I admit I enjoy it when it works, but I do think the dramatic line gets crossed when bodies are on the screen when they really don't 100% need to be for the drama or song. I loved "South Pacific," but when John Kerr's tone was so lovingly filmed, even as a kid, it shifted from being about Lt. Cable to what incredible shape the actor John Kerr was in.
When Stephen Spinella stripped down onstage even in "Angels in America," looking emaciated, if you thought only that's Prior Walter naked and emaciated rather than "So that's what Stephen Spinella looks like naked, still kind of sexy, even though so unusually thin" you are a better playgoer than I. I hope even a great actor isn't chosen over other great actors especially for his ability to look emaciated.
Likewise for pecs and abs, and (as Maltby says, I'm not complaining) it does seem that some actors in "South Pacific" were chosen with eye appeal for the camera as part of the thought process.
But really, I'm not complaining - yer it's worth noticing even when geniuses are at work why certain choices were made.
(I hope we're not there as a society yet, but worry we may already have been in the 1990s even with some award-winning plays, that equally excellent actors may be quietly chosen with unspoken regard to how well their private parts "read" on the stage, all talent and correctness for the role being equal.)
