Sunday, October 7, 2007

Bigger Parts For Male Extras

An article in the New York Observer last month examined the lessening of the taboo of full frontal male nudity on film, video, and stage. Being the Observer, the article veered from the prurient reasons for it, to a polemic about how in the age of Hillary the male member is being objectified to rob it of its power. I haven't exposed mine publicly, so something else must have robbed it of its power. I've waved it every which way shouting "Petrificus Humongous!" all to no avail.

In the past I felt cheated by the abundance of cooch on the screen compared to the absence of man pole. Later, as the flashes of actors' ordinary looking appendages started to appear I felt only disappointment. The reason is clear. While breasts and the v thing look like they are supposed to even when they are being filmed on a big sound stage, the major root just looks sad and aesthetically unpleasing when it being upstaged. To look its best, it needs be center stage, fully alert and in action. It's not meant to play second banana to its owner's overacting above it.

Daniel RadcliffeI'm particularly tired of seeing male nudity on stage. The novelty of it has worn off. If I really want to see dick I would watch videos at home like The Ass Menagerie or the adults only version of The Iceman Cometh. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't turn down a ticket to see Daniel Radcliffe share the stage with his little buddy (now that he's 18).

Or Adam Brody. Or Bret Harrison. Or Jake Gyllenhaal. Or the cast of Heroes...

I think I'm losing my point here. Excuse me while I go dig out my copy of the original cast video of Oklahomo!