Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mighty mint
I have read the recent posts between Elmwood and Moogle and I really have a hard time seeing how both of you are missing each other...I have read and reread and it is as if you both just can't recognize the other persons perspective. What I understand is this (I am probably wrong but here it goes) In no way is Moogle objectifying women or trying to degrade them...he was just making a point concerning meeting the need for nudity in a film if it was required to make it more realistic. Elmwood was just making the point that it seems like women are being sexually objectified because of the numerous roles that "require" the female nudity.
|
Man, Elwood and Moogle really got into it, didn't they.
I haven't read their posts (now I know how you guys feel when I get into a long winded debate with someone
) but I trust this summary is basically accurate. I think both Elwood and Moogle are right. I think nudity for the pure sake of nudity does objectify women but that's not the same as saying
any instance of a nude woman objectifies her. I'm all for nudity if it's relevant to the story and presented in an appropriate way. If the director chooses to make the nudity more gratuitous, that's something for the actor and director to work out and hopefully they can work something out that preserves the integrity of the story while not putting the actor in an awkward position.
Ultimately, the actor has a choice. If the choice the actor makes hinders his/her career, that's too bad but the way it is.
Peace...