Nudity in film.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by mighty mint

(I know it was cheap but you know, I really don't feel that bad at all )

I feel used.

As for Alba, if the pic was public domain (and it was), I don't think she has a right to tell any magazine what they can and can't put on the cover. It was shitty of them, yeah, but suing them? Bah!

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

I feel used.

As for Alba, if the pic was public domain (and it was), I don't think she has a right to tell any magazine what they can and can't put on the cover. It was shitty of them, yeah, but suing them? Bah!

Read the whole story here: http://today.reuters.com/news/articl..._0_US-ALBA.xml

-PH

[Pirate]

OK, Moogle posted these comments in my Natalie Portman on SNL thread and I told him that I would respond to him here:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Weren't you saying something about weird guys slavishly downloading images of movie stars on the net?

I’m not sure I ever said anything about “weird guys” slavishly downloading pictures of celebrities. I said that celebrities end up on porn sites when they do nude scenes and those porn sites have stills that are downloaded.

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Does she have to be naked for it to be objectifying?

No, there are other ways of objectifying without them being nude, but what I’ve done in that thread is not objectification − at least not in my opinion. I’m a great appreciator of her work and I was impressed with her SNL appearance and wanted to share it. The wallpapers are of her “break” photos and they are not obscene in any way and the video is of her performance. I never said that it was wrong to look at people and find them beautiful or “hot.” So, what do you see that is objectifying or that you feel makes the thread hypocritical?

-PH

[mighty mint]

Moogle - I think what you meant to say was, "I feel used like an actor asked to do a nude scene."

Pirate - One good example of someone being objectified without being nude is Jennifer Aniston. Whom I am in love with.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by mighty mint

Pirate - One good example of someone being objectified without being nude is Jennifer Aniston. Whom I am in love with.

Because you are in love with her or because of how she is treated in the media?

-PH

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

So, what do you see that is objectifying or that you feel makes the thread hypocritical?

I just think it's a little silly to rant and rave about people putting screencaps of naked women on the internet, then sharing screencaps of a woman on the internet. No, she wasn't naked, but the purpose of it was still to look at her and admire her beauty. That's the same purpose of looking at a nude woman, to admire her attractiveness and beauty. To say there's some huge gap between the two is to focus on the act of nudity as being "dirty" or "wrong" in some way. I mean, I really can't think of any other reason for one to be fine to you and the other not.

[tomdkat]

I think nudity is fine as long as the nude people are smoking.

Peace...

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

I just think it's a little silly to rant and rave about people putting screencaps of naked women on the internet, then sharing screencaps of a woman on the internet. No, she wasn't naked, but the purpose of it was still to look at her and admire her beauty. That's the same purpose of looking at a nude woman, to admire her attractiveness and beauty. To say there's some huge gap between the two is to focus on the act of nudity as being "dirty" or "wrong" in some way. I mean, I really can't think of any other reason for one to be fine to you and the other not.

Well, this will ultimately boil down to point of view, but comparing nude screenshots to screenshots of SNL is not the same in my opinion. I’m looking at the screenshots I posted as a reminder of the performance as well as her beauty.

But here is where the wires are crossed. I’m not “ranting and raving” about the images being on the internet, I'm talking about the scene in the film that is later turned into the images. Now, yes, people can take the images I posted and have sexual thoughts and even masturbate to them, but they could do the same thing with a movie poster or any photo for that matter. When you go to a porn site, most times you are not looking for glamour shots.

When she took the photos for SNL, I’m sure it never crossed her mind that they would end up on a porn site. When she was doing “Closer,” that was a real concern. I posted the images in a thread talking about a performance that I enjoyed and I wanted to share them with others that enjoyed it as well. So, yes, to me there is a difference.

If you are saying that the exploitation that goes on with nude captures is the same with the pictures I posted, would you say that I exploited Keira Knightley by putting up pictures from “Pirates of the Caribbean?”

-PH

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I think nudity is fine as long as the nude people are smoking.

Peace...

I disagree

-PH

[elwood731]

Originally Posted by Seamonkey

So elwood, basically you think anytime there's nudity it's probable that it was exploitive in one way or another?

It seems to me that your personal morality is getting in the way of this discussion, I think Moogle has expressed his points and you can't see past your own opinion of the situation to understand what he's saying.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a strong moral opinion, that's great, but you seem to be applying it to other people, and there you can run into trouble.

Anyway, for the record I agree with Moogle and what he's trying to say (or rather, has said).

Actually, it has little to do with my personal morality. Maybe my ethics. Big difference between the two, however. You can broadly define what is ethical, but you can't do the same with morality since it's inherently a personal choice.

As I said before, I understand fine what he is saying. He's saying women should do nude scenes or find another career. Pretty simple, actually. He can guise it in comments such as "it's about reality" and "they get to make a choice," but then there's really no choice if it comes down to pose nude or lose your job, is there? It's a complete removal of choice.

As I've noted earlier, I am not even against nudity in films. I just think for the most part it can be avoided and probably 90% ore more of the time when it is there it's simply there for titilation. Here's an example of where it WAS needed--the Terminator films. They travel through time and only things cover in flesh make it so they lose their clothes. There's really no other way to show that happening to show some nudity, but really all three films did it tastefully without having to zoom in on Arnold's penis. Compare that to the example Moogle was ranting about concerning a woman in bed after sex with the covers pulled up. You know she just had sex. What's the point of showing her breasts? Can you reason any? The truth is that it wouldn't be that odd for her to be under the covers, or pulled up against the man (also hdiing her breasts). To have her simply lying on her back with her breasts exposed is fairly pointless. It doesn't contribute to the story in any fashion. It's done to show tits.

When a woamn is asked to do that in a scene, when a perfectly good other method is sitting there, should she be fired because the director wants to show some tits? It isn't a moral issue, but simply asking how should people be treated? I don't know how to make it that much simpler to understand. My guess is that most women would never want to do such a thing because they would be horribly embarassed by the filming and later showing of the scene. To blame them is completely one-sided. That's why I said to grow up and see it from all perspectives. So far I continue to only hear one--that of the audience.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by elwood731

As I've noted earlier, I am not even against nudity in films. I just think for the most part it can be avoided and probably 90% ore more of the time when it is there it's simply there for titilation. Here's an example of where it WAS needed--the Terminator films. They travel through time and only things cover in flesh make it so they lose their clothes. There's really no other way to show that happening to show some nudity, but really all three films did it tastefully without having to zoom in on Arnold's penis. Compare that to the example Moogle was ranting about concerning a woman in bed after sex with the covers pulled up. You know she just had sex. What's the point of showing her breasts? Can you reason any? The truth is that it wouldn't be that odd for her to be under the covers, or pulled up against the man (also hdiing her breasts). To have her simply lying on her back with her breasts exposed is fairly pointless. It doesn't contribute to the story in any fashion. It's done to show tits.

There are films like "The Lover" that are a study and meditation of sex that require the nudity and then there are those films that throw nudity in under the guise of making it more "real," which, in my opinion, is BS.

Great post Elwood.

-PH

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by elwood731

As I said before, I understand fine what he is saying. He's saying women should do nude scenes or find another career. Pretty simple, actually. He can guise it in comments such as "it's about reality" and "they get to make a choice," but then there's really no choice if it comes down to pose nude or lose your job, is there? It's a complete removal of choice.

I understand your point and I think it makes sense, but I think it's a bit extreme (unless you're being extreme purposefully to drive your point home).

Not every actor who has the chance to act will have to expose their body parts. Jennifer Lopez was topless in U-Turn, but not in subsequent films (at least not all of them). Selena came out before U-Turn, I believe, and she wasn't nude in that. Jamie Lee Curtis showed her breasts in Trading Places, but not in every subsequent film.

I do agree that it sucks that having to be nude in some roles sucks and if that actor chooses NOT to do it, they won't necessarily have to get out of acting completely. They might find another role they can play and keep their clothes on. It might be a more difficult career path, but not necessarily an impossible one. I think it's important to keep this in perspective when making your point.

In the end, this gets back to "nudity being done right", which both Moogle and Elwood are basically commenting on AND that was one of piratehunter's initial points in this thread. Body parts shouldn't be shown purely for "titilation" value but if it contributes to the integrity of the story, I've got no problem with it and it sounds like most others don't have a problem with it as well.

The real question is: what constitutes "doing it right"?

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

From imdb.com

Quote:
Sharon Stone attacked Basic Instinct director Paul Verhoeven the first time she saw the racy sex thriller - after she saw herself exposed on the big screen. The actress admits she was horrified with the scene because she had no idea the movie-maker would actually show her bare genitals in the famous leg-crossing interrogation scene. She recalls, "I knew that we were going to do this leg crossing thing and I knew that we were going to allude to the concept that I was nude, but I did not think that you would see my vagina in the scene. Later, when I saw it in the screening I was shocked. I think seeing it in a room full of strangers was so disrespectful (to me) and so shocking, so I went into the booth and slapped him (Verhoeven) and left." Stone insists her role as killer Catherine Trammell became iconic because she performed the part well, not because she flashed her genitals. She adds, "I don't think that it (the film) moved my career because you could see up my dress. I think that it moved my career because I'm good in the movie."

Uhmm. Come on people...NO ONE is asking this question: Why in the hell are you (Sharon) doing this new movie and showing your bush all over the place?

Sharon? Can you hear me? Sharon ... hello?

Sorry to derail...

(and don't even think about giving me crap like: she knew it was full nudity going into it this time)

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Uhmm. Come on people...NO ONE is asking this question: Why in the hell are you (Sharon) doing this new movie and showing your bush all over the place?

Sharon? Can you hear me? Sharon ... hello?

Sorry to derail...

(and don't even think about giving me crap like: she knew it was full nudity going into it this time)

I think the real question is: Was she good in the film?

-PH

[mighty mint]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Because you are in love with her or because of how she is treated in the media?

-PH

She is the jelly in my jelly roll!

I was being cheeky...lighten up P-man...I don't even know the woman and my wife would have a problem with me pursuing that relationship further at this point so...

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by mighty mint

She is the jelly in my jelly roll!

I was being cheeky...lighten up P-man...I don't even know the woman and my wife would have a problem with me pursuing that relationship further at this point so...

I'm light, baby!

No worries.

-PH

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Uhmm. Come on people...NO ONE is asking this question: Why in the hell are you (Sharon) doing this new movie and showing your bush all over the place?

Well, based on the quote you quoted, it sounds like she didn't know her bush would be shown in the final cut of the movie PLUS piratehunter asked the "why wasn't she wearing panties" question on page 10.

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Well, based on the quote you quoted, it sounds like she didn't know her bush would be shown in the final cut of the movie PLUS piratehunter asked the "why wasn't she wearing panties" question on page 10.

Peace...

Ok...so I am repeating the obvious? She is ... wait a doggone minute pal.

No way..I am signing off.

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Jennifer Lopez was topless in U-Turn, but not in subsequent films (at least not all of them). Selena came out before U-Turn, I believe, and she wasn't nude in that.

Money Train was her first topless role.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

Money Train was her first topless role.

But see, here's the thing.....

(I just wanted to post )

Peace...

[reapersaurus]

Maybe I can eke 20 or more posts outta this thread.

Those saying that supposedly-"needless" nudity in a movie doesn't do ANYTHING are patently wrong, some of the time.

For example, a woman rolling back in bed in the morning after sex, exposing her breasts DOES to more than just titillate.

It is a character development point, in a similar way that kissing onscreen is - it shows to the audience the familiarity the actress has with the (usually) actor. Film is a visual medium, and therefore commonly uses visuals to get across character aspects such as these.

So I'll even tackle the supposedly-solely-gratuitous Halle Berry topless shot in Swordfish:
Stuff like that CAN be solely gratuitous, or it can :
*) establish how at-ease that character is with their body
*) show the character's dismissal of common sexual mores (showing she's a free, independant gal)
*) show how utterly little concern she has with the viewer's sexual advances
*) show how the actress is trying to seduce the actor. That simply wouldn't work if they didn't show the actress' breasts, when that actress trying to interest the actor is part of the plot.

For the record, I don't remember which of those cases might apply to Swordfish, because I was too distracted by Halle's beautemous tits.

[mighty mint]

Okay,
I'll take a swing at this Reaper ma man...First, that scene was just plain awkward all around with the sex appeal of an orange peel. Second, there is another scene where she is fully clothed that has a TON of sex appeal and communicates her "teasing" ability and her ability to refuse his advances. If memory serves right she is wearing a red dress and puts on his shoes for him??? The titties shot was a "ta-daaa!" shot from start to finish...woman reading a magazine...she puts it down and ta-daaaa! If there IS ANY character advancement from that shot (and there very well may be if you follow your argument through) it is very LITTLE at best!

I would consider most gratuitous breasts shots to be found in comedies like The Wedding Crashers.

The nudity found in Dangerous Liasons seemed to match the circumstances of the story and fit smoothly without any ta-daaa! moments.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by elwood731

As I said before, I understand fine what he is saying. He's saying women should do nude scenes or find another career. Pretty simple, actually. He can guise it in comments such as "it's about reality" and "they get to make a choice," but then there's really no choice if it comes down to pose nude or lose your job, is there? It's a complete removal of choice.

You don't even know how far off you are man. Why bother debating with someone who completely mischaracterizes your points and spins your beliefs? I mean, you might not be doing it intentionally... but come on... "women should do nude scenes or find another career"... I said the exact OPPOSITE of that several times. Whatever. I am done with you. Away!

Originally Posted by Piratehunter

Well, this will ultimately boil down to point of view, but comparing nude screenshots to screenshots of SNL is not the same in my opinion. I’m looking at the screenshots I posted as a reminder of the performance as well as her beauty.

Yeah, that's a good rebuttal. Still, the reason to make a photo of Portman into a desktop image is to see her pretty face all the time, and I think that's objectifying her more than you would like to admit. Is it less heinous than jacking off furiously to her bare-back from Closer? Yeah, I suppose... but they're distant cousins of one another. In all honesty I was just challenging you, which I like to do in debates.

Originally Posted by tomdkat

In the end, this gets back to "nudity being done right", which both Moogle and Elwood are basically commenting on AND that was one of piratehunter's initial points in this thread.

Yes, as I said my comments toward realism are mainly meant as an arguement against calling nude scenes gratuitous. Nudity happens all the time, women do have sex topless, women do get naked in the shower, women do dance naked in strip clubs. To say showing nudity in such situations is gratuitous is silly to me because it's realistic, it really does happen in those situations. Gratuitous, to me, would be having a girl riding a cybernetic killing robot machine man naked while they fight to save the planet from ninja dinosaurs. That's just not needed.

(Edited for horrid sentence structure).

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn