn't necessarily know how to pick the right projects yet.  Doing something like a nude scene is a huge decision that will not only follow her for her entire career, but also affect her personal life.  More importantly, it was some random student's art project with an absurd-sounding plot line.  And in my opinion, the director/writer came off as exactly the kind of girl who would put a nude scene in her film just so it would be shocking or "avant garde" or blah blah blah.  Not something you would be proud of later in life.

-Spoiler Warning-

In the end, Rachel, right on the cusp of dropping her fluffy pink robe in a bizarre dream sequence, got cold feet.  But I worry that her character made her choice for the wrong reasons.  Did she choose to do it because she knew it wasn't worth it and not something she could be proud of?  Or did she do it because all of her friends shamed her out of it, and she was embarrassed of her body?  Or, as she herself stammered, did she only back out because she wasn't "ready?"  It's a fair reason, but I think it would have been more powerful if she were confident in her body and her ability to do the scene, but chose not to because the film was artistically beneath her.  Instead, the writers of Glee chose simply to say that she shouldn't get naked because she simply can't yet.  Not very inspiring.

It worries me knowing that in an increasingly desensitized world, so many people in my industry are faced with this decision or some variation of it.  But I hope that if and when that moment comes for my friends, they will face it with both confidence in their craft and in the beautiful bodies that God gave them.  I sincerely hope that they will be able to make a choice based on the value of the story being told and not on whether or not they're too scared to do it.  I also hope (somewhat futilely, I know) that society will learn the difference between gratuitous exhibitionism and powerful storytelling.  One has integrity and one does not.

2 comments:

  1. Short version: I agree. Brava!
    Long version: While there are two sides to this conundrum, neither of the viewpoints presented address the issue at hand. The surface arguments are okay, of course--do it or don't do it--but the reasons are all wrong. I won't go to the trouble of restating your argument mostly because it's *right there*. The simplified version of this issue is likely to cause major misconceptions and probably should not have been casually addressed on a show like "Glee". I'm not saying it has to be an episode of "60Minutes," but these things can't be done in half-measures.
    I'm also extremely glad to see your personal view is subject to circumstance. This isn't a one-answer-fits-all situation (few are), and suffice it to say that if Glee (or you or any other form of media) wants to pose controversial questions at all (regardless of the extent to which they are discussed), then the audience should take it as a cue to closely examine all parts of the issue, consider their own personal leanings and do not feel forced by outside pressure to a hasty or reluctant decision.

    Aaaand I'm done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could write a long response, but I think I'll just sum it up with "Cheers."

      Delete