Nudity in film.

[Pirate]

I could have sworn we had a thread about this…

We are talking about this in the Domino thread and I thought I’d post here in an effort to not derail that thread. Go there first if you want to see some of the conversation: Domino

What are your thoughts on nude scenes? It is my feeling that nude scenes (for the most part) are completely unnecessary and end up being content for internet celebrity skin sites. I think filmmakers should take this into consideration when deciding to have a nude scene in their film. Too many people have told me that they were going to see a film because so and so was nude in it. That’s a shame if you ask me.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think there are films that need nudity for the story or atmosphere, but most of the films where you see a glimpse of breast or a 3 or 4 second shot of a penis are completely unneeded.

There are a lot of angles to look at. Some might do a nude scene for the sake of art, others for controversy and publicity. It’s impossible to tell why they did or did not do it, but I thought it was worth discussing.

-PH

[Dilmo]

Great topic. I feel I can provide a lot here. I am too busy right now, but fasten your seat belts.

[Dilmo]

Let me ask you this real quick. I have been studying sex in cinema for nearly 20 years. Would you rather see you favorite actress topless, or have her neck slit open in a film? Just a way to get things going.

[Maximum Jonah]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

Let me ask you this real quick. I have been studying sex in cinema for nearly 20 years. Would you rather see you favorite actress topless, or have her neck slit open in a film? Just a way to get things going.

Gillian Anderson = Topless

Julia Roberts = Neck Slit

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by Maximum Jonah

Gillian Anderson = Topless

She has been topless before in a film.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

Let me ask you this real quick. I have been studying sex in cinema for nearly 20 years. Would you rather see you favorite actress topless, or have her neck slit open in a film? Just a way to get things going.

Um...I'm not sure I understand the importance of the question, but...

I'd have to say that it depends on the film.

If she was to be nude in a film that didn't require the nude scene for the story, then I'd say no to the nude scene.

If the film was a slasher picture and required that she get her throat cut, I'd be ok with it as long as it was needed for the film.

So to answer your question, If the film that had the nude seen didn't require it, I'd prefer she get her throat cut in the slasher picture. If the film did require the nude scene, then I would be impartial.

I would prefer that my favorte actress not have to be in a cheeseball slasher picture, but that's another thing.

-PH

[Maximum Jonah]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

She has been topless before in a film.

Yes, I know...

[Dilmo]

I just wanted to get that out of the way because some view violence and sexuality in the same context. A film could be rated differently either way. We shall now get back to nudity. May I ask you a personal question? You do not have to answer. Is nudity in film in anyway conflicted with your religious beliefs. I mean no attack. Just trying to know where I should go.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

Is nudity in film in anyway conflicted with your religious beliefs. I mean no attack. Just trying to know where I should go.

That’s a very good question. The answer, for me, is no. I have no problem with nudity. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind seeing actresses nude, I just want the nudity to be worth it. So much of the nude scenes, IMO, are frivolous. I think being nude on the screen is something that should be done for the right reasons.

-PH

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

I think being nude on the screen is something that should be done for the right reasons.

-PH

Shit! That's a way to cut a debate short. I totally agree.

[Taxi]

Perhaps if you could give some examples of "gratuitous" nude scenes, that might help clarify your point. (No pics, please. )

[Dilmo]

Name some instances where you felt the nudity was needless. Let's stay above the college comedies and so on.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

Shit! That's a way to cut a debate short. I totally agree.

UGH! I have to leave for a bit. I'll be back on later and we can continue. Question though, in your opinon(s) which of the following had needed nude scenes and why:

Domino

Almost Famous

Basic Instinct

Shakespeare In Love

-PH

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

UGH! I have to leave for a bit. I'll be back on later and we can continue. Question though, in your opinon(s) which of the following had needed nude scenes and why:

Domino

Almost Famous

Basic Instinct

Shakespeare In Love

-PH

Of the four you chose, Basic Instinct had to. Her chararacter is driven by sex, but at the same time, violence. This is where it gets "sticky". The others were not necessary, but delighful.

[Maximum Jonah]

My view of nudity in film, is basically if it adheres to the plot or advances it, then sure, it can be added.

Case in point, is Kathy Bates' nude scene in "About Schmidt". Although, it may not be to all people's cup of tea, it was in keeping with the plot; her character being a real "free spirit" and bathing in the nude, much to the chagrin on Jack Nicholson's character.

However, when it is just included as wank-off material, I consider it a waste of film. Certainly a lot of horror movies suffer from this approach.

What I find interesting is that if the scene calls for a female to take off her clothes, then it's viewed as taking a risk, yet for male nudity, it is either non-existant in today's film, or the actor relies on a "body double". Kevin Costner, anyone?

I have to agree with what has been written here already. If it is not needed, then why have it? It can only slow the movie down, or throw it off the tracks entirely.

Nudity can be a beautiful thing, but only if it is used with the respect and clarity needed for the role and the film.

[Dilmo]

Maximum Jonah for MPAA President!

Forgot your Canadian.

[reapersaurus]

hmm... OK, I'll enter.
So - if you are being so focused on the (relatively) few frames of film that have nudity in them, and declaring that unless they have a purpose within the story, that they are "unneeded", than you MUST therefore put the same kind of attention to other scenes that are in movies traditionally.

What are some typical things seen in many movies that a typical audience-goer is interested in seeing?

Hmmm.. how bout long, establishing landscape scnes - they don't HAVE to be there, and they seldom actually DO anything in the story, so you should object to those.

How about smoking? It's usualy not a story-point, so object to any character that is shown lighting up or smoking onscreen.

How about car chases, or even most action scenes? Most of them don't advance the plot - they are simply there to give the audience member a visceral, visual excitement.

Same as nudity.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

Of the four you chose, Basic Instinct had to. Her chararacter is driven by sex, but at the same time, violence. This is where it gets "sticky". The others were not necessary, but delighful.

I agree that Basic Instinct needed the nudity, but I also think that Shakespeare In Love required it as well. That film dealt with gender issues and gender reversals and the love scene is so much about her finally being able to be feminine, the nudity was justified. I could have done without it, but I didn't feel like it hurt the film or was unnecessary. And even though it will still become "internet fodder," I can see Platrow looking back and being proud of the scene.

Just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

-PH

[Dilmo]

Gotcha.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

I think being nude on the screen is something that should be done for the right reasons.

I agree with this also, BUT we all know sex sells and if some hot looking actor exposes the goods, that might help with revenue generation. Plus, opposition from vocal groups results in free press coverage, which could generate more revenue.

I see nothing wrong with nudity in film. I agree it should ideally be done for the "right reasons" but I have no problem with it in general.

Peace...

[MooglePorn]

I posted this in the Domino thread and think it is valid here as well...

I think they're just tits, and actresses should have no problem showing them, and it adds to the realism of the movie in most situations (how many "having sex in a bra" shots have you seen?). Unfortunately, since people like you act like showing your breasts (or whatever else) is such a huge deal, or so bad and degrading, equating them with pornography, actresses don't want to do it for fear of reputation issues.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

So - if you are being so focused on the (relatively) few frames of film that have nudity in them, and declaring that unless they have a purpose within the story, that they are "unneeded", than you MUST therefore put the same kind of attention to other scenes that are in movies traditionally.

Your rationale is flawed because you can't equate nudity with background scenery, at least not in American society. Why not? Because, nudity is a controversial issue in our society whereas background scenery isn't.

Peace...

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

hmm... OK, I'll enter.
So - if you are being so focused on the (relatively) few frames of film that have nudity in them, and declaring that unless they have a purpose within the story, that they are "unneeded", than you MUST therefore put the same kind of attention to other scenes that are in movies traditionally.

What are some typical things seen in many movies that a typical audience-goer is interested in seeing?

Hmmm.. how bout long, establishing landscape scnes - they don't HAVE to be there, and they seldom actually DO anything in the story, so you should object to those.

Ok, you need to read my first post. This thread is not about useless pieces in films, it’s about nude scenes and the effect they have on the film and the actor. My problem, as stated above, is that these scenes (that aren’t needed) can end up being nothing more than Internet porn fodder. Landscape scenes are irrelevant to the topic at hand. A lot of landscape/driving/etc scenes do have meaning in the story and then there are times when they’re just filler. BUT, they have no effect on a person or how she/he is viewed.

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

How about smoking? It's usualy not a story-point, so object to any character that is shown lighting up or smoking onscreen.

Smoking, however, is relevant. There are several times when I watch a film where I character chain-smokes for no reason and it does seem gratuitous. It’s like the writer couldn’t flesh out the character, so they just gave them vices that make them seem more real. On the other hand, smoking can be very useful and can give you insight into a character’s mindset. Again though, this isn’t the same as a nude scene. People are not going to go see a certain film just because that actor/actress is smoking in it. And, as far as I know, no actor has looked back at a photo shoot of themselves smoking and regretted it.

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

How about car chases, or even most action scenes? Most of them don't advance the plot - they are simply there to give the audience member a visceral, visual excitement.

I think the above 2 answer this, but action scenes are not the same as nude scenes. At least not in my opinion. Good action scenes can further the story. Bad action sequences are just bad sequences. A bad nude scene can be scarring to a person. A bad action scene just lowers box office and DVD sales. Good and Bad action scenes that simply exist for the sake of explosions may not further the story, but the film they are in most likely call for that.

-PH

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I agree with this also, BUT we all know sex sells and if some hot looking actor exposes the goods, that might help with revenue generation. Plus, opposition from vocal groups results in free press coverage, which could generate more revenue.

That's what I'm saying. At what point are you selling too much? Is better box office really worth a scene you may regret later? Maybe to some, but to an extent I think it's a myth that nudity will make for better bank. Look at Domino. The nude scene did not help the film because it didn't do that well, but Pride and Prejudice did very well given its release scope and there was barely even kissing. I think that, at times, pressure is put on filmmakers to "show some skin" because they think it'll draw a crowd. This may be true for DVD, but I'm not sure it's true for the theatre. Then again, DVD may take over, so it may just be nothing but porn from here on.

-PH

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

That's what I'm saying. At what point are you selling too much? Is better box office really worth a scene you may regret later?

You're talking about two different financial perspectives. From a revenue generation standpoint, anything that can generate revenue is a good thing. Corporations (including the studios) want to maximize profit and to do so, they need to rake in the cash.

From an income perspective, if the actor can get paid more for doing the scene, it might be worth it to satisfy their personal financial wants or needs.

Maybe to some, but to an extent I think it's a myth that nudity will make for better bank.

Look at Domino. The nude scene did not help the film because it didn't do that well, but Pride and Prejudice did very well given its release scope and there was barely even kissing.

I think this is a poor comparison, since Kiera Knightly isn't that hot and the nude scene was basically her baring her breasts, which is no big deal these days. Halle Berry has done it (and she's arguably much hotter than Ms Knightly) and others have done it. Replace Kiera Knightly with Jessica Alba and we might be having a different discussion.

Additionally, the nature of the nudity must be considered as well.

Lastly, it's not the nudity itself that leads to potential increased revenue as much as it's the interest generated in seeing someone people admire (word loosely used) sans clothes and the controversy the nudity generates. As long as people go to see what the hub-bub is about regarding some nude scene, the studios love it since you're spending money.

I think that, at times, pressure is put on filmmakers to "show some skin" because they think it'll draw a crowd.

I agree. The same goes to some actors as well.

Peace...

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

You're talking about two different financial perspectives. From a revenue generation standpoint, anything that can generate revenue is a good thing. Corporations (including the studios) want to maximize profit and to do so, they need to rake in the cash.

From an income perspective, if the actor can get paid more for doing the scene, it might be worth it to satisfy their personal financial wants or needs.

I think this is a poor comparison, since Kiera Knightly isn't that hot and the nude scene was basically her baring her breasts, which is no big deal these days. Halle Berry has done it (and she's arguably much hotter than Ms Knightly) and others have done it. Replace Kiera Knightly with Jessica Alba and we might be having a different discussion.

Additionally, the nature of the nudity must be considered as well.

Lastly, it's not the nudity itself that leads to potential increased revenue as much as it's the interest generated in seeing someone people admire (word loosely used) sans clothes and the controversy the nudity generates. As long as people go to see what the hub-bub is about regarding some nude scene, the studios love it since you're spending money.

I agree. The same goes to some actors as well.

Peace...

1. I will argue with you about Keira being Hotter than Halle.

2. You're correct and I should have worded my response better by saying that I think its "sex appeal" and not necessarily the nudity that sells seats. On the other hand, see below…

3. I guess the problem is that I’m thinking about the actor/actress from the standpoint of them wanting to make art and money not being an issue. I’m sure there are many actresses that would take the increase in pay to bare it all, but I’m more concerned with the person that doesn’t take into consideration the type of film they’re in. Take for example, Halle Berry. She was nude in Swordfish, which was a fun movie, but I heard more about her nude scene than I did about the film. I just wonder if she realized that and how she felt. Is that something that she’s going to look back on and be proud of? Does she realize that more people probably downloaded the captures than actually watched the film?

I also wonder how many people didn't go see Closer when they heard that Natalie wasn't going to be nude. I remember seeing post after post about how "pissed" people were over that. At that point, I think the nudity is a mistake. It's a distraction from the film itself.

-PH