Acting and incest

[delalluvia]

Heh, while looking around for the info I read about on the Dave Cullen board, I ran across this essay on 'Donnie Darko' on the Roger Ebert website wherein the author pretty much says that Donnie Darko's sexual hangups are all about his sister.

Guess one director didn't have any problem assigning a vague incestuous type relationship to their characters.  If you go for his POV, that is.

Here's the link, it's got spoilers for those who haven't seen 'Donnie Darko'.  It was a bit long to post:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041102/EDITOR/41022001/1023

[opinionista]

.

?  Jamie Lee Curtis isn't Jake's mother.

I meant GodMother, sorry!

[serious crayons]

Guess one director didn't have any problem assigning a vague incestuous type relationship to their characters.  If you go for his POV, that is.

I didn't read Ebert's piece because I haven't seen Donnie Darko. But isn't what we're talking about relationships between the actual actors, not between characters? In other words, DD probably isn't the first with characters in vaguely incestuous relationships -- Gladiator is another, for example, and there are probably others. That wouldn't bother me. But knowing that the actors playing lovers (incestuous or otherwise) are members of the same family in real life, that would be too weird. Consequently, I doubt the actors, the director or any of the filmmakers would consider it a good casting choice -- talk about lack of chemistry! (Or is it too much shared chemistry?)

[delalluvia]

I didn't read Ebert's piece because I haven't seen Donnie Darko. But isn't what we're talking about relationships between the actual actors, not between characters? In other words, DD probably isn't the first with characters in vaguely incestuous relationships -- Gladiator is another, for example, and there are probably others. That wouldn't bother me. But knowing that the actors playing lovers (incestuous or otherwise) are members of the same family in real life, that would be too weird. Consequently, I doubt the actors, the director or any of the filmmakers would consider it a good casting choice -- talk about lack of chemistry! (Or is it too much shared chemistry?)

Hiya kat,

Originally I was just wondering if Jake and Maggie would ever consider playing characters who are lovers, wherein in order to play the roles, they would have to act making out or having sex, possibly semi-nude with each other and whether they could do it.  Directors would not have much of a say in the matter, it being inappropriate for them to suggest them for such roles, but whether or not THEY may choose to do it for a role or for a chance to BE in some director's production.

In the case of DD, the gist of the essay was that Donnie was lusting after his sister in a very primal, pubescent possessive kind of way and what you have is a movie in which brother Jake is 'acting' as if he wants his real sister Maggie.  So he's already a step on the road toward 'warming up' to her in the acting world.

[serious crayons]

Oh, I get it. Still, I think vaguely suggested lusting is probably as far as any filmmakers would care to go, don't you, Del? Whoever makes final casting decisions -- I gather it's some combination of actors wanting the parts and a director wanting to cast them, plus producers and whoever else weighing in -- everybody involved would probably realize it was a terrible idea, don't you think?

I wouldn't work if the siblings were supposed to be genuinely romantic onscreen -- the audience would be too turned off. I suppose I could stretch my mind to imagine a situation in which the characters were supposed to be icky ... but even then, IMO, that kind of stunt casting would be weird enough to distract viewers from the story.

So in any case, it seems unlikely to happen. (Which I suppose, judging from my track record of predictions, means in a few years it will.)

Speaking of taboos, I was pretty disappointed that in the movie "The English Patient" the fillmmakers chose to omit (or change) a scene that, in the book, is clearly suggestive of necrophilia. Truthfully, I wasn't that crazy about either the movie or the book, but I loved that aspect of the book. The scene was kind of vague, and I can't say it was all that sexy, but it sure was something I'd never seen in a love story before! In the movie, though, they chickened out.

[delalluvia]

Oh, I get it. Still, I think vaguely suggested lusting is probably as far as any filmmakers would care to go, don't you, Del? Whoever makes final casting decisions -- I gather it's some combination of actors wanting the parts and a director wanting to cast them, plus producers and whoever else weighing in -- everybody involved would probably realize it was a terrible idea, don't you think?

You know, when it first crossed my mind, I got the squicks and assumed it would be the same for them.

But the more I thought about it, the less I think so.

Wouldn't it just be the grown up version of playing house or playing doctor?

Little kids certainly know that they're playing a game, even though they may get carried away with the outcome since they don't understand it, but it would be different with adults.

Maggie and Jake would know they're just acting and it didn't mean anything.  I don't think, on second thought, that it would be any worse than them kissing or acting out a love scene with someone they didn't like or thought gross.

I wouldn't work if the siblings were supposed to be genuinely romantic onscreen -- the audience would be too turned off.

Well, that's assuming that most of the audience would know they are siblings and even if they did, it might be intriguing for some audience members to see if the two could pull it off and make you believe that they were truly lovers or in love.  Personally, I think they could do it.  They would just have to express their normal love and affection for each other as siblings, then shift it in another direction.

So in any case, it seems unlikely to happen. (Which I suppose, judging from my track record of predictions, means in a few years it will.)

I was just thinking that too. 

Speaking of taboos, I was pretty disappointed that in the movie "The English Patient" the fillmmakers chose to omit (or change) a scene that, in the book, is clearly suggestive of necrophilia. Truthfully, I wasn't that crazy about either the movie or the book, but I loved that aspect of the book. The scene was kind of vague, and I can't say it was all that sexy, but it sure was something I'd never seen in a love story before! In the movie, though, they chickened out.

Eh, they chicken out quite a bit.  They 'Hollywood' out of an ending that isn't inspiring or tragic or keep away from sitcky situations - the relationship between Mathilda and Leon in 'the Professional' aka 'Leon', the not so great ending of 'Oscar and Lucinda'.

[serious crayons]

Wouldn't it just be the grown up version of playing house or playing doctor?

No. Playing doctor is a common childhood activity. Incest is a universal, cross-cultural taboo.

I don't think, on second thought, that it would be any worse than them kissing or acting out a love scene with someone they didn't like or thought gross.

Do you have a brother? If so, who would you rather act out a love scene with -- your brother, or someone you just didn't like? For me, anyone who is acceptable and non-gross enough to be cast in a movie -- and probably even many who aren't -- would be preferable to my brother. And my brother and I get along very well! Just not in that way. Ever.

Well, that's assuming that most of the audience would know they are siblings

They would, because if they didn't know it in the first place the publicity machine would ensure that everyone in America would know it by the time the movie came out.

and even if they did, it might be intriguing for some audience members to see if the two could pull it off and make you believe that they were truly lovers or in love.  Personally, I think they could do it.  They would just have to express their normal love and affection for each other as siblings, then shift it in another direction.

Maybe they'd be very professional and throw everything into it and be very convincing. But even so, most viewers would find it gross. Sigh. I was hoping not to go here, but it's the elephant in the room. Think about the way some viewers, particularly many straight men, think of Brokeback Mountain. They don't like the idea of straight actors kissing and having sex. Obviously I and everyone else here at BetterMost disagrees, to say the least. But we don't disagree merely because we think the concept of straight actors kissing and portraying gay men is intriguing, or because we're wondering whether Heath and Jake can pull it off, or because we are able to overcome our "squicks" in the name of art-house sophistication, or because we find it interesting to tweak taboos.

We disagree because we are sincerely swept away by BBM, find it sexy and romantic and awe-inspiring. At the very least, we aren't uncomfortable with the idea of real-life straight actors playing gay lovers (or vise versa).

But do many viewers feel similarly open-minded about siblings kissing and having sex? Would they find the concept appealing, even erotic? Well, I can only speak for myself, but I think I might react sort of the way homophobes do to Brokeback. Maybe I'm just hopelessly narrow-minded. Maybe I'm an incestophobe. Maybe I just have to see it for myself, and then decide. But Del, from the way you phrased the OP and your use of the word squicky, I am guessing you know exactly what I'm talking about. And even if you would be perfectly comfortable with it, you can see that it would bother a lot of viewers -- far more than Brokeback does. And I'm thinking most producers do not see "it would bother a lot of viewers, but it's intriguing" as a big reason to greenlight a project. It took them seven years to greenlight Brokeback, and that's a masterpiece. Why would movie financers be eager to gamble on siblings as lovers as a stunt?

When you can convince me that plenty of viewers would be perfectly OK about watching actors they knew to be siblings playing lovers onscreen -- perhaps even find it as sexy and beautiful as many people, including all of us, find Brokeback Mountain -- that's when I will agree that it makes sense as a casting choice. Right now, to me, it doesn't. Not saying filmmakers shouldn't do it, out of some kind of moral principle, just saying they wouldn't, out of some kind of financial principle.

[delalluvia]

No. Playing doctor is a common childhood activity. Incest is a universal, cross-cultural taboo.

Yeah, but cultural taboos are just human constructs.  The fact that children DO play doctor and house and that they are very commonly brother and sister who do so, indicates that they have no problem with such close contact with a sibling.  Actually, so long as they don't try to produce offspring, there is no real reason why adult brother and sister or or other type relationships shouldn't be able to be together if they wanted to and both consented.

Squicky, I agree, but that's just me.  Doesn't mean others might feel differently.

Do you have a brother? If so, who would you rather act out a love scene with -- your brother, or someone you just didn't like? For me, anyone who is acceptable and non-gross enough to be cast in a movie -- and probably even many who aren't -- would be preferable to my brother. And my brother and I get along very well! Just not in that way. Ever.

Yes I do and I would prefer making out with him than some person I thought gross - Clark Gable was cast against one of the most beautiful women in the world in 'Gone with the Wind'.  Clark was a leading man and swoon-worthy.  In reality, the guy wore dentures and had horrible halitosis and Vivien had to kiss him and pretend he was beyond desirable.  Eeech.  Great acting by Vivien.  Given the choice?  I'd choose my brother.  I know where he's been. 

They would, because if they didn't know it in the first place the publicity machine would ensure that everyone in America would know it by the time the movie came out.

True, but then apparently some people showed up for BBM and didn't know it was a movie about a couple of gay cowboys.  They might be living under a rock, but not everyone pays attention to celebrity news.

Maybe. Perhaps they'd be very professional and throw everything into it and be as convincing as they could. But whether or not they'd be good as actors, I think most viewers would still find it gross. OK, I was hoping not to go here, but it's the elephant in the room. Think about the way many straight men, and some straight women, and perhaps even some gay people for all I know, think of Brokeback Mountain. They don't like the idea of straight actors kissing and having sex. Obviously I and everyone else here at BetterMost vehemently disagrees with this view. But we don't disagree because we think the concept of straight actors kissing and portraying gay men is merely intriguing, or because we're wondering whether Heath and Jake can pull it off, or because we are able to overcome our "squicks" in the name of art-house sophistication, or because we find it intriguing to tweak taboos.

We disagree because we are sincerely swept away by BBM, find it sexy and romantic and awe-inspiring. At the very least, we aren't uncomfortable with the idea of real-life straight actors kissing actors of the same gender, any more than we are uncomfortable with the idea of real-life gay actors kissing actors of the opposite gender. Some viewers obviously are. Apparently we aren't.

Um, yes, to some extent.  I went to see BBM originally because I was intrigued by the concept.  It was 'hot', a slash reader/writer's dream come true.  I didn't have any squicks about it, but I was wondering if the two actors would be convincing since they were straight and was fascinated to find out why the two actors would agree to do this movie.

It was only after I saw it that I got swept away by the love story.

Perhaps a movie with Jake and Maggie would be similar.  People go to see it for many reasons and are repelled and/or attracted because of the story and the acting.

And I'm thinking most producers do not see "it would bother a lot of viewers, but it's intriguing" as a big reason to greenlight a project.

Controversy certainly would.

When you can convince me that plenty of viewers would be perfectly OK about watching actors they knew to be siblings playing lovers onscreen -- perhaps even find it as sexy and beautiful as many people, including all of us, find Brokeback Mountain -- that's when I will agree that it makes sense as a casting choice. Right now, to me, it doesn't. Not saying filmmakers shouldn't do it, out of some kind of moral principle, just saying they wouldn't, out of some kind of financial principle.

Well, we would see.  And if Jake and Maggie thought the story good enough to actually put themselves through it, then I would respect their taste and go see it regardless of how I was brought up.

[serious crayons]

Yeah, but cultural taboos are just human constructs.

I disagree. Taboos specific to single cultures may be social constructs. Incest, a universal cross-cultural taboo, goes much deeper than that -- it's probably biological, developed through evolution, because of the problems that result when siblings produce offspring.

The fact that children DO play doctor and house and that they are very commonly brother and sister who do so, indicates that they have no problem with such close contact with a sibling.

Maybe not, when they're FOUR. Few elementary school kids, let alone post-pubescent kids, play doctor with siblings.

  Actually, so long as they don't try to produce offspring, there is no real reason why adult brother and sister or or other type relationships shouldn't be able to be together if they wanted to and both consented.

I agree. But that's not the issue here. In any case, I don't see any huge interest group of siblings pressuring Congress to repeal anti-incest laws.

Squicky, I agree, but that's just me.  Doesn't mean others might feel differently.

Yet I don't consider you to be on the conservative edge, Del -- clearly you (and probably most of us here) are closer to the other end of the spectrum. Yes, there are no doubt a few viewers who don't feel incest is icky. But again, movie financers do not put up money hoping their project will be a hit with that small a percentage of the population.

Yes I do and I would prefer making out with him than some person I thought gross - Clark Gable was cast against one of the most beautiful women in the world in 'Gone with the Wind'.  Clark was a leading man and swoon-worthy.  In reality, the guy wore dentures and had horrible halitosis and Vivien had to kiss him and pretend he was beyond desirable.  Eeech.  Great acting by Vivien.  Given the choice?  I'd choose my brother.  I know where he's been.

Really? Um, not me.

True, but then apparently some people showed up for BBM and didn't know it was a movie about a couple of gay cowboys.  They might be living under a rock, but not everyone pays attention to celebrity news.

Anybody who showed up for BBM and didn't know it was a gay love story was TRULY living under a rock. You didn't exactly need a subscription to Entertainment Weekly to have heard that. Yes, there are people in the world who are that out of it. But again, movie financers do not put up money to appeal to that small a percentage of the population.

Um, yes, to some extent.  I went to see BBM originally because I was intrigued by the concept.  It was 'hot', a slash reader/writer's dream come true.  I didn't have any squicks about it, but I was wondering if the two actors would be convincing since they were straight and was fascinated to find out why the two actors would agree to do this movie.

So there you go. You weren't squicky about it. Many people are, when it comes to incest. Put it this way. The producers of BBM knew that, at the very least, it would appeal to many gay men. Right there, that group alone far, far, far outnumbers the incestuous siblings community. They also believed, correctly obviously, it would appeal to a fair number of others who would find it sexy or have gay friends or relatives or are just generally open-minded about homosexuality.

But how many incestuous siblings do you count among your friends and relatives and coworkers? How many magazines and bars do you see targeted to the incestuous community? How much incest porn? I'm not a huge porn fan, but I have received porn spam about all kinds of things, including pictures of women doing it with horses. I have never received any spam for people who are turned on by incest. Not saying it's not out there -- god knows, everything else is -- only that it's not a big industry.

It was only after I saw it that I got swept away by the love story. Perhaps a movie with Jake and Maggie would be similar.  People go to see it for many reasons and are repelled and/or attracted because of the story and the acting.

But if you're relying on people to love the movie because the story is good, why not just cast non-siblings? Why add that marketing obstacle? What's the point?

Controversy certainly would.

Um ... it took them seven years to make Brokeback, during which time they made countless movies based on comic books and '70s sitcoms.

And if Jake and Maggie thought the story good enough to actually put themselves through it, then I would respect their taste and go see it regardless of how I was brought up.

Sure, I might go myself, but that's not the issue. (Nor are any reservations I might have the result of upbringing; I don't recall my mother ever having to tell me that incest is a no-no.) Nor is the choice to make the movie up to Jake and Maggie, whether they're willing "to actually put themselves through it" (and doesn't that phrase alone prove my point?). Whether this hypothetical movie would ever get made is up to whoever would be putting up the money, and I don't think they'd give Jake and Maggie the opportunity.

[delalluvia]

I disagree. Taboos specific to single cultures may be social constructs. Incest, a universal cross-cultural taboo, goes much deeper than that -- it's probably biological, developed through evolution, because of the problems that result when siblings produce offspring.

Can't agree.  The fact that four-five-six year olds have no problems whatsoever playing house/doctor with their siblings lead me to believe that left up to nature, and not society, the same prejudices that children learn (homophobia/racial/and taboos including incest) would fall by the wayside.  Incest taboos are IMO strictly cultural.  If a brother stuck strictly to his sister for sex, yes, nature would kick in and their genes would not proliferate.  But men were designed NOT to want to stick to just one woman, but to spread their seed around, women were also designed to shop around for a mate.  It was only when such constructs as monogamy came around and a woman/man were stuck with just one partner that it was more important to have viable offspring.  You only had one 'choice' of partner.

Maybe not, when they're FOUR. Few elementary school kids, let alone post-pubescent kids, play doctor with siblings.

Wonder why?  Maybe because they got punished when they were found/caught doing it and told it was wrong over and over? 

I agree. But that's not the issue here. In any case, I don't see any huge interest group of siblings pressuring Congress to repeal anti-incest laws.

But the idea is that the incest taboos and ickyness toward it is IMO a learned behavior and that it would be interesting to see if people could overcome it. 

Yet I don't consider you to be on the conservative edge, Del -- clearly you (and probably most of us here) are closer to the other end of the spectrum. Yes, there are no doubt a few viewers who don't feel incest is icky. But again, movie financers do not put up money hoping their project will be a hit with that small a percentage of the population.

There's been a lot of movies made about - shall we say - not quite mainstream topics?:  Pregnant nuns, male rape victims, and documentaries about any and everything.  They get made and the audience is next to nothing. [shrug].  BBM wasn't expected to make much over its production price.   

So there you go. You weren't squicky about it. Many people are, when it comes to incest.

Ah, but how many of my friends WERE squicky about BBM that I managed to get to come see it anyway?  And they liked it?  How many other people went and saw it, just because they were movie buffs and not really into 'gay' movies in general? 

Put it this way. The producers of BBM knew that, at the very least, it would appeal to many gay men. Right there, that group alone far, far, far outnumbers the incestuous siblings community.

Actually, as I recall, the makers of BBM were aiming for a female audience - a much much much larger audience than the gay crowd.  They didn't think a strictly gay audience for the movie would make as big an impact at the box office.

But how many incestuous siblings do you count among your friends and relatives and coworkers? How many magazines and bars do you see targeted to the incestuous community? How much incest porn? I'm not a huge porn fan, but I have received porn spam about all kinds of things, including pictures of women doing it with horses. I have never received any spam for people who are turned on by incest. Not saying it's not out there -- god knows, everything else is -- only that it's not a big industry.

Oh, yeah.  Incestuous porn is out there.  In every shape and form and there are whole websites devoted to it.  But aside from those, the idea is that a real pair of siblings play lovers in a movie.  They don't have to be playing incestuous lovers.  So the story alone might draw in the audiience regardless.  Their relationship in the greater scheme of the story might just be a side-bar and not the focus of the story.

But if you're relying on people to love the movie because the story is good, why not just cast non-siblings? Why add that marketing obstacle? What's the point?

Because the actors liked the parts/story/director and wanted to play the characters?  And it would add controversy to a movie?

Um ... it took them seven years to make Brokeback, during which time they made countless movies based on comic books and '70s sitcoms.

'Monty Python and Life of Brian' got made pretty quick. So did 'Dogma'.  Some controversies take longer than others to get funded.

Sure, I might go myself, but that's not the issue. (Nor are any reservations I might have the result of upbringing; I don't recall my mother ever having to tell me that incest is a no-no.) Nor is the choice to make the movie up to Jake and Maggie, whether they're willing "to actually put themselves through it" (and doesn't that phrase alone prove my point?).

I think the same thing was said about our guys choosing to do BBM.  I meant the controversy.  If they did the part, they would be consenting to do it and made the choice themselves and so had thought it through.  However they can't anticipate public response.