sex and intimacy onstage

[KathyRose]

I know it's possible, somehow, to have a sexual intercourse scene on stage without going all silly or way over the top, but I haven't seen one yet. It's a scary place to go. For one thing, it's gonna be staged in some sense that is totally unreal to actual sex.

Well ... I've seen an exception to that 'rule': Wallace Shawn's play "A Thought in Three Parts," which was staged by Rubber Repertory at The Vortex in 2007. It contained a LOT of extremely realistic-looking sex and masturbation - both male and female - which went "all the way." I was later told that the male masturbation scene utilized a prosthetic member with an ejaculation mechanism; but man, did it look real!

I was invited to see the show by a friend who felt so uneasy about going to see it, that he wanted to have some control over who sat next to him in the theater. Ha! It was an amazing production - so well done that Shawn came to see it himself!

I really don't think the audience wants to see it unless it's safe...and by safe, I mean obviously not real and hyperbolic in some way.

In the case of improv, I totally agree. "Simulated sex" is the kind of thing that an audience needs to be warned about beforehand, and even saying 'blue maestro' may not cover it. So to speak.

On the other hand, I think that real physical intimacy, in terms of affectionate touching and kissing (but nothing invasive), definitely has a place in improv. We've touched upon that a little in the 'vulnerability' thread. So to speak.

[ratliff]

...but the act itself with all its space work...

I think I just learned more about Chris Allen than I wanted to know.

Also, Kathy’s idea of a warning is interesting to me. I don’t get a warning about sex when I go to see an R-rated movie. And we definitely don’t warn people entering improv shows that they might hear the f-bomb or have to watch a scene about, say, hysterectomies or cannibalism or explosive diarrhea (all of which I’ve seen). So why does sex require a special label?

I saw “A Thought in Three Parts” too, and when my female companion told me she didn’t realize the penises were prosthetic, I almost fell over laughing. You ladies have some terribly unrealistic ideas about how much control men have over that sort of thing.

[KathyRose]

Kathy’s idea of a warning is interesting to me. I don’t get a warning about sex when I go to see an R-rated movie. And we definitely don’t warn people entering improv shows that they might hear the f-bomb or have to watch a scene about, say, hysterectomies or cannibalism or explosive diarrhea (all of which I’ve seen). So why does sex require a special label?

Sure, you get a warning - it's the R-rating! Of course, a film could also get that rating for violence & language alone; but if you go to an R-rated film, you can almost count on seeing someone's bare naughty bits. And explicit sex still gets an X rating, right?

Giving a warning is not my idea. I believe there are pornography laws that address the subject, and I'm sure they address "live theater" productions, too. Not so, for hysterectomies, cannibalism and explosive diarrhea - those subjects are simply in poor taste (so to speak). Juvenile or gross-out humor is not censored by law.

I would expect Blue Maestro to have an R-rating, but certainly not an X. (Super ick!) And I've always assumed that our other improv shows were no "worse" than PG because we don't have an ID check at the door. I was really surprised to see this thread discussing "explicit" sex in improv, because of the legal ramifications.

I saw “A Thought in Three Parts” too, and when my female companion told me she didn’t realize the penises were prosthetic, I almost fell over laughing. You ladies have some terribly unrealistic ideas about how much control men have over that sort of thing.

I doubted that it was real, but was willing to be impressed - verrrrry impressed. I enjoy believing that magic is real, too. That's what makes it magical. I'm quite happy not knowing the "secret" to how the trick works.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

I changed my mind, everyone should feel up Jason Vines as much as possible. In life as well as in scenes. and in both cases, please be as realistic as possible.

I not sure if the representation of sex makes something R rated. I've seen animated dicks and puppet boobs on tv, and I assume that simulated space work sex would fall into the same category. Maybe it depends on how graphic it is? Maybe....even then. I don't think there's any reason why you can't or shouldn't have realistic improv sex on stage. I also don't think there's any reason to assume that it by default would not work, or be forced, or gratuitous.

I for one an not too concerned about whether or not the audience is made uncomfortable by the sex. I don't really see what the big deal is. Why is it so personal that its off limits? Why shouldn't audiences be remind that it exists? It can be awkward or uncomfortable in life why not on stage? Particularly if your goal is to be funny I think the realistic sex is way funnier due to the risk involved. Real sex is vulnerable, so the representation of it will likely be as well. As an improviser, I'm looking for ways to take risks and be vulnerable.

To get back to Ratliff's initial question which was not if sex in scenes was needed, but in situations in which someone has decided to portray sex in a scene why isn't it portrayed realistically...Again, I think that the more realistic the better. I saw terp and justin have sex on stage once with a decently graphic amount of realism, and a pretty minimal amount of selling the moment out for any cartoonish gag. The realism made it all the more effective. Engaging to watch, and the range of emotions I experienced was greater that I likely would have experienced if they had sold the moment out. It made me think of actual sex and everything attached to it, instead of just playfully pointing at sex from a distance.

A lot of the comments on this thread seem to take the position that it doesn't happen because its hard (innuendo!) to commit to...but why not embrace the challenge? Watching how someone does any action on stage goes a long way towards defining their character. Embrace the sex, and do it realistically as the character. Chances are its for the sake of comedy anyhow. Its just improv, doesn't that take most of the risk out of it?

In the end, the point of the sex will probably end up being to create comedy. It probably won't be that pornographic because the point isn't likely to be arousing the audience. I think the intent behind it goes a long way. Chances are the humor is going to be coming from the sex being bad or awkward or ridiculous, and the more realistically this bad awkward ridiculous sex is played, the funnier the scene is going to be. Even if it is jason vines playing some chick stroking off horses while someone playing heath ledger's ghost looks on masturbating, I say, play it with commitment, realism, and integrity. boobs.

[mcnichol]

In the end, the point of the sex will probably end up being to create comedy. It probably won't be that pornographic because the point isn't likely to be arousing the audience. I think the intent behind it goes a long way. Chances are the humor is going to be coming from the sex being bad or awkward or ridiculous, and the more realistically this bad awkward ridiculous sex is played, the funnier the scene is going to be.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS

I saw a Dasariski show years ago (2001?) where they were all playing multiple characters, and in one scene Rich's character got involved in rough sex with Rich's other character. He kept switching back and forth between each character, all the while trying to get a very reluctant third character played by Craig to join in. And realism was not a part of it at all -- it was the ridicuous, heightened aspect that made it so funny and so "right" right there. Plus the scene was there to illustrate things about those characters. That scene had the longest sustained laughter from an audience I've ever seen.

[HerrHerr]

...but the act itself with all its space work...

I think I just learned more about Chris Allen than I wanted to know.

Rocket Maaaaaaaaa-aaaaaa-aaaan. Rocket Man.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

In the end, the point of the sex will probably end up being to create comedy. It probably won't be that pornographic because the point isn't likely to be arousing the audience. I think the intent behind it goes a long way. Chances are the humor is going to be coming from the sex being bad or awkward or ridiculous, and the more realistically this bad awkward ridiculous sex is played, the funnier the scene is going to be.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS

I saw a Dasariski show years ago (2001?) where they were all playing multiple characters, and in one scene Rich's character got involved in rough sex with Rich's other character. He kept switching back and forth between each character, all the while trying to get a very reluctant third character played by Craig to join in. And realism was not a part of it at all -- it was the ridicuous, heightened aspect that made it so funny and so "right" right there. Plus the scene was there to illustrate things about those characters. That scene had the longest sustained laughter from an audience I've ever seen.

Aside from the fact that he was playing both characters do you remember what about it made it more ridiculous vs realistic?

[mcnichol]

Aside from the fact that he was playing both characters do you remember what about it made it more ridiculous vs realistic?

The "rough" part of the rough sex was so heightened to ridiculousness that it was just absurd. Then it was balanced by Craig's awkward friend just standing there in the room with them, too prudish/nervous to join in. But the fact that Rich was playing both characters had to be a huge part of it, since he could do anything in that moment, knowing that he would be the recipient of it. And as the audience you knew that, so that was just part of what made it all so funny. I'm not sure it would have played out exactly the same if there was actually another improvisor in that second role Rich was playing.

Also, when Rich was the guy character, he would occasionally look over at Craig, giving him a sly nod and a mouthed "C'mon" to join in. It was just one of those rare scenes where he just timed all the switching between characters, heightening the rough stuff, and calling Craig over just right and sustained it for a good two minutes or so. Craig was great at just standing there awkwardly with a pained look on his face

As I remember, they were all Navy guys about to start a 3-day shore leave. They all had different ideas on how they wanted to spend their time off. It was a great show, in that I remember it 8 years later.


EDITTED: ...just to add, that this is not to say that a sex/intimate scene can only be in an improv show for comedy's sake. I'm sure there could be a really touching moment, or something somber or whatever. But as long as there is intention from we as improvisors behind it. If you liken this to any other activity between two characters -- say a fistfight -- an audience doesn't just want to see a fistfight for the sake of one. It's either ridiculous/sad/awkward for comedy's sake, or there's some emotion behind it (Skip's beating the crap out of grandpa ...finally!) or whatever. But I think that the awkwardness, as a normal human being, of miming sex (such an intimate, private thing for most of us) in front of an audience, usually with someone you don't know on that level ...i suppose it could be difficult to not get a little in your head about it and lose the intention that we usually bring to a scene.

[KathyRose]

As I remember, they were all Navy guys about to start a 3-day shore leave. They all had different ideas on how they wanted to spend their time off. It was a great show, in that I remember it 8 years later.

That's a terrific example of an "explicit sex scene" that would pass all of my personal tests of suitability for a show:
1. it was integral to the story of the scene.
2. it was not mean-spirited or abusive in intent (i.e. not a wife beating or rape).
3. it was played for the benefit of the audience*.
4. it was skillfully performed.

* for their entertainment, not to prove how "edgy" or "out there" the performer could be.

I would have really enjoyed seeing that one!

[Dave]

Two quick thoughts:

Mainly about the audience and their having to watch you pretend to have sex on stage for their comedy dollars...



1) Sex in movies, when it works, works mainly because it's usually two people we would want to watch having sex (your angelina jolies and jason strathams, for example).
There are not many improvisers in my 15 years that I would want to watch have sex. It's uncomfortable to watch ugly people make out...or even pretend to. Yes. I said it. We're all relatively uglier than 98% of movie stars...



2) Comedy in Porn never works. Ever. Why would it work the other way around? I think there are moments when sex can be accidentally funny, but not intentionally funny.


Just because the scene asks for it and it seems justified and you really want to go for realism in your shows...should a paying audience have to be subjected to your every whim?

[ratliff]

Just because the scene asks for it and it seems justified and you really want to go for realism in your shows...should a paying audience have to be subjected to your every whim?

No, but that’s sort of like my mom saying, “Do they have to cuss so much?” They don’t have to; it’s a choice. You like it or you don’t.

Still, the original point is that improvisers never seem to have this whim. People have suggested some excellent reasons why this might be true . . . but then, I can always come up with excellent reasons for my own behavior. If I play a high-status argumentative guy in every scene, I guarantee you I can come up with a perfectly legitimate reason for it each time, but a good coach will recognize the larger pattern and call me on it. So I’m just wondering if there’s a parallel to our collective avoidance of this kind of scene.

And I will be the first to admit that if nobody wants to play these scenes and nobody has asked to see them, it’s probably a moot point.

[valetoile]

And I will be the first to admit that if nobody wants to play these scenes and nobody has asked to see them, it’s probably a moot point.

I want to play these scenes. I want to start a project with the aim to include realistic improvised scenes of a sexual nature.

I think whether people in a scene are changing a tire, killing a zombie, or having sex, it can be done skillfully (in terms of spacework), realisitically (for those characters), and with commitment, and it can be a very wonderful moment for the audience to watch, as long as there is truth in it.

Who wants to have sex with me on stage?

[vine311]

Who wants to have sex with me on stage?

I do. I'd love to explore the vulnerability and realism aspect of it.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

And I will be the first to admit that if nobody wants to play these scenes and nobody has asked to see them, it’s probably a moot point.

I want to play these scenes. I want to start a project with the aim to include realistic improvised scenes of a sexual nature.

I think whether people in a scene are changing a tire, killing a zombie, or having sex, it can be done skillfully (in terms of spacework), realisitically (for those characters), and with commitment, and it can be a very wonderful moment for the audience to watch, as long as there is truth in it.

Who wants to have sex with me on stage?

big ol pumps to this whole post.

I'm for reals about planet cum island, ya'll.

[DollarBill]

I think y'all are making something out of nothing. I think it's as easy to play a "just before sex" or "just after sex" scene realistically as it is to play any other scene realistically. Really really realistic scenes, just don't happen that often. Even in movies there's a choice made about how "realistic" the film feels. I think the same goes for prov. As long as you don't break up the reality that you establish at the top of the "sex" scene or any type of scene for that matter, then it won't feel like a cop-out. Of-course, as usual, this is not applicable in EVERY situation. It's just a loose guideline that I believe is usefull in helping me play.

Oh, also, I think that the better you are at acting, the more realistic you'll be able to get with your scenes. Since most of the best actors are usually hired to do scripted work, it would stand to reason that the improvisors you see on any given night might have trouble pulling off the nuances of a truly realistic sex scene.