Art, and the freedom to express it.

Yes, there is going to be a lot of talk about Harry Potter in the nude. Daniel Radcliffe is starring in a play during which, apparently, he performs a “lengthy, nude sex scene”. Live.

Some quick background: this is a play which was put on stage in the 1970s and is returning. I don’t know where it played before but it will be in England this time (it is implied that was its venue last time). It has sold a great number of advance bookings, and was controversial in the past, too. I have not heard what the scene in question involves.

There are all the expected arguments on both the “for” and “against” sides. As expected, many parents are upset that Harry Potter’s star is going to do something like this, and the answer is “don’t take your kids to see it”. The typical pro-and-con argument about the appropriateness of this kind of material revolves around free speech (though I doubt there’s much actual dialog during the objectionable parts) vs. decency (though this is not being done in a public place - and is probably less graphic than what happens in R-rated movies). And lets face it. There are a lot of guys who would love to be in a position to have guaranteed sex that many times a week. And to get paid for it!

Radcliffe did not want to portray Harry Potter. He was a phenomenal child actor with a brilliant career ahead of him and didn’t want to be thought of for one single pop-culture role, nor be type-cast into those roles in the future. Other actors and actresses have gone through similar identity crises and come up with similar solutions (Victor Victoria and Julie Andrews, anyone? At least Radcliffe’s scene in this play is not gay...)

The fact is that pornographic movies are legal. What makes plays so different is the fact that, just like packaged meat in a supermarket shields us from the source product animal, seeing sex or nudity on a movie or television screen dehumanizes it. I think what many of us shy away from is that we actually do believe (or perhaps simply recognize) that seeing nudity on screen is less stimulating than it is in actual person - so seeing live pornography is obviously more stimulating than seeing a filmed version.

This play is going to be a hit or a failure on its own. The cliché “no publicity is bad publicity” applies, but what would be more interesting to me is to see just whom the audience is. Claiming a million pounds sterling (did I reference British currency correctly?) in pre-release sales is impressive has often seemed to me as clever as touting a movie’s gross ticket sales in dollars. How much does the ticket cost? How many people actually went to the movie compared to how many could have gone to the movie? By doing actual math on ticket sales we discover that a “blockbuster” movie reaches a surprisingly small audience. But who goes? Only those who could have been counted on? That’s fine. But don’t assume that everyone likes something simply because a certain, small sector of society does. (see my upcoming post: Megaphone Mathmatics)

All I ask is that people be prepared to pay the consequences of their actions. What you expose yourself to enters your thought. The thoughts you own thereafter are yours to be challenged with. How you project yourself to the rest of the world affects how they think about you. You can’t demand that people think differently, you have to accept that opinion is formed outside your control. You can try to influence it, but you can’t demand that everyone see things your way. Where they don’t, you have to be prepared for their reactions. Even if their reactions seem out of all reasonable proportion to you.

There are cultures where the exposition of any part of a woman besides her eyes - to anyone not her husband - can be punished by death. If you are going to be so alien to their way of thought that you are willing to not only show a woman, live, fully naked, performing lengthy sexual acts whether by herself, with a man, or even with her husband, you cannot be intellectually honest with yourself and be surprised when they believe your entire culture is deserving of death and damnation.

Does this mean you stop what you are doing, repress who you are? That is one answer, though it is not necessarily the answer I would choose (certainly not in all cases). Whatever your answer is, you had better be prepared for the revulsion, hatred, “misunderstanding”, and eventual violence you are going to engender.

And if you decide to continue “being who you are” or “exercising the right to express yourself in a free society” I don’t ever want to hear you tell me you want me to try to reach out and understand my enemy. Just be glad others like me are willing to fight this enemy you created because we believe in the freedoms we believe you are abusing.