Can acting be sinful

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcg2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pcg2

Guest
Hi,

I have been taking Latin courses all year here at college, and this quarter we were given an opportunity to recieve extra credit if we participated in a play that is put on yearly by first year latin students called Auricula Meretricula, based on Roman comedy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auricula_Meretricula

The play is basically about a prostitute, and at times is quite funny. It is not really dirty or degradingly sexual. I was chosen to play an old, perverted, drunk, fat man that turns out to be the young prostitute’s father. Basically, I go to the brothel looking for a prostitute, and end up finding my daughter (Auricula) there. However, my T.A. has asked me to be vulgar and suggestive in my actions on stage (since I don’t really say anything that is bad), in order to “get the point across” and make it clear that I am a dirty, old, horny and drunk man. At rehearsals the other day, I did a few “air-humps”, meaning I suggestively humped the air to act out like I was looking for some “action” at the whorehouse.

I have a few questions regarding the morality of all this, however. Was it mortally sinful of me to have done that (hump the air)? I admit that I felt uncomfortable doing it, and thought that it might be sinful, but I just wasn’t sure because of the fact that I was acting. I don’t think that it’s grave matter, though…

Also, does it seem like the play itself is sinful? It doesn’t really seem like it, especially when you consider the fact that, although it talks about a prostitute, it doesn’t really degrade women or have any sexual acts at all. But even if it did, would it be sinful since it is just acting?
 
Provided you’re not acting in a porno, I think you’re on fairly safe ground!

I remember someone made the connection before, in relation to a similar question, about the reading of the passion gospel on Good Friday - when the congregation shouts back “crucify him!”, it doesn’t mean they actually want to crucify Jesus, does it? If we can take on such a role even within the Church’s liturgy, then acting shouldn’t be a problem per se.

As an aside, for all those who say that public entertainment has become so base and degrading in our own age, it’s interesting to see that the same themes were going on in Roman and Greek drama thousands of years ago. If you listen to the folk songs collected from medieval and later manuscripts, you realise this kind of vulgarity never really went away.
 
Turn the question around. If someone asked you, Hey, do you think Anthony Hopkins was sinning by playing Hannibal Lector? or, do you think Daniel Radcliffe is a sinner playing a someties deceitful witch? What would you say?

I’d say no. Just like with writing or reading a book, there are some that are tasteless, or sinful, but the vast majority of the time, the answer is no, it’s not sinful
 
shondrea said:
Turn the question around. If someone asked you, Hey, do you think Anthony Hopkins was sinning by playing Hannibal Lector? or, do you think Daniel Radcliffe is a sinner playing a someties deceitful witch? What would you say?

I’d say no. Just like with writing or reading a book, there are some that are tasteless, or sinful, but the vast majority of the time, the answer is no, it’s not sinful
Click to expand...
But I guess my question is, does this type of play seem sinful or tasteless?
 
DL82 said:
Provided you’re not acting in a porno, I think you’re on fairly safe ground!

I remember someone made the connection before, in relation to a similar question, about the reading of the passion gospel on Good Friday - when the congregation shouts back “crucify him!”, it doesn’t mean they actually want to crucify Jesus, does it? If we can take on such a role even within the Church’s liturgy, then acting shouldn’t be a problem per se.

As an aside, for all those who say that public entertainment has become so base and degrading in our own age, it’s interesting to see that the same themes were going on in Roman and Greek drama thousands of years ago. If you listen to the folk songs collected from medieval and later manuscripts, you realise this kind of vulgarity never really went away.
Click to expand...
Good point. However, participating in the stations of the cross is giving glory to God. While this play isn’t degradingly sexual, I certainly wouldn’t say it’s giving glory to God. So I guess that’s the context in which i ask my question.
 
How does the play end? Is it redeeming at all? What is the message?

Acting is never sinful, but if you’re just interested in whether the play itself is distasteful (which probably wouldn’t preclude you from participating in it anyway), then you have to look at it as a whole rather than just considering certain aspects of it.

Is it a tragedy or a comedy? Does it encourage prostitution or just look at it objectively?
 
I would suggest, in this particular case, where you are dealing with an ancient Roman play in Latin, there is a further factor, which perhaps even over-rules whether the play’s own moral or aim is a good one. The play itself is a historical artefact, which tells us something about a long dead culture. Even if what it tells us about the Romans is that they were vulgar and lecherous, it’s hardly likely that anyone coming to watch is going to be personally scandalised by the play itself. Different factors are at work in contemporary theatre, because people watch for entertainment, and also to engage with the theme of the play. I guess the people who will come and watch a Latin play are more likely to view it as a historical curiosity, something of an academic interest, so the moral themes addressed in the play will be understood within those terms, as the morals of a long defunct society.

There are some truly disturbing elements to Roman theatre, even more so with Greek theatre, but anyone who goes to watch such a play is surely aware of that, and the cultural references are so far removed from our own, that it’s highly unlikely to damage the conscience of the actors or the audience.

Please stop worrying.
 
Ponyguy said:
Ask Bill Shakespeare… he wrote a lot of them like that… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
pcg2 said:
I don’t get it was that supposed to be sarcastic or something
Click to expand...
Shakespeare wrote many plays with marital fidelity and covert (as well as overt) sex within their themes. Truthfully, it was quite a significant part of the upper-class culture of the time. And as every College student who has endured English classwork knows, Bill Shakespeare’s work has staunchly stood the test of time.
 
erigby27 said:
How does the play end? Is it redeeming at all? What is the message?

Acting is never sinful, but if you’re just interested in whether the play itself is distasteful (which probably wouldn’t preclude you from participating in it anyway), then you have to look at it as a whole rather than just considering certain aspects of it.

Is it a tragedy or a comedy? Does it encourage prostitution or just look at it objectively?
Click to expand...
From what I can tell, it doesn’t encourage it. It’s a comedy. I think it looks at it more objectively and just tells a silly story that just so happens to involve a prostitute and her pimp.

So I should have no worries, then?
 
Men and women have turned down roles that they felt went against their moral teachings. Does a role have to be for the greater glory of God? No, but there is a moral code God will find worthy and an immoral code that serves no purpose other than to degrade his human creation for a profit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top