Is Acting Immoral?

[gibs7usa]

A 19 year old friend was approached by his director at college to audition for the fall musical, which is the newest version of Cabaret. As a sophomore he feels compelled to do the show. She told him that she is considering him for the lead role in which he will have to kiss another man on stage. Aside from the intense homosexual aspects throughout the show, she was upfront with her plans to make her show very raunchy and R Rated. My friend insists that what he is doing on stage is “fake” so it is okay…and he compares it to murdering someone on stage…He says none of it is real so it doesn’t matter. Please help me make this make sense of this!
Thanks

 

[valentino]

Not always.For instance:Say that their making a film about a true known homosexual and they are depicting his life.IMO it wouldn’t be wrong to kiss another man(of course one could go overboard in which they make him kiss for a very long time or he has to french kiss)in which case it would be sinful.if he had to preform some sex act it would definitely be sinful.Nudity in films are almost always sinful because their purpose is to cause arousal.Most is entirely unnecessary to depict another’s life on stage.The public can get the message without acting out in detail.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

As our Lord, and The Church have always taught: (1) Never condemn the Sinner, (2) Only The Sin, and the the endorsement, support of Sin. (3) IMO,* if *the play leaves a Positive message about sinfullness, I’de avoid it, and supporting it. A reminder about Our Lord: He didn’t hate or avoid the naked man in the river ‘filled with the devil’: He went to him, chased the devil out of him, and clothed him. Never hate the person, or group of people; only the wrong they are involved in, according to Our Lord, His Church.

 

[smichhertz]

As our Lord, and The Church have always taught: (1) Never condemn the Sinner, (2) Only The Sin, and the the endorsement, support of Sin. (3) IMO,* if *the play leaves a Positive message about sinfullness, I’de avoid it, and supporting it. A reminder about Our Lord: He didn’t hate or avoid the naked man in the river ‘filled with the devil’: He went to him, chased the devil out of him, and clothed him. Never hate the person, or group of people; only the wrong they are involved in, according to Our Lord, His Church.

This. If it’s supporting or condoning the sin, try to avoid it. If it’s protraying it for what is truly is, then it’s okay. But Catholic actors should take care, many theater groups are rampant with immorality.

 

[starsmurf]

I think that this is not immoral. If your friend feels that it is ok, then it’s between him and God. I can’t think that it is any different to if your friend were playing a married man and had to kiss a woman who wasn’t his “wife”, would you be reacting like this if your friend had to play an adulterer? I think that you are getting really twisted up with the “homosexual” aspects of the show, at least if it is a college show and is “raunchy and R-rated” then there won’t be kids in the audience. I think your friend’s analogy of a stage murder is a good one. It’s not real and the Church teaches that in sin, it is our intentions that matter. So for your friend to kiss another man because that is what the part requires is not the same as kissing that person because he is attracted to him sexually.

As I said, this is really between your friend and God. Trust God.

 

[JRKH]

Acting is not intrinsically evil so it is not immoral.

However, in everything we do we need to be seeking the Glory of God. One simply cannot skip out of sin by saying “it’s just acting”. The ever famous and ever applicable quote, “Preach the Gospel Always. When necessary, use words” finds yet another expression here. Acting teaches; Acting promotes; Acting influences; Acting preaches…
So ask your friend what is being taught and promoted by the play? What is being positively portrayed by the play and his proposed role in it? Does he, as a Christian wish to promote such things?

Peace
James

 

[Joan1969]

A 19 year old friend was approached by his director at college to audition for the fall musical, which is the newest version of Cabaret. As a sophomore he feels compelled to do the show. She told him that she is considering him for the lead role in which he will have to kiss another man on stage. Aside from the intense homosexual aspects throughout the show, she was upfront with her plans to make her show very raunchy and R Rated. My friend insists that what he is doing on stage is “fake” so it is okay…and he compares it to murdering someone on stage…He says none of it is real so it doesn’t matter. Please help me make this make sense of this!
Thanks

Hi Gibs,

I totally disagree with your friend. It’s not about acting per se, it’s about the media messages we promote and participate in, for which we are responsible.

Artworks, plays, books, TV shows and movies are as powerful as anything else in building the culture and determining the course of human history. It’s always amazing to me how people refuse to recognize this, but take refuge in a false idea of “freedom”, “art” or “it’s just a show” to dodge their responsbility to promote the truth.

When an artwork gives mixed messages, participation might be a matter of judgment and good Christians may disagree. But this case seems straightforward to me. There’s no excuse for pro-homosexual raunch.

Your friend may be feeling career pressure, assuming he plans a career in theater or in the arts (if not, his sense of “compulsion” seems overblown to say the least). If that’s the case, I have no easy answers since he may well have to make some big sacrifices to avoid plays like this one. Big sacrifices are often part of the Christian life. My sympathies are with his situation. If he does make the right choice and avoids this play, I pray that a good opportunity will come his way to replace it.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Monica4316]

Acting in itself is not immoral but it depends on what you’re doing… I’d say that musical is immoral and I wouldn’t ever participate in something like that.

 

[Cat]

Acting in itself is not immoral but it depends on what you’re doing… I’d say that musical is immoral and I wouldn’t ever participate in something like that.

I don’t agree.

Cabaret depicts a decadent, immoral society and culture that was prevalent in Germany before World War II. It is an excellent history lesson, as it shows us, through the telling on stage of the story of Sally Bowles, what can happen when a civilized, moral people allow themselves to become uncivilized and immoral.

One of the points of the musical Cabaret is to make people realize that this depraved culture was one of the reasons why Hitler and his Nazi party were able to rise to power. In a moral, righteous society, Hitler would have appeared as a vile creature and been rejected by decent folks, but against the backdrop of the “Cabaret” lifestyle, Hitler looked decidedly holy, rather like a morally-straight savior (remember, he was unmarried and to the public, presented himself as celibate).

No wonder so many Christian people were attracted to him, as he promised an ending to the weak, immoral “Cabaret-like” Germany and a return to the high ideals of German culture. Many people saw Nazism as the pathway to restoring righteousness.

In no way does the musical condone the decadent society or portray decadence in a favorable, attractive way. On the contrary, Cabaret is decidedly tragic, and the characters are pathetic and and sad as they live their depraved and miserable lives. The show has a definite unhappy ending. Sally Bowles seems to be “strong,” but it is obvious that she will probably continue to sink even lower into a seamy cesspool of sin.

This musical is not likely to induce anyone to get involved with a homosexual or promiscuous lifestyle.

Some people can understand the importance of righteousness without ever seeing or hearing stories like Cabaret. But many people benefit by seeing these tragic stories about sin and sinners. The stories help them to apply their Christian theology to real life settings.

I hope that the OPs friend will decide to audition and earn the part of the Master of Ceremonies. It would be interesting and uplifting to see a Christian actor take on this role and play this character.

In case anyone is wondering, my daughter is a professional stage manager.

I would highly recommend the following website for those who are interested in Christians and theater arts: churchandart.org/

 

[valentino]

I don’t see how any Catholic can justify committing a sin on stage for the sake of realism.realism isn’t necessary when it comes to sin.There are other ways to convey a point.To make a point that a character was a homosexual the actor does have to engage in a homosexual act.Every thing is done in this case to arouse the public and it in no way helps the audience to understand that this individual was homosexual.Lets not continue to deny sin exists.

 

[JRKH]

Cat,

I have never seen Cabaret and so cannot comment on the moral point or lesson of the story, but I would like to address your early comments about German society at the time.

Cat Said:
Cabaret depicts a decadent, immoral society and culture that was prevalent in Germany before World War II. It is an excellent history lesson, as it shows us, through the telling on stage of the story of Sally Bowles, what can happen when a civilized, moral people allow themselves to become uncivilized and immoral

One of the points of the musical Cabaret is to make people realize that this depraved culture was one of the reasons why Hitler and his Nazi party were able to rise to power. In a moral, righteous society, Hitler would have appeared as a vile creature and been rejected by decent folks, but against the backdrop of the “Cabaret” lifestyle, Hitler looked decidedly holy, rather like a morally-straight savior (remember, he was unmarried and to the public, presented himself as celibate).

No wonder so many Christian people were attracted to him, as he promised an ending to the weak, immoral “Cabaret-like” Germany and a return to the high ideals of German culture. Many people saw Nazism as the pathway to restoring righteousness.

This is NOT an excellent history lesson. You say above that it, “…depicts a decadent, immoral society and culture that was prevalent in Germany…” If you believe this then perhaps you need to broaden your view of history. The vast majority of Germans’ were hard working, diligent people who wanted nothing more than to live in peace, raise their children and gave decent jobs. In other words, just like the people of any other country. But they were also a people pushed to the brink, both culturally and economically, by factors largely beyond their control.

Germany was left vulnerable to Hitler (or some other strongman) primarily because of pure economics and secondarily because of issues of national pride. The Versailles Treaty after WW I laid all the blame for the war on Germany and demanded that she pay ALL the COST of the war incurred by the victors. This treaty, effectively crippled the German economy for the foreseeable future.
Anger over the treaty and the economic devastation it wrought undercut much of the support for the new democratic government (the Weimer Republic). In addition there was a strong post-war communist influence seeking to make Germany a Bolshevik country.
Then came the Great Depression and Germany simply collapsed with high unemployment, and rampant inflation. The Deutschmark became virtually worthless.

It is in this atmosphere that the Nazi’s rode to power, and not on the fact that there were some decadent nightclubs and people living immoral lives.
We’ve had immorality in the US for some time now too and we haven’t yet produced a Hitler to clean it up…but then our economy has been strong…and people “vote their wallet”. This should be evident in the fact that so many Catholics voted for Obama who favors abortion rights, gay rights etc.

Germans accepted Hitler, not to clean up the seamy nightclubs, but to restore order and pride, rebuild the economy and put people to work while keeping out the communists.

It may be the intent of the movie Cabaret to present the decadent lifestyle in a negative light, but does it accomplish this goal? Will it accomplish the goal given the director’s state goal to “make it as raunchy and R-rated as possible”?

Sorry to ramble on so…I now step down from my soapbox.

Peace
James

 

[Cat]

I don’t see how any Catholic can justify committing a sin on stage for the sake of realism.realism isn’t necessary when it comes to sin.There are other ways to convey a point.To make a point that a character was a homosexual the actor does have to engage in a homosexual act.Every thing is done in this case to arouse the public and it in no way helps the audience to understand that this individual was homosexual.Lets not continue to deny sin exists.

The Master of Ceremonies in Cabaret is not a homosexual. He is a hedonist, devoting his life to every kind of deviant pleasure. Yes, if the director chooses, there is a male/male kiss in Cabaret. There is also, should the director choose, a scene in which the Master of Ceremonies is cavorting (sexually) with two women at the same time.

And there are also scenes in which the Nazis are tormenting the Jews.

Which of these sins should not be portrayed on a stage? Are the sexual sins any “worse” than the hate sins? Keep in mind that the hatred of Jews led to the genocide of 6 million Jews by the Nazis.

Are actors to avoid ALL sins? Does this mean that actors cannot portray the main characters in The Producers (Bialystock and Blume), who work a scam to defraud little old ladies of their money?

Or an actor cannot play the role of Harold Hill in The Music Man because Hill is working a huge con to rip off small town rubes and deceive lonely women?

Does that mean that an actor cannot portray Fagin in Oliver, who exploits orphans?

Does that mean that an actor cannot portray Captain Hook in Peter Pan, because he is a pirate who robs other ships and tries to kill Peter Pan?

Does that mean that an actor cannot dance the role of the Mouse King in Nutcracker, because the Nutcracker extorts Clara’s marzipan, and tries to kidnap Clara?

 

[JRKH]

The Master of Ceremonies in Cabaret is not a homosexual. He is a hedonist, devoting his life to every kind of deviant pleasure. Yes, if the director chooses, there is a male/male kiss in Cabaret. There is also, should the director choose, a scene in which the Master of Ceremonies is cavorting (sexually) with two women at the same time.

And there are also scenes in which the Nazis are tormenting the Jews.

Which of these sins should not be portrayed on a stage? Are the sexual sins any “worse” than the hate sins? Keep in mind that the hatred of Jews led to the genocide of 6 million Jews by the Nazis.

Are actors to avoid ALL sins? Does this mean that actors cannot portray the main characters in The Producers (Bialystock and Blume), who work a scam to defraud little old ladies of their money?

Or an actor cannot play the role of Harold Hill in The Music Man because Hill is working a huge con to rip off small town rubes and deceive lonely women?

Does that mean that an actor cannot portray Fagin in Oliver, who exploits orphans?

Does that mean that an actor cannot portray Captain Hook in Peter Pan, because he is a pirate who robs other ships and tries to kill Peter Pan?

Does that mean that an actor cannot dance the role of the Mouse King in Nutcracker, because the Nutcracker extorts Clara’s marzipan, and tries to kidnap Clara?

Excellent points Cat…

The overall intent of the piece must be taken into consideration.
Jesus told stories of people sinning in his parables, including murder, to make certain points. But of course these sins were not actually committed by anybody. In like manner an actor who “Kills” on stage or screen has not actually done so.

But there also needs to be a certain balance. So that an actor, in “portraying” a sin, does not actually partake of that sin. Where obvious, more black and white, sin is involved like killing or stealing, it’s obviously pretty easy to draw the line. Other things are not so cut and dry. For instance, should a Christian Actor do a nude scene in a movie or play?

In many cases I think it has to be a very personal decision made only after looking at the overall intent, goal and moral of the project.
Given the information in the OP, I’d have to say I don’t agree with the director’s intent and so I personally would not participate in the project.

Peace
James

 

[Cat]

Cat,

I have never seen Cabaret and so cannot comment on the moral point or lesson of the story, but I would like to address your early comments about German society at the time.

This is NOT an excellent history lesson. You say above that it, “…depicts a decadent, immoral society and culture that was prevalent in Germany…” If you believe this then perhaps you need to broaden your view of history. The vast majority of Germans’ were hard working, diligent people who wanted nothing more than to live in peace, raise their children and gave decent jobs. In other words, just like the people of any other country. But they were also a people pushed to the brink, both culturally and economically, by factors largely beyond their control.

Germany was left vulnerable to Hitler (or some other strongman) primarily because of pure economics and secondarily because of issues of national pride. The Versailles Treaty after WW I laid all the blame for the war on Germany and demanded that she pay ALL the COST of the war incurred by the victors. This treaty, effectively crippled the German economy for the foreseeable future.
Anger over the treaty and the economic devastation it wrought undercut much of the support for the new democratic government (the Weimer Republic). In addition there was a strong post-war communist influence seeking to make Germany a Bolshevik country.
Then came the Great Depression and Germany simply collapsed with high unemployment, and rampant inflation. The Deutschmark became virtually worthless.

It is in this atmosphere that the Nazi’s rode to power, and not on the fact that there were some decadent nightclubs and people living immoral lives.
We’ve had immorality in the US for some time now too and we haven’t yet produced a Hitler to clean it up…but then our economy has been strong…and people “vote their wallet”. This should be evident in the fact that so many Catholics voted for Obama who favors abortion rights, gay rights etc.

Germans accepted Hitler, not to clean up the seamy nightclubs, but to restore order and pride, rebuild the economy and put people to work while keeping out the communists.

It may be the intent of the movie Cabaret to present the decadent lifestyle in a negative light, but does it accomplish this goal? Will it accomplish the goal given the director’s state goal to “make it as raunchy and R-rated as possible”?

Sorry to ramble on so…I now step down from my soapbox.

Peace
James

I know all of this. I realize that there are complex reasons why the Nazi party ascended to power, not the least of which was centuries of anti-Semitism throughout Europe. I also know that even the most Christian of Germans believed that their country was “stabbed in the back” at Weimar. To be honest, I think they were, too. I think that the nations of the world should have remember Martin Luther and the Reformation, and been a lot more cautious about riling up the Germans and pushing them.

But I also know that among the “media” people in the cites, the decadent club lifestyle flourished. It all contributed to a weakening moral fiber and tolerance of perversions in Germany. Many people played a part in the rise of the National Socialists.

In the U.S., we do not have a “dictator” yet, because our Constitution, thankfully, makes it difficult for a dictator to rise up.

But we do have a steady decline in our moral fiber primarily because of the influence of the huge urban areas (Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles) and the entertainment industry. Lots of decent, hard-working Americans relax by watching skewed presentations of big city life on television, and these Americans have been lured into accepting various perversions as “normal” and even “wholesome.”

If this trend continues, along with the trend towards a declining economy, it is entirely possible that normal, hard-working Americans will eventually be persuaded to overthrow our Constitution and install a “savior” in power who will bring us all back to prosperity. That’s the current mindset among both liberals and conservatives. Liberals thought that Barack Obama was their “savior,” while conservatives are going ga-ga over a dozen politicians who all promise restoration of the real America.

 

[valentino]

The Master of Ceremonies in Cabaret is not a homosexual. He is a hedonist, devoting his life to every kind of deviant pleasure. Yes, if the director chooses, there is a male/male kiss in Cabaret. There is also, should the director choose, a scene in which the Master of Ceremonies is cavorting (sexually) with two women at the same time.

And there are also scenes in which the Nazis are tormenting the Jews.

Which of these sins should not be portrayed on a stage? Are the sexual sins any “worse” than the hate sins? Keep in mind that the hatred of Jews led to the genocide of 6 million Jews by the Nazis.

Are actors to avoid ALL sins? Does this mean that actors cannot portray the main characters in The Producers (Bialystock and Blume), who work a scam to defraud little old ladies of their money?

Or an actor cannot play the role of Harold Hill in The Music Man because Hill is working a huge con to rip off small town rubes and deceive lonely women?

Does that mean that an actor cannot portray Fagin in Oliver, who exploits orphans?

Does that mean that an actor cannot portray Captain Hook in Peter Pan, because he is a pirate who robs other ships and tries to kill Peter Pan?

Does that mean that an actor cannot dance the role of the Mouse King in Nutcracker, because the Nutcracker extorts Clara’s marzipan, and tries to kidnap Clara?

 

[valentino]

The Master of Ceremonies in Cabaret is not a homosexual. He is a hedonist, devoting his life to every kind of deviant pleasure. Yes, if the director chooses, there is a male/male kiss in Cabaret. There is also, should the director choose, a scene in which the Master of Ceremonies is cavorting (sexually) with two women at the same time.

And there are also scenes in which the Nazis are tormenting the Jews.

Which of these sins should not be portrayed on a stage? Are the sexual sins any “worse” than the hate sins? Keep in mind that the hatred of Jews led to the genocide of 6 million Jews by the Nazis.

Are actors to avoid ALL sins? Does this mean that actors cannot portray the main characters in The Producers (Bialystock and Blume), who work a scam to defraud little old ladies of their money?

Or an actor cannot play the role of Harold Hill in The Music Man because Hill is working a huge con to rip off small town rubes and deceive lonely women?

Does that mean that an actor cannot portray Fagin in Oliver, who exploits orphans?

Does that mean that an actor cannot portray Captain Hook in Peter Pan, because he is a pirate who robs other ships and tries to kill Peter Pan?

Does that mean that an actor cannot dance the role of the Mouse King in Nutcracker, because the Nutcracker extorts Clara’s marzipan, and tries to kidnap Clara?

this is my opinion only.I depends on the effect it has on an individual.I believe sexual nudity is more appealing and leads to sin more than showing Jews being starved to death by Nazis.Murder is of course a graver sin than going naked in public but I don’t think it leads to sin as much.Be honest with yourself.What would get you more excited looking a nude woman or watching someone kill another.What would have the bigger impact on your behavior?Which would you rather your child look at?Your going to extremes to try an justify overt sexual immorality.The different sins you mentions are not of the same nature.

 

[Phemie]

But we do have a steady decline in our moral fiber primarily because of the influence of the huge urban areas (Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles) and the entertainment industry. Lots of decent, hard-working Americans relax by watching skewed presentations of big city life on television, and these Americans have been lured into accepting various perversions as “normal” and even “wholesome.”

The reason why I squirm to hear so many people rave about “Two and a Half Men”, one of the most revolting shows on TV in my opinion.

 

[Cat]

this is my opinion only.I depends on the effect it has on an individual.I believe sexual nudity is more appealing and leads to sin more than showing Jews being starved to death by Nazis.Murder is of course a graver sin than going naked in public but I don’t think it leads to sin as much.Be honest with yourself.What would get you more excited looking a nude woman or watching someone kill another.What would have the bigger impact on your behavior?Which would you rather your child look at?Your going to extremes to try an justify overt sexual immorality.The different sins you mentions are not of the same nature.

There is no nudity in Cabaret. The actors may be as clothed or unclothed as the director wishes, but generally, they are clothed.

If the director in the OPs post is choosing to include nudity in his/her production of Cabaret, he/she is taking the play in a different artistic direction than the norm for this show. I personally don’t think that a university production will be allowed to make use of on-stage nudity, since it’s possible that some of the actors or crew could be underaged (17), and it’s even more possible that audience memers (siblings) will be underaged.

Cabaret is not a musical for children. The plot, characters, and music simply will not be appealing to young children. It would be like making them watch Face the Nation–there’s nothing evil or morally objectionable or pornographic about Face the Nation–it’s simply not age-appropriate for children and they wouldn’t understand what they were watching.

I’m a woman, so I don’t find graphic portrayals of sex exciting. Different people are tempted by different things. For many people, especially women, sexual sins aren’t as tempting as other sins, e.g., gossip or greed. I don’t think we can rate sins according to impact on behavior, because everyone will have a different weak area.

I agree that some people, especially young people, would have a hard time acting out a sexually-immoral character. However, I think that a good director who is also a teacher in an institute of education (high school, college, etc.) would be (or should be) knowledgeable about the limitations of inexperienced young actors, and be capable of training these young actors to portray immoral or objectionable characters without tarnishing their own soul. After all, that’s why the young person is in the theater class at the school–to learn the skills involved in acting.

A well-trained, experienced actor will NOT be effected negatively in their soul by portraying an evil or objectionable character. Obviously every actor will draw a line somewhere; e.g., some actors will refuse to play Nazis. Other actors will refuse to play homosexuals, while still other actors will refuse to play any kind of bigots, including those who condemn homosexuality.

But most actors enjoy the challenge of researching, developing, and portraying a character who is totally different than themselves, and who has traits that they find personally repugnant. A good actor can play any part and play it well.

 

[JRKH]

The Master of Ceremonies in Cabaret is not a homosexual. He is a hedonist, devoting his life to every kind of deviant pleasure. Yes, if the director chooses, there is a male/male kiss in Cabaret. There is also, should the director choose, a scene in which the Master of Ceremonies is cavorting (sexually) with two women at the same time.

And there are also scenes in which the Nazis are tormenting the Jews.

Which of these sins should not be portrayed on a stage? Are the sexual sins any “worse” than the hate sins? Keep in mind that the hatred of Jews led to the genocide of 6 million Jews by the Nazis.

(snip)

Something I just thought of in regards to the comparison you make here…

Which of these sins is more likely to cause revulsion in an audience?

It seems to me that in order to justify playing a sinful role, there needs to be that element of revulsion either in the acting itself or in the overall thrust of the play/project.

Acting out scenes of torture etc are almost always done with the idea of causing revulsion.
However, I do not get the feeling that most “acting” of sexual scenes is done for the purpose of causing revulsion against sexual sins. Instead they tend to romanticize it and make it “no big deal”.

Peace
James

 

[valentino]

There is no nudity in Cabaret. The actors may be as clothed or unclothed as the director wishes, but generally, they are clothed.

If the director in the OPs post is choosing to include nudity in his/her production of Cabaret, he/she is taking the play in a different artistic direction than the norm for this show. I personally don’t think that a university production will be allowed to make use of on-stage nudity, since it’s possible that some of the actors or crew could be underaged (17), and it’s even more possible that audience memers (siblings) will be underaged.

Cabaret is not a musical for children. The plot, characters, and music simply will not be appealing to young children. It would be like making them watch Face the Nation–there’s nothing evil or morally objectionable or pornographic about Face the Nation–it’s simply not age-appropriate for children and they wouldn’t understand what they were watching.

I’m a woman, so I don’t find graphic portrayals of sex exciting. Different people are tempted by different things. For many people, especially women, sexual sins aren’t as tempting as other sins, e.g., gossip or greed. I don’t think we can rate sins according to impact on behavior, because everyone will have a different weak area.

I agree that some people, especially young people, would have a hard time acting out a sexually-immoral character. However, I think that a good director who is also a teacher in an institute of education (high school, college, etc.) would be (or should be) knowledgeable about the limitations of inexperienced young actors, and be capable of training these young actors to portray immoral or objectionable characters without tarnishing their own soul. After all, that’s why the young person is in the theater class at the school–to learn the skills involved in acting.

A well-trained, experienced actor will NOT be effected negatively in their soul by portraying an evil or objectionable character. Obviously every actor will draw a line somewhere; e.g., some actors will refuse to play Nazis. Other actors will refuse to play homosexuals, while still other actors will refuse to play any kind of bigots, including those who condemn homosexuality.

But most actors enjoy the challenge of researching, developing, and portraying a character who is totally different than themselves, and who has traits that they find personally repugnant. A good actor can play any part and play it well.

Ok.I admit that I got away from this particular play and there is no nudity,ect.To get to the pt.The play is to depict a homosexual relationship.Is it really necessary to kiss on the mouth to get the point across.Why not just hold each other or press the faces together or look as though the may be kissing.?Im sure the audience would get the pt.that they were homosexual partners.All Im saying is that by acting out explicitly in detail whether to show that the characters are homosexual,or nudity to show that a couple is having an affair is not trying to convey a message but is to try to ellicit an immoral desire in the audience.People enjoy watching the actual sin play out,It gets them aroused.Producers know this and they also know that they draw larger audiences.Now Im sure that you’re of the opinion that says it doesn’t turn me on or influence me in any way.That I on the otherhand have some old fashioned way of looking at homosexuality and are scared that my purity will be compromised.The fact is that loosening sexual standards do lead to a corrupt society.We gradually end up thinking that nothing is sinful and homosexuality is a normal,perfectly moral way to act.Which is how much America views homosexuality today.Bellieve me if people would have obeyed the Church’s teaching on contraception we would never have this abortion business going on today.And it obeyed the rules on divorce and remarriage we would not have this issue of homosexual marriage taking place.