Nudity in film.

[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

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.

sez YOU.

drool for the ninja dinosaurs, not (necessarily) the naked woman riding the robot.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

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.

Well Moog, I don't know what to tell you. I disagree completely. The definition of objectify it to treat as an object, sexual or otherwise. You seem to think that my wallpapers are used to look at her as an object. I cannot say what others will do with them, but I can assure you that it's not what I think about when I look at them and not why I made them. Again, by that same measure, putting posters up is objectifying.

I think looking at the stripper stills from “Closer” is objectifying when out of the context of the film, I think looking at the one sheet or the wallpapers made available on the site are not.

-PH

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

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.

“Swordfish” didn’t need that scene to get anything across. Halle Berry bending over while playing golf did just as much to entice Jackman as the topless scene did.

Everything you listed can and has been done without nudity. It’s a question of class. I think a classy filmmaker can make the film without needing the nudity. Now, I understand that “Swordfish” is not a classy film, but look at “The Rock.” Someone earlier in the thread commented that the fact that Vanessa Marcil was not nude during the sex scene “really bothered” them and “took them out of the film.” That tells me that they are thinking way too much about the nudity and not enough about the film. I mean, it’s “The Rock.”

There are exceptions, but a good film can be twice as sexy, IMO, without nudity.

-PH

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Again, by that same measure, putting posters up is objectifying.

Yeah, and if you have Portman posters on the wall, I would say that was objectifying as well. You don't think a poster is objectifying? Take a walk through Spencers in the mall. Just because Portman is clothed doesn't change anything... that's the root of my arguement. To say it's only objectifying when she's naked makes nudity the issue, makes it "bad" in some way, and on that simple point we cannot relate, because I think nudity is natural and healthy and not morally suspect.

“Swordfish” didn’t need that scene to get anything across. Halle Berry bending over while playing golf did just as much to entice Jackman as the topless scene did.

That scene wasn't needed, no, but I won't say it was gratuitous either, because some women do sunbathe topless, and some women don't care who sees them. It certainly wasn't needed, but I won't judge it either because it was realistic enough.

Someone earlier in the thread commented that the fact that Vanessa Marcil was not nude during the sex scene “really bothered” them and “took them out of the film.” That tells me that they are thinking way too much about the nudity and not enough about the film. I mean, it’s “The Rock.”

I don't know about you, but when I have sex the women I'm with get naked. 99.99% of the time. The Rock example was MJ's, and it's one I don't completely share because as I remember it they were on the roof, so it makes sense she would leave her top on because they were in public. But when two people are in bed fucking and the girl leaves her shirt or bra on, it IS distracting and it DOES remind me I'm watching an actor and I would rather have her naked. And for the millionth time, no elwood, it's not just because I want to see some titty.

There are exceptions, but a good film can be twice as sexy, IMO, without nudity.

That's a silly blanket statement, when the truth is these things would be better decided on a case by case basis. Sometimes things are sexier with clothes, sometimes not, sometimes both. It depends. As I've mentioned already, I watch porn, so there's really nothing I haven't seen a women do onscreen, no small crack of her I haven't seen, but I can still be turned on by her clothed at the begining of the scene. I can still be turned on by my girlfriend when she's wearing a good looking outfit, even if I've explored her entire naked body with my tongue. Nudity does not equal the absence of sex appeal when clothed.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Yeah, and if you have Portman posters on the wall, I would say that was objectifying as well. You don't think a poster is objectifying? Take a walk through Spencers in the mall. Just because Portman is clothed doesn't change anything... that's the root of my arguement. To say it's only objectifying when she's naked makes nudity the issue, makes it "bad" in some way, and on that simple point we cannot relate, because I think nudity is natural and healthy and not morally suspect.

I’m not talking about the pop star “let me sell you my sex because I have no talent” mall posters. I’m talking one sheets that showcase the actor. I don’t see anything objectifying about displaying my “V for Vendetta” or “Leon” posters.

And the issue IS nudity. You don’t live in a society that sees nudity as “natural and healthy.” I agree with you that it is, but in this country, nudity is taken and smeared throughout rag magazines and all over the internet and is used (for the most part) not to talk about the person or their beauty, but to make comments like “I’d hit it.” If everyone had your view on nudity, this thread wouldn’t need to exist.

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

That scene wasn't needed, no, but I won't say it was gratuitous either, because some women do sunbathe topless, and some women don't care who sees them. It certainly wasn't needed, but I won't judge it either because it was realistic enough.

Sure, some women do that, but throwing it in there distracts from the film. See, to me there was no realism. The character obviously uses every inch of her form to entice men; it seemed almost absurd to me that she would just walk around naked. It was a “shock” moment that I thought was in poor taste. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

I don't know about you, but when I have sex the women I'm with get naked. 99.99% of the time. The Rock example was MJ's, and it's one I don't completely share because as I remember it they were on the roof, so it makes sense she would leave her top on because they were in public. But when two people are in bed fucking and the girl leaves her shirt or bra on, it IS distracting and it DOES remind me I'm watching an actor and I would rather have her naked. And for the millionth time, no elwood, it's not just because I want to see some titty.

Well, this seems to be a person to person thing. Some folks claim women leave the bra on and others claim otherwise. When I watched “The Rock,” nothing took me out of the movie because it was a larger than life action fantasy.

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

That's a silly blanket statement, when the truth is these things would be better decided on a case by case basis. Sometimes things are sexier with clothes, sometimes not, sometimes both. It depends. As I've mentioned already, I watch porn, so there's really nothing I haven't seen a women do onscreen, no small crack of her I haven't seen, but I can still be turned on by her clothed at the beginning of the scene. I can still be turned on by my girlfriend when she's wearing a good looking outfit, even if I've explored her entire naked body with my tongue. Nudity does not equal the absence of sex appeal when clothed.

It’s not a silly blanket statement, it is the opinion that I’ve formed with the scope of my film knowledge. It is my opinion that the films that I’ve seen, that I thought were really sexy, had no nudity. And I never said that nudity can’t be sexy.

[whew]

-PH

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

That scene wasn't needed, no, but I won't say it was gratuitous either, because some women do sunbathe topless, and some women don't care who sees them. It certainly wasn't needed, but I won't judge it either because it was realistic enough.

Actually, I do think it was since we could have determined she was topless without seeing her breasts fully exposed. There could have been a tighter shot stopping about just above mid-way down her chest, which would have given the impression she was topless (and shots from behind her could have confirmed that by the missing bikini top) without showing "all the goods." I think that scene was an opportunity to get her tits on film and that opportunity was taken. I don't think "realism" is a factor, in this case, since the same point (topless sunbatthing) could have been made without showing her breasts.

Now, don't get me wrong... I certainly enjoyed seeing her breasts but from a purely titilating perspective.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

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

I don't see how as she could have covered her breast with her hand or the bedsheet.

Peace...

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Actually, I do think it was since we could have determined she was topless without seeing her breasts fully exposed. There could have been a tighter shot stopping about just above mid-way down her chest, which would have given the impression she was topless (and shots from behind her could have confirmed that by the missing bikini top) without showing "all the goods." I think that scene was an opportunity to get her tits on film and that opportunity was taken. I don't think "realism" is a factor, in this case, since the same point (topless sunbatthing) could have been made without showing her breasts.

I good example of this would be "Tomb Raider." Now, I know that they could have gone for the R, but she gets out of the shower in front of her butler and you see the side of her breast. That's all you need to see to understand Lara Croft.

-PH

[Iguana Man]

Man! You dudes can really get deep sometimes. And I mean DEEP.

Wow.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good read and I really do enjoy it. I honestly do.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

I good example of this would be "Tomb Raider." Now, I know that they could have gone for the R, but she gets out of the shower in front of her butler and you see the side of her breast. That's all you need to see to understand Lara Croft.

Yep. Exactly. We get the point but don't get to see the points (even though we all would have loved to).

Again, it's all about nudity done "right".

Peace...

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

it's a good read

Yeah, we should so publish this thread in like "DVD Geeks Magazine."

-PH

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

That's all you need to see to understand Lara Croft.

-PH

And what about the bouncing ending as she runs thru the ice maze with everthing bouncing like that little ball over words from years past? Hmmm?

Bouncy bouncy bouncy = Yummy yummy yummy!

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

And what about the bouncing ending as she runs thru the ice maze with everthing bouncing like that little ball over words from years past? Hmmm?

That's obviously gratuitous even though nudity isn't involved.

Peace...

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Yeah, we should so publish this thread in like "DVD Geeks Magazine."

-PH

I think a college should download it and study it for their evolution classes. Oh, I forgot, we didn't evolve.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

I’m not talking about the pop star “let me sell you my sex because I have no talent” mall posters. I’m talking one sheets that showcase the actor. I don’t see anything objectifying about displaying my “V for Vendetta” or “Leon” posters.

Movie posters is a whole different thing... We're talking about SNL screencaps. I thought you meant a poster of just Natalie Portman, like a spencers poster of Britney Spears or something.

And the issue IS nudity. You don’t live in a society that sees nudity as “natural and healthy.” I agree with you that it is, but in this country, nudity is taken and smeared throughout rag magazines and all over the internet and is used (for the most part) not to talk about the person or their beauty, but to make comments like “I’d hit it.” If everyone had your view on nudity, this thread wouldn’t need to exist.

Thanks, I appreciate you saying that, and I guess I can see your point. As I said before though, art cannot be censored or blamed for what the audience does with it. If that was the case, violent movies should be censored to stop murders. And who knows, more titty might be the cure!

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Actually, I do think it was since we could have determined she was topless without seeing her breasts fully exposed. There could have been a tighter shot stopping about just above mid-way down her chest, which would have given the impression she was topless (and shots from behind her could have confirmed that by the missing bikini top) without showing "all the goods." I think that scene was an opportunity to get her tits on film and that opportunity was taken. I don't think "realism" is a factor, in this case, since the same point (topless sunbatthing) could have been made without showing her breasts.

I guess I can agree with that. It was on the more heinous side than most hollywood movies I would support. In the end though, it didn't bother me one way or the other, and the movie was shit anyway. I DID hate that the press made such a huge deal of her tits being shown... but... like I said... that's more the people that view the art's problem than the art itself.

Also, since we're talking about "getting the sexy vibe without the nudity," I want to make it clear that I do agree with this. One main example is the Bond franchise, which usually makes a great and sexy scene without any real nudity. Brosnan said he wanted an R rated Bond, and I disagreed completely.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Actually, I do think it was since we could have determined she was topless without seeing her breasts fully exposed.

The same exact point can be made regarding sex scenes. Match Point comes to mind. They've got some reasonably hot and heavy stuff going on there and you never see Scarlett Johansen's breasts. In one scene she's completely nude with her co-star on top, but it was framed in such a way that no nudity was on display.

Perhaps this could be a good middle ground to serve both piratehunter's point of view as well as Moogle's.

KM

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

In one scene she's completely nude with her co-star on top, but it was framed in such a way that no nudity was on display.

At least we think she's completely nude... In the end, it really doesn't matter if she was actually nude or not since the scene was hot (I haven't seen the movie) and our imagination fills in any voids.

Perhaps this could be a good middle ground to serve both piratehunter's point of view as well as Moogle's.

Yep, I think so. I think Moogle and Elwood and PH were more aligned in their argument than they thought.

Peace...

[Pirate]

Wait…we can’t all be on the same page…the discussion will die! NOOOO! Tom, hurry up and disagree with me.

Seriously though, there has been some wonderful and thoughtful discussion in this thread and it has been a real pleasure discussing/arguing/debating with you all.



-PH

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

At least we think she's completely nude... In the end, it really doesn't matter if she was actually nude or not since the scene was hot (I haven't seen the movie) and our imagination fills in any voids.

Peace...

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Wait…we can’t all be on the same page…the discussion will die! NOOOO! Tom, hurry up and disagree with me.

Seriously though, there has been some wonderful and thoughtful discussion in this thread and it has been a real pleasure discussing/arguing/debating with you all.

Excuse me?!?!?

Tom; Imagination? How the heck does that come into this debate? I've been spanked with one reply and now it's role reversal time pal. No....imagining has nothing to do with this. If she's semi nude and nothing is shown but titilation for the imagination, it ain't real nudity in my book.

PH; You're welcome.