The Nudity Issue: Gratuitous or Needed?

Unfortunately, not much debate has been raised about this topic. So I'd like to know what YOU think:
When does nudity become excessive in film? I've heard people argue it's okay when needed to move the storyline along. I've heard people argue that a film can have all the nudity in the world so long as the audience will accept both female AND male nudity (the whole equality thing). What do you think?

[RegniL]

bring on the female nudity!!! j/j
it's an escape.. fantasies.. so i say.. bring it on

------------------
RegniL is Linger Backwards!

[jb523]

It's pretty simple. If it's a good film, the nudity is appropriate, and if it's a bad film, then the nudity is superfluous/gratuitous.

But seriously, I think that nudity for the sake of art is always forgivable (I don't see any real problem with nudity), but if it is used as a distraction for low-attentionspan minds, or exploited to keep the audiences "worked up" and in their seats, then I find it's usually 'appropriate' for whatever type of movie it probably is. To put it another way, I can't think of an example where I find nudity inappropriate (thought I'm sure people will suggest a few that I have overlooked).

If anybody dares suggest that nudity in Greenaway is inappropriate, gratuitous, or excessive. . .

It's pretty simple. If it's a good film, the nudity is appropriate, and if it's a bad film, then the nudity is superfluous/gratuitous.

Totally agree with you there jb523. A great example is Red Violin or Trainspotting. But then you can easily go into the debate of what is a good film and what is a bad film.


Go fig,
Sub-Girl

I find the whole "nudity for the sake of art" or "as appropriate to telling the story" kind of silly most of the time. Examples given by Sub-girl are good, but most of the time I can't figure it out. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a guy who loves to see naked women. But, was the nudity in Shakespeare in Love or Titanic necessary? I say no. The stories would have worked just as well if the cameras were pointing above the chests of the respective women. These obviously were considered great movies by someone since they won Best Pictures, and the nude scenes were definitely not gratuitous. But, I have to say objectively, what's the point? Showing those breasts were definitely not necessary in making these "high quality" movies any better.

[Tombo]

Some director (I wish I could remember who it was) once said in an interview "The moment you show nudity, your film turns into a documentary." In a way, I have to agree with that, especially when it's a really big name like (to use the previous examples) Kate Winslet or Gweneth Paltrow. Believe me, I really enjoy the chance to get a peek at the breasts of a famous actress but it almost always takes me out of the movie and makes me think about the actress rather than the character she is playing. After the initial thrill, I start to think about why she would consent to doing that scene and whether it was really necessary to the story, and so on. It is the rare movie that can show that kind of thing and keep me involved.

Another recent example of completly gratuitous nudity by a big name is Rene Russo in The Thomas Crown Affair. I mean really, what was that about??

[manigrasso]

Nudity is never necessary.
Gun fights are never necessary.
Explosions are never necessary.
Car chases are never necessary.
CGI is never necessary.
Scenery and costumes are never necessary.
Music is never necessary.
Even a plot isn't necessarily necessary

But without them, you might as well be listening to Old Time Radio.

I was going to quicky point out Titanic as an example but considering how a few people on here go nuts over that film I decided not to pull the sword out of the stone.

For the whole 7 1/2 months that Titanic was at my theatre I saw endless streams of little theatre rats exiting the theatre either laughing their heads off or drooling like a morons. I wondered the whole time how did it ever get just a PG-13 rating?


Sub-Girl

I want to do this post in two parts(because I WAS going to just do a semi-smartassed post but I had another thought on it...)

1 :[serious] I've seen movies where nudity was supposed to make the characters seem vulnerable but all I saw was the nudity.However one film did do this in a very effective way,the death camp scene in Schindlers List.I don't feel I have to explain what I mean.

2 :[semi-smartass] Jamie Lee Curtis' nude scenes in Trading Places were very gratuitous & I thank her for them. Yet less than a year later she makes Love Letters which has three or four times the nudity & some "soft core" sex in it but it is considered a strong film for her........yes it had a much better reason plot wise for all the skin & toecurling monkey love(which Trading Places did not have by the way)but is there all that much a difference?


P.S. hee hee hee I wrote 1 serious) & 2 semi-smartass).....oops.



[This message has been edited by dougpirana (edited 02-29-2000).]

[clortho]

Taking the hippy-esque approach...Nudity is natural, and is completely subjective to each viewer whether its gratuitous, artistic, or disgusting.

That being said...I don't mind it, even in movies where thats all there is to admire about the film.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[Colin Dunn]

In my opinion, there really isn't a definitive answer to this question. I personally say that if the nudity is there for exploitative reasons, it's unnecessary.

But where do you draw the line? The sketch in "Titanic" was of a nude woman, so of course she was naked while it was drawn. Was the scene included because it was part of the story, or just to get a peek at a famous actress's bare breasts? I think opinions are divided on this one.

"The Gods Must Be Crazy" was rated PG but had MUCH more nudity than "The Thomas Crown Affair," which was rated R. The difference was that "Gods" had nudity in a non-sexual, Third World setting; "Thomas Crown" featured nudity in a sensual setting.

But I'm hard-pressed to judge which was really more exploitative. After all, the characters in "Gods" had loincloths for their crotches, but women's breasts were uncovered for the whole movie. Am I supposed to believe that this fictional Third World tribe had the clothing technology to cover their crotches, but not their breasts?

On the other hand, people really do get naked to have sex -- which was exactly what happened between the leading man & lady in "Thomas Crown." The sexual involvement was important to the story, so it didn't seem that gratuitous to me...

And why was "Titanic" rated PG-13 instead of R? Answer: I've observed that the MPAA will loosen up content ratings slightly when the movie is about historical events. The death and destruction in "Titanic" was not as graphic as in many R-rated action flicks. The nudity wasn't in a sex scene.

------------------
Colin Dunn
DDS-006

[This message has been edited by Colin Dunn (edited 02-29-2000).]

[jb523]

In many parts of the world, most clothing is superfluous, not being required for warmth. Loincloths and the like are not uncommon to prevent infection, or to prevent one's private parts from snagging at inconvenient times (while hunting), and because that section of the body is particularly sensitive. To cover the breasts in The Gods Must Be Crazy, would have been introducing a very western concept of decency for the sake of censors, but thankfully we seem to have decided some time ago that that kind of nudity through local custom is acceptible and not scandalous. When you're in central Africa, shirts and pants are kind of dumb.

Additionally, I would not consider Shakespear in Love or Titanic to be particularly good films, but I didn't feel the nudity was inappropriate. In fact, I find the careful avoidance of nudity to be almost as distracting as the presence of nudity--it brings to mind the modest days of the Hollywood code. Granted I think that the fact that female nudity is much more common than male nudity is an indication of the motives of nude scenes (and of who the audiences are), but in general, I support unabashed nudity of both genders.

My main objection to female nudity, if I have any, is that it tends to portray women as sex objects, as if that were their purpose in being in film. I don't think that Titanic or Shakespeare in Love are examples of this. This is where I would attack James Bond film and the like. But in those cases, women can be treated as sex objects without having to be naked. What was my point? I've forgotten. . .

I have to jump into the camp that says the nudity in Titanic wasn't gratuitous in the least. Unless you chopped out the whole idea that Jack does drawings (nude or not) of females, the idea of showing him drawing her nude without actually SHOWING her would just seem coy or prudish. (rather like those people who had their copies edited)
However, I didn't think showing Gwyneth in Shakespeare was necessary at all.

But generally speaking, I think it really is a subjective thing. Nudity does have its place in movies, artistically. (like in Schindler's List) Sometimes, it does go to excess.
And Jb523, you seem to regard Greenaway as unreproachable. Come on! Have you seen Prospero's Books? The credit sequence is a 5-minute pan across dozens of naked women dancing to the music. If that's not gratuitous, I don't know what is. Actually, he's a great example. That scene in P.B. was completely unnecessary, yet I can't think of a single nude scene in The Pillow Book which I would classify as such.

In short, I really think it's a movie by movie thing, and I doubt ANYONE could work up solid rules on what is artistic and what isn't.

------------------
Jason Blalock
Scoreland Soundtrack & DVD Reviews

[jb523]

A lot of people have worked out solid ideas as to what is artistic and what is not, but that's philosophy. In any case, in regards to Greenaway, it's not that he's unreproachable, but I feel his use of nudity is very careful and never gratuitous.

In Prospero's books, all of the spirits (which did not exist in Shakespeare's play) are naked, which Greenaway used to illustrate their closeness to nature. Note that Greenaway never once used nudity in Prospero's Books in an erotic manner. It was just straitforward, perfectly natural nudity. To reproach that would be to reproach animals for being naked. In fact, I would argue that in Prospero's Books, nudity was less gratuitous (and more present) than in any of Greenaway's films. In Cook, the Thief, or Drowning By Numbers, or indeed any of his other films, he uses nudity in an erotic context, but certainly not in an erotic manner (at least, I certainly didn't find it erotic--in fact I found it strangely unerotic). I think that Greenaway uses the nude in an incredibly detached manner, without the motivations that many other filmmakers, and certainly Hollywood have. His latest film, 8 1/2 women, which I have not seen, is about a harem, so it may be totally different there, but I have seen at least 3 reviewers comment on the unerotic quality of the sexual fantasies in the film.

People make a big point about nudity in Greenaway's films, and if you don't enjoy his 5-minute pan across a meticulously choreographed cast of naked extras with 3 planes of action in focus, that's fine, but how can you call the nudity gratuitous?

[RoboDad]

jb,

My only comment would be that Greenaway, or any other director for that matter, can convey the impression of nudity without explicitly showing it, erotic or not. If they can't, then they are second rate directors. Of course, the same can be said for graphic violence. Gross-out horror movies may shock people, and momentarily frighten them, but a well-crafted story leaves the boogey-man in your mind. That's when you get really terrified. That's when you end up sleeping with the lights on.

I have long held the belief that what you don't see in film can have a far more lasting impact on you than what you do see.

Robo

[This message has been edited by RoboDad (edited 03-03-2000).]

I don't deny that Greenaway is an artistic genious. The sheer scope of that opening sequence in Prospero blew me away. (that's gotta be one of the longest steadicam sidepans in history) But the whole time I was watching it, I was just sitting there wondering (inbetween "My god, how big IS that set?!?") if the millions of nekkid girls were really necessary to the scene's artistic integrity. The shot would have been just as stunning had they been clad. Hence, I feel the women were naked for the sake of being naked.

You do raise a good point, however, about non-erotic nudity. Kubrick was another master of this. Take Eyes Wide Shut for a moment. (and please, let's not let this degenerate into an argument about the digital capes or aspect ratios) For a movie which is about almost nothing but sex (or lack thereof, really) and with lots of naked people, nearly naked people, and the old in-out, in-out, was there a single moment in that film that anyone found the least bit stimulating? Kubrick managed to find a way to sabotage just about every potentially erotic moment in the film. (I'm still working on how he got Leelee to have that lobotomized stare)
In that case, I could argue that the nudity (and near-nudity) was more essential to the plot. Since the film is about sexual frustration, it makes sense that it would be all around Tom Cruise, yet he (and the audience) would be unable to do anything about it.

[jb523]

First of all, how do you convey the impression of 1000 spirits on an island being naked without showing it? Also, I think that to not show it would be artificial, inelegant, and tasteless (unless he was making a point). Since Greenaway was making a point about their nudity (closeness to nature, lack of modesty or shame, and invisibility), I don't think it was in the least bit gratuitous. Pretentious as the man may be, I don't think Greenaway has a gratuitous bone in his body.

I agree that the impression of nudity can be conveyed without showing it, but it really depends on context. Some films would be greatly weakened if they daintily beat around the bush of nudity, but for other films nudity would be a distraction. I don't think we can define great directors by how effectively they can convey the impression of nudity. In fact, I can't think of a single director that I respect that uses nudity in a gratuitous or inappropriate manner. I think nudity as gratuity is pretty much a Hollywood thing, used in films that have little else to offer, but then those films are Gratuity in every sense: violence, sex, romance, and nudity (I argue that Armageddon as a film is completely gratuitous, everything about it, although there wasn't much in the way of nudity).