Indiana law disagreed. So in the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, and the justices debated the definition of dance, nudity in opera houses versus nudity in strip clubs, and whether erotic dancing is artistic expression or a crime. Now, the ever-provocative theater group Elevator Repair Service ERS revisits this landmark case—verbatim—and all the socially loaded questions it still contains.
Their hilarious and intelligent Arguendo brings the Supreme Court oral arguments to the stage, along with an interview with an erotic dancer who wants to be able to earn her living. Female Dancer: "I have conveyed the message of the nude female body and if I am clothed then it's not the same message at all.
Female Dancer: "Um, I don't know. It's hard to explain. It's really hard to explain. We like to make our work out of text that gives us some interesting problems to solve. You want it to have this kind of authenticity and you get that when you take on something that was just transcribed from speech. In the case of Arguendo we're making a play out of the transcript of a Supreme Court oral argument from a Supreme Court case from The case is called Barnes vs.
Glen Theatre and the issue in the case is the First Amendment. Justice 1: "Mr. Nobody is stopping her from dancing! You — suppose you win this point. Dancing is expression. They have not stopped her from dancing. State of Indiana has a law regulating whether or not you can be nude in public so these dancers who wanted to dance naked were being told they had to wear pasties and g-strings or else be shut down.
Male Reporter: "Do you feel the message would be reduced somewhat if you had to wear pasties and a g-string? Female Dancer: "Because I am not conveying the message that I have pasties and a g-string; I am conveying the message of the nude female body.
