The Actor As Object Of Desire Analysis

Question 1 In this semester we read many interesting articles, but the reading which I find easiest to apply to real life was The Actor as Object of Desire, by Don Shewey. In passage one, the author details meeting their idol and getting the opportunity to become more connected or intimate with them, but turn the opportunity down instead because “intimacy pulls the plug” on the idealization of another human being. This is a very true statement in my mind. Actors, whether on stage or in film, are as human as they come, despite the masses’ attempts to put them on a pedestal. However, I find this more applicable to movie stars than theater artists.
Personally, when I see a film, I can ogle or sexualize the actors on the screen far easier than on the stage because, as passage eight says, it is a one way connection. Film is more pornographic than living, breathing actors on stage. Whether it be their characters on the screen or the polished personas on the red carpet, when it comes to movie stars we see only their image. While I suppose it is true that theatergoers besides myself may be able to apply that same idealization the the actors right in front of them, I cannot. When I see actors on stage it is so different than what I see in a movie theater. I have appreciation, …show more content…
Bogart explains the crucial part in which embarrassment plays during the creative process. Bogart talks about how “the enemy of art is assumption.” Assumption keeps the actor confined within the box of being comfortable. She explains that if the actor is comfortable, they aren’t doing the performance justice. If a choice does not sufficiently embarrass the actor, then the audience will likely not be touched by the production. Bogart also includes a beautiful quote from John Gielgug in this chapter, which states “acting is half shame, half glory. Shame at exhibiting yourself, glory when you can forget