Making a New Feature... What Do You Want To See?

[Capt Quirk]

I would take all of the arguments against nudity, and extend it to violence and profanity. When you add all that together, you are left with Disney movies only. How many of you only watch those G rated films? American History X would never have been shown at that rate.

 

[Sad Max]

I think it symptomatic of the basic American sickness with regard to all things sexual, that we're even in the habit of lumping nudity, violence, and profanity into one category, in which they do not all belong.

And there are certainly people out there, who would knee-jerk-zero-cogitation agree that any film - any film, regardless of content or import - should go unreleased if just maybe there's a glimpse of a male behind or a female nipple, in it.

 

[metro2307]

I think the scenes in Eastern Promises were so important to the impact of the story that to cut them would leave the viewer disengaged on some level. The story would still be interesting, but not as truthful or tense. This scene was almost painful to watch.

 

[Nathyn]

And there are certainly people out there, who would knee-jerk-zero-cogitation agree that any film - any film, regardless of content or import - should go unreleased if just maybe there's a glimpse of a male behind or a female nipple, in it.

And honestly what we're talking about is female nudity. No one really says anything about a guy who takes off his shirt in an action film which I've done and many others have with no complaints, but at the same time I refused to show female nudity, as there was no real reason to do so that would make any scene more powerful. This doesn't mean I would never show nudity. The body isn't bad, people are. What I mean is to tell a story such as that of David and Bathsheba you would need nudity. You could imply what's going on but it wouldn't be as strong and there's no real reason to take it out. It can also be done in a way that shows David's desire and at the same time not in a salacious manner. In the Biblical account, Bathsheba didn't get blamed for being naked, David got blamed for his actions. So I stand by my thoughts on this. How it's used is more important than the fact that it is used. Just like the fact there's pornographic language in some parts of the Bible that many people would be totally incensed if used in common literature.

I think it symptomatic of the basic American sickness with regard to all things sexual, that we're even in the habit of lumping nudity, violence, and profanity into one category, in which they do not all belong.

It's not a sickness, it's a backlash. This idea of nudity being bad comes up because many people feel in a Hollywood film many times it's there just to stimulate, which is true, but not all the time. "Big Fish" had nudity in it wasn't there to stimulate. On the other hand, considering how Hollywood treats sex you can't blame people for the assumption. Sex is like a handshake in many Hollywood films and now people are being in some ways pushed to act this way in real life. There's two moves people normally make, they embrace something fully or reject it fully. A lot of people see nudity in films as part of an overall system that uses it to push sexually charged propaganda that pleasure (particularly sexual) is the most important thing in life no matter who you have to go through to get it, even if it means hurting a friend or relative or even destroying a family or putting your own life in danger for a sexual thrill. The message sex in marriage is bad, sex outside of marriage or extramarital sex it where it's "really at" is the current push. This is a timely issue for me because in one of my current stories I may be playing an angel (either Michael or the Angel of Death) and one of our antagonist is a person who owns a dating service for people looking to have extra-marital affairs. Yes it's a story I know will never get on the big screen but this post got me thinking about some things I've been mulling over in the past.

The big problem is, scenes like the one in "Big Fish" where a nude woman floats by in a sequence (we see her from behind) was done very well and added to visual presentation. Was it needed? No but neither was anything else in the film that was mainly made up of artistic images. And honestly if the woman was dressed it would've looked stupid. So the next move would be take the woman out totally. But there would be no real reason to.

Another thing is nudity isn't really hot. It's hot in B movies were women have huge silicone breast and that's part of the selling point to foreign markets, but honestly people are hot because of clothing. The mystery of peeling off the clothes is what's hot. A woman in a long tight dress is probably much sexier than that same woman naked. It's simply human nature. Either way I think both are wrong. To say all nudity in a film is bad is the miss the forest for the trees like saying all sex scenes are bad or unneeded. But at the same time to simply find reasons for salacious nudity is equally wrong and my book.

-Nate

 

[Sad Max]

I think the scenes in Eastern Promises were so important to the impact of the story that to cut them would leave the viewer disengaged on some level. The story would still be interesting, but not as truthful or tense. This scene was almost painful to watch.

Alas the sauna-fight in Eastern Promises reminded me of the hotel-room tussle in Borat. Which is not Cronenberg's fault, at all, just an unfortunate association in my own head.

 

[Sad Max]

And honestly what we're talking about is female nudity. No one really says anything about a guy who takes off his shirt in an action film which I've done and many others have with no complaints, but at the same time I refused to show female nudity, as there was no real reason to do so that would make any scene more powerful.

Does this accurately distill down to: male nudity is acceptable while female nudity isn't?

This doesn't mean I would never show nudity. The body isn't bad, people are.

So if the body is not intrinsically bad, how do we reach the conclusion that depictions of the body - the female body, anyway, since we're entertaining double-standards - are intrinsically bad?

What I mean is to tell a story such as that of David and Bathsheba you would need nudity. You could imply what's going on but it wouldn't be as strong and there's no real reason to take it out. It can also be done in a way that shows David's desire and at the same time not in a salacious manner.

Are there stories besides bible-stories, whose telling can be legitimately and artistically served by judicious depictions of nudity? Or is nudity only acceptable when 'sanitized' by its use in the context of stories in which some people find religious significance?

In the Biblical account, Bathsheba didn't get blamed for being naked, David got blamed for his actions.

So...nudity is neutral? Only people's actions stemming from having been moved by the sight of nudity, is a concern?

So I stand by my thoughts on this. How it's used is more important than the fact that it is used.

Sure.

Just like the fact there's pornographic language in some parts of the Bible that many people would be totally incensed if used in common literature.

Are we talking about the Song of Solomon? As far as I recall, that's as close as any biblical text I have read gets to pornography, and it's pretty mild stuff, at that.

It's not a sickness, it's a backlash.

No, American puritanism when it comes to sexuality is much older than some recent blue-ification in our media. When our own home-grown Wahhabists had the power to do so, they saw to it that you couldn't even depict a single bed in the bedroom of a married pair of characters. The terror of acknowledging sexualilty was (is?) so strong that even a mute visual acknowledgment that a wedded couple shared a bed was sooooooo racy and threatening, that it had to be banned. Because after all, an impressionable audience might see the single bed, and might be led in the direction of reflecting upon what happens, in a married couple's bed...

...anyway, it's no backlash. It's people with odd insecurities and weaknesses wishing for a return to the days when we all did our best to pretend that there was no such thing as sexuality.

This idea of nudity being bad comes up because many people feel in a Hollywood film many times it's there just to stimulate, which is true, but not all the time. "Big Fish" had nudity in it wasn't there to stimulate.

I think we agree that depictions of sexuality can be employed to advance a story or develop a character, as well as just be stuck into a show for titillation-value. Observing that the latter happens, does not reflect upon the value of the former.

On the other hand, considering how Hollywood treats sex you can't blame people for the assumption. Sex is like a handshake in many Hollywood films and now people are being in some ways pushed to act this way in real life.

Ah, the monkey-see-monkey-do principle. This is where people usually start bickering over whether viewers alter their conduct to match what they see on-screen, or whether writers and directors tailor what they put on-screen, to the behaviors they see prevalent across the larger society.

Are you, personally, in your day-to-day lilfe, pushed into your actions and morality, by the films you watch? Do you run out and do things you saw on screen, because you just saw them on screen and that's your inspiration for choosing your actions?

There's two moves people normally make, they embrace something fully or reject it fully.

I prefer not to believe that a majority of people are really saddled with such coarse intellects, but I suppose you may be right.

A lot of people see nudity in films as part of an overall system that uses it to push sexually charged propaganda that pleasure (particularly sexual) is the most important thing in life no matter who you have to go through to get it,

Friend, that's not 'nudity in films' or 'propaganda,' that's basic biology. How many politicians with shining propects have self-destructed for the sake of an affair with some twenty-something staff worker? How many married people commit infidelities for a whole spectrum of reasons having zero to do, with the movie they saw last night?

How many of the self-serving Elmer-Gantry-wannabe ministers, preachers, and others who presume to suggest they know the mind of God and nature of goodness, have been caught out in sexual affairs that contravene the moralilty they so hypocritically preach?

It's a bad, immature, dangerous habit, externalizing the blame for bad behavior on some chunk of media, rather than recognizing that a man or woman who betrays their marriage vow is responsible for their own actions which grow from the state of the marriage itself.

even if it means hurting a friend or relative or even destroying a family or putting your own life in danger for a sexual thrill.

The fact that characters in movies do that sort of thing, and the fact that people in real life do that sort of thing, does not establish a causal link. If anything, the causal link is demonstrably the influence of society upon media: people were cheating on their spouses long before the technology even existed, for directors to start making movies on the topic.

The message sex in marriage is bad, sex outside of marriage or extramarital sex it where it's "really at" is the current push.

Illicit anything is - at least momentarily - more enticing than permitted anything. Candy bars when you are on a diet, are tastier than candy bars when you're not. This is irrelevant to cinema or any other art form; this is basic human psychology. Whether or not a given work of art depicts a character whose actions are subject to that psychology, is not an endorsement of the actions themselves.

This is a timely issue for me because in one of my current stories I may be playing an angel (either Michael or the Angel of Death) and one of our antagonist is a person who owns a dating service for people looking to have extra-marital affairs. Yes it's a story I know will never get on the big screen but this post got me thinking about some things I've been mulling over in the past.

I don't see any reason at all that such a story couldn't be a commercial success if it is well-written and well-produced. People frequently root for cheating characters to be found out and punished. Do you believe that so many people are engaged in infidelity, that there's no one left who would sit through a film about it?

The big problem is, scenes like the one in "Big Fish" where a nude woman floats by in a sequence (we see her from behind) was done very well and added to visual presentation. Was it needed? No but neither was anything else in the film that was mainly made up of artistic images. And honestly if the woman was dressed it would've looked stupid. So the next move would be take the woman out totally. But there would be no real reason to.

I fail to see the 'big problem.' Unless the mere appearance of nudity is in and of itself a problem that has to be addressed, excused, or explained away, which is symptomatic of that unfortunate Puritanism I mentioned, earlier.

If someone finds that the mere sight of a bare body starts terrible things rolling in their head, the problem lies not with the nudity but with the contents of their head.

Another thing is nudity isn't really hot. It's hot in B movies were women have huge silicone breast and that's part of the selling point to foreign markets, but honestly people are hot because of clothing. The mystery of peeling off the clothes is what's hot. A woman in a long tight dress is probably much sexier than that same woman naked. It's simply human nature.

Well, it's simply your nature, and the natures of people who feel as you do. I know that the which-is-sexier-skimpy-clothing-or-nude discussion is a perennial internet favorite, and from what I have seen the preferences appear to break down at about 50-50. Although oddly enough the people who go for 'skimpy clothing' all seem to agree that the clothing's titillation rests upon the promise - or hope - of eventually seeing the nudity concealed beneath.

Either way I think both are wrong. To say all nudity in a film is bad is the miss the forest for the trees like saying all sex scenes are bad or unneeded. But at the same time to simply find reasons for salacious nudity is equally wrong and my book.

If you are making a salacious movie, intended for salacious consumption by a salacious audience, then salacious employment of nudity is both the easiest and most sensible thing to present. If you want to employ nudity in a manner beyond simple salaciousness, that's perfectly legitimate, too.

 

[Capt Quirk]

Does this accurately distill down to: male nudity is acceptable while female nudity isn't?

See my post regarding Space Cowboys and the very wrinkled posteriors of the stars. I would also like to add Animal House, where we see Elliot Gould's butt as well.

So if the body is not intrinsically bad, how do we reach the conclusion that depictions of the body - the female body, anyway, since we're entertaining double-standards - are intrinsically bad?

There was a movie a few years ago, with Kathy Bates. While she is a talented actress, I really flinched when she was in a hot tub nude. I guess it all depends on your tastes.

Are there stories besides bible-stories, whose telling can be legitimately and artistically served by judicious depictions of nudity? Or is nudity only acceptable when 'sanitized' by its use in the context of stories in which some people find religious significance?

While I am not a fan of religion or those films, the most disturbing scene in The Passion of the Christ had nothing to do with nudity, rather the orgasm of torture that comprised 2/3 of that film

So...nudity is neutral? Only people's actions stemming from having been moved by the sight of nudity, is a concern?

Add Farm Animals to that, and I think you might be on to something.

Are you, personally, in your day-to-day lilfe, pushed into your actions and morality, by the films you watch? Do you run out and do things you saw on screen, because you just saw them on screen and that's your inspiration for choosing your actions?

There is a whole movement against video games for that exact reason.

 

[ugafan]

Alas the sauna-fight in Eastern Promises reminded me of the hotel-room tussle in Borat. Which is not Cronenberg's fault, at all, just an unfortunate association in my own head.

nooo!!! just when i had locked that borat scene in the dark nether regions of my mind never to be seen again, you just had to bring it up. oh the horror.

 

[Sad Max]

Of course if I were to insist upon the occasional merit of nudity - and even simulated sexual contact - in a film, without offering an example, I'd be a total punk.

So.

In James Cameron's The Terminator the core of the narrative is a time-travel paradox and the love story at its center. John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time so that Reese can protect his mother, Sarah Connor from a murderous cyborg, and lie with her to - unknowingly - sire John himself. Reese reveals that his own motive for risking his life to travel to the past was his romantic desire for Sarah, inspired by an old photo given him by John.

The action is a series of harrowing battles, chases, and escapes. Reese and Sarah are bound together by shared terrible experience and ever-present fear of death. The thematic inter-relationship between sex and death in literature, painting, psychoanalysis and other arts is well established; their willing shared vulnerability in the face of death, the very exposure present in the depiction of their love-making, has vital significance beyond mere titillation of the audience. Not only is the scene essential in portraying themes of despair, survival, tenderness, and defiance, but it is the completion of the story's central paradox: the conception of John Connor, the event the cyborg is driven to stop, and the motivation for every act of mayhem and violence and heroism and love, in the story.

To omit this scene from The Terminator would be to eviscerate the film of its most moving and tender moments. The emotional impact of intimate vulnerable contact between characters about whom we care juxtaposed with relentless ultraviolence is not a directorial accomplishment to be discarded on the basis of indiscriminate aversion to the nude body, in light of the generally innocuous nature of nudity portrayed for narrative and thematic rather than salacious purposes.


*edit*

The employment of nudity in the opening of the film also supports characterization: The cyborg rises massively from the crater in which it arrives: the first impressions are strength and the power of the actor's visible physique. This is a vital contribution toward the Terminator's presence as an overwhelming, unstoppable force. When Reese arrives from the future, however, the performance is very different: he's flung naked and vulnerable to the pavement of a dirty alleyway, forced to steal pants off a derelict, pursued by blinding police lights before he can finish pulling them up. This powerfully defines the relationship on the field, between hero and antagonist.

Again, yes, without nudity in the film you could still have the more-or-less same killer-machine-chases-mother-of-its-masters'-enemy plot. But you would rob it of some of its most powerful and effective visual characterization and storytelling.

In literature this is known as bowdlerization, and is not generally considered a positive thing.

I don't know if there is a specific term for it, with regard to cinema.

 

[Nathyn]

Does this accurately distill down to: male nudity is acceptable while female nudity isn't?

Yes but that's because the breast are considered a "private part" whereas the male chest is not and the female body is generally considered to be used more for titillation that the male body. Honestly many B filmmakers add female nudity to sale films, this is rare (not that it never happens) for male nudity unless it comical.

So if the body is not intrinsically bad, how do we reach the conclusion that depictions of the body - the female body, anyway, since we're entertaining double-standards - are intrinsically bad?

Here in American it's because of organized religion and general misinterpretations of the Bible.

Are there stories besides bible-stories, whose telling can be legitimately and artistically served by judicious depictions of nudity? Or is nudity only acceptable when 'sanitized' by its use in the context of stories in which some people find religious significance?

Sure, "Big Fish" for one, "Unfaithful" was another. I used a Bible story as an example because of the fact is was a Bible story.

So...nudity is neutral? Only people's actions stemming from having been moved by the sight of nudity, is a concern?

I would say so. Aren't babies born nude? LOL.

Are we talking about the Song of Solomon? As far as I recall, that's as close as any biblical text I have read gets to pornography, and it's pretty mild stuff, at that.

No, the Song of Solomon is mild erotica (ironically I just finished reading it a day or so ago actually) but in many religious circles the kind of longing that is shown in that book would even be considered sin. And Ezekiel 23 is pretty graphic about the description of Israel at the time and these are said to be the way God felt about the nation. There's a lot of sex and violence (and curse words which were edited out) in the Bible. Basically the Bible has all the elements of a modern movie.

No, American puritanism when it comes to sexuality is much older than some recent blue-ification in our media. When our own home-grown Wahhabists had the power to do so, they saw to it that you couldn't even depict a single bed in the bedroom of a married pair of characters. The terror of acknowledging sexualilty was (is?) so strong that even a mute visual acknowledgment that a wedded couple shared a bed was sooooooo racy and threatening, that it had to be banned. Because after all, an impressionable audience might see the single bed, and might be led in the direction of reflecting upon what happens, in a married couple's bed...

True, read above. As a matter of fact I'm pro hot marital sex scenes. I have a film coming up in the future that all about hot sex marital sex - it based on a book of erotica I'm putting together actually. It's my big flip off to the Bridges of Madison County "adultery is romance" mentality.

...anyway, it's no backlash. It's people with odd insecurities and weaknesses wishing for a return to the days when we all did our best to pretend that there was no such thing as sexuality.

It is a backlash in a way because I don't believe most people want to go back to those days, but at the same time many are done with the overdone "let's have sex 'cause it's fun with no consequences" thing that Hollywood has going.

I think we agree that depictions of sexuality can be employed to advance a story or develop a character, as well as just be stuck into a show for titillation-value. Observing that the latter happens, does not reflect upon the value of the former.

True, but remember, people either except fully or rebel fully.

-Nate

 

[Nathyn]

Ah, the monkey-see-monkey-do principle. This is where people usually start bickering over whether viewers alter their conduct to match what they see on-screen, or whether writers and directors tailor what they put on-screen, to the behaviors they see prevalent across the larger society.

What seems to happen is this. One person makes art that shows a truth in society, take single and divorce parents. That show becomes popular so everyone starts making shows like it. Eventually that thing that may have been done but was uncommon or frowned upon, now seems common because everywhere you look it's in your face.

Are you, personally, in your day-to-day lilfe, pushed into your actions and morality, by the films you watch? Do you run out and do things you saw on screen, because you just saw them on screen and that's your inspiration for choosing your actions?

No but I took a media class and know the tricks and even still I find myself doing things influenced by the media. I've watched people in my family "remember the taste" and long for a Johnsonville bratwurst simply because a television commercial told them to. (Yet amazingly they'd never had one). Or like a celebrity because another member of the family did. The ability to think for themselves seems to be shut down.

I prefer not to believe that a majority of people are really saddled with such coarse intellects,

You're a filmmaker and part of the media. You know how to make the product so the product washes over you. When the new Star Wars movies came out, along with the thick hype, I remember choosing to allow myself to be a fan versus just getting excited about it as they did. It was so freaking surreal. I remember literally saying to myself "Should I buy into the hype? I'm not even really a fan." Then I simply said "It'll be fun to have a lightsabre battle with friends, why not." It was fun by the way.

Friend, that's not 'nudity in films' or 'propaganda,' that's basic biology. How many politicians with shining propects have self-destructed for the sake of an affair with some twenty-something staff worker? How many married people commit infidelities for a whole spectrum of reasons having zero to do, with the movie they saw last night?

It's never about the movie they saw last night or last week. The influence is subconscious. Media does influence us. I recently learned a martial art move (pose) I do came right from the Matrix. I didn't steal it, just started doing it. I saw the Matrix again a few weeks ago and was shocked that I was doing it. Media influences many things about us, what we buy, how we think, what we eat and drink. When something becomes fashionable society does it. If everyone tells you the same message consistently it doesn't have to be in your face, simply implied, eventually you believe it. Look around at the women who would rather take a chance on death than being ten pounds over weight. I love Starbucks, it's cool, I love to set in there or Borders books with my laptop but why? Because it's a constant media image. In movies or commercials when a guy or gal sits around a coffee shop on a laptop what happens eventually - they meet a cute person of the opposite sex and a story begins. Again sex sales an image. I rarely go to Starbucks now (partially because money is tight) and if I do I don't sit around using my laptop, simply to not allow myself to buy into an image. (Although I still do it at Border because of my love of bookstores).

Ask your parents: When Hollywood smoked and it was sexy everyone smoked. The only reason the many aren't out killing one another with guns turned sideways is because violence isn't fun in real life unless you're a psycho. Sex, on the other hand, is and ALMOST EVERYTHING in someway is sold with it. Not that I'm against it it's just a truth. Almost everyone likes or wants sex and considers it one of the highest pleasures in life, but the majority of people cower from violence. It's looks cool on television but let Neo and Trinity walk in blasting in real life. I don't know about you but I'm getting the hell out, armed or not.

Everything else that is made to look cool and sexy that's doable (without taking human life), many do or want to do, including hairstyles, dress styles - hemlines on average everyday women (not hookers) are rising faster and Trump Towers here in Chicago. I saw a woman on new years wearing a skirt that simply made me think "You can't be looking for anything else but sex." And this is from a guy who loves hotties but can be honest enough to say some things are just too far off the chain.

How many of the self-serving Elmer-Gantry-wannabe ministers, preachers, and others who presume to suggest they know the mind of God and nature of goodness, have been caught out in sexual affairs that contravene the moralilty they so hypocritically preach?

The question is did a good person do a bad thing or are they specifically hypocrites? My problem is I think the new attitude is don't judge it at all.

It's a bad, immature, dangerous habit, externalizing the blame for bad behavior on some chunk of media, rather than recognizing that a man or woman who betrays their marriage vow is responsible for their own actions which grow from the state of the marriage itself.

Never! Believe me I don't blame the media, I blame people for not being smart enough not to internalize bullcrap.

The fact that characters in movies do that sort of thing, and the fact that people in real life do that sort of thing, does not establish a causal link. If anything, the causal link is demonstrably the influence of society upon media: people were cheating on their spouses long before the technology even existed, for directors to start making movies on the topic.

What I mean is our choices are our own but I know for a fact that people take cues from the media. Many of the same exact statements people have said on television shows come up in conversations when people express a view point to me. Press them on the view point and see what happens, they repeat what they've heard. Get down to it and they really don't know why they think the way they think, and then they start back tracking because what they actually believe doesn't jive with what they're saying to be popular or politically correct. It's like a KKK member telling you about all people needing to be free and have equal right, then asking them why they're in the Klan and they stare at you like you're an idiot.

For me it's not even the actions but our take on the actions. There was a time adultery was wrong, period. But now it's a "gray area". Really. It's a gray area to cheaters, psychologist and Hollywood. Ask a woman whose husband got another woman pregnant or a person whose spouse bought a deadly disease home to them how gray it is. It's about as gray as my black ass.

Illicit anything is - at least momentarily - more enticing than permitted anything. Candy bars when you are on a diet, are tastier than candy bars when you're not. This is irrelevant to cinema or any other art form; this is basic human psychology. Whether or not a given work of art depicts a character whose actions are subject to that psychology, is not an endorsement of the actions themselves.

This is true. But a constant echo that says that illicit action is alright and no one should judge you for it doesn't help.

I don't see any reason at all that such a story couldn't be a commercial success if it is well-written and well-produced. People frequently root for cheating characters to be found out and punished. Do you believe that so many people are engaged in infidelity, that there's no one left who would sit through a film about it?

Yes. Seriously, sure people would sit through it and like it but would Hollywood release it? And would they release it as anything but a "Christian film" under the assumption no one else would be interested in such a film that draws hard moral lines, that's the question. They may like the fact there's is a lot of criticism of Christianity, but from the point of few of "things could be better if we tried harder" versus "God/Christianity/Faith/Jesus is evil and the source of all your problems." So I don't see it as anything any A listers will be dying to be a part of even if I had hard cash. Action, martial arts and hot chicks aside, the message is counter Hollywood and they will catch that. I make my films that way intentionally. Even if I got to work for Hollywood would I'd use it to simply counter them and have the money and power to do so from the inside. Subtle but in your face is how I roll.

I fail to see the 'big problem.' Unless the mere appearance of nudity is in and of itself a problem that has to be addressed, excused, or explained away, which is symptomatic of that unfortunate Puritanism I mentioned, earlier.

Oh, my problem was with the attitude toward it. I had no problem with the nudity in "Big Fish" at all. It was done very well and not to titillate as some would say.

If someone finds that the mere sight of a bare body starts terrible things rolling in their head, the problem lies not with the nudity but with the contents of their head.

Certainly.

Well, it's simply your nature, and the natures of people who feel as you do. I know that the which-is-sexier-skimpy-clothing-or-nude discussion is a perennial internet favorite, and from what I have seen the preferences appear to break down at about 50-50. Although oddly enough the people who go for 'skimpy clothing' all seem to agree that the clothing's titillation rests upon the promise - or hope - of eventually seeing the nudity concealed beneath.

Yes but that's why the clothes are more enticing. The "hope" of seeing the nudity. I've seen plenty of erotic movies with no nudity. And plenty of nudity that's made me roll my eyes and ask "why?" It was so pointless it broke the flow of the movie.

If you are making a salacious movie, intended for salacious consumption by a salacious audience, then salacious employment of nudity is both the easiest and most sensible thing to present. If you want to employ nudity in a manner beyond simple salaciousness, that's perfectly legitimate, too.

Well sure, I guess. My argument was that I didn't see nudity or sex being present in a film as the issue as much as the way it's used being that makes the difference. I have hot chicks in my film but no nudity at all. And the distributors still wanted the film. Modern wisdom says it has to have a name or nudity or over the top violence but no. A little martial arts and some cuties and it was doable. Too bad I didn't shoot it in HDV though. I had a foreign buyer but he wanted action films shot in HD/HDV .

-Nate

 

[Sad Max]

I work in production.

I wouldn't call myself a filmmaker in any serious way.

I didn't mean to suggest that nudity is a requirement at all, but rather that its presentation can sometimes transcend mere titillation and contribute weight to the communication of the story.

 

[metro2307]

I rarely go to Starbucks now (partially because money is tight) and if I do I don't sit around using my laptop, simply to not allow myself to buy into an image. (Although I still do it at Border because of my love of bookstores).

This seems to be more about how the media effects you. Do really allow the media that much power in your life? Couldn't you just use your laptop in Starbucks because you want to and because it may be convenient? I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't get that invested in media to that degree. I am fully aware of the intention and purposes of media and advertising, but I can draw my own conclusions on what works for me and what doesn't work for me.

The Bible, for example, is media. Some of its good and useful to me and some of it is goofy and useless to me. I can make my own choices without regard to a church's position on the content or their desire for me to swallow it whole. But, if I did, I wouldn't worry about going to church and buying into the lifestyle.

Maybe I read to much into that statement, but you really do make it sound like the media has a great deal of power in your personal choices.

 

[metro2307]

Oh...and Zak...I'd like to see rehearsals....

 

[Zak Forsman]

haha! Nice little add-on there.. You got it.

 

[metro2307]

Yeah, I got caught up in all that. Anyway, I hope you got some good ideas for BTS. I'm really looking forward to what you make out of this.

 

[Nathyn]

I didn't mean to suggest that nudity is a requirement at all, but rather that its presentation can sometimes transcend mere titillation and contribute weight to the communication of the story.

I think we agree, I was just saying where I believe these "nudity = evil/bad" ideas come from.

This seems to be more about how the media effects you. Do really allow the media that much power in your life?

Actually that one quote is about me, but I give plenty of other examples of what I feel is the media's effect on people. People don't think, they parrot. And it's becoming very annoying.

Couldn't you just use your laptop in Starbucks because you want to and because it may be convenient? I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't get that invested in media to that degree. I am fully aware of the intention and purposes of media and advertising, but I can draw my own conclusions on what works for me and what doesn't work for me.

That's is actually my point. I consider "why" I'm doing things. It's rarely convenient to sit in Starbucks and use my laptop, but I found myself doing it at times because I wanted to be cool. I didn't realize that until one day it dawned on my that nothing ever got accomplished. Maybe in Borders but never at Starbucks. I was there for an image of who I wanted people to think I was. That cool modern creative or business guy in the coffee shop. What did it accomplish? Who did I impress? It sounds stupid to you? That because it is.

The Bible, for example, is media. Some of its good and useful to me and some of it is goofy and useless to me. I can make my own choices without regard to a church's position on the content or their desire for me to swallow it whole. But, if I did, I wouldn't worry about going to church and buying into the lifestyle.

I don't know what this means. I make my own choices as well without the "Church's" input but my point is the I want my choices to be my own based on what I believe, not what I'm told by the media. The Bible may be a form of media and can be viewed that way, but certainly you're not going to say every film that comes out is pro-Bible? Or you see countless ads with half naked chicks saying "Check out our Bibles it's a hot read". And I don't pick and choose from it, I study it to see what the book so many say they believe in is all about.

Maybe I read to much into that statement, but you really do make it sound like the media has a great deal of power in your personal choices.

It has more power over our choices than we think. I gave a speech about it at East West University earlier this year. It was about the dummy down effect and how to avoid it. I watch very little television, maybe an hour a day at best. I research things and don't just tow anyone's partyline. I try to focus on storytelling a watch dramas as well as genre films. I trying figure out what was good about films that I really remember and what was forgettable. (I read the crap out of DVXUser.com). You're supposed to be poor and desire what the rich have, then try to attain those things to make you think you're special when you're just a poor idiot whose spent way too much money on iPhones and Xboxes. (I love Apple Computers but I got a Virgin Mobile phone, it was $29 and it makes calls very well. When I want to surf the net I have this thing called a computer). This isn't to say people shouldn't have these things but make sure you can pay your rent before you put down that $299 for a luxury item.

Another perfect example. I'm a black guy (if you hadn't noticed) and I should've had the same knee jerk reaction to Bill O'Reilly's comments about the restaurant Sylvia's that we are "trained" to have. But since the comments were still available, I decided to listen to the statements (which Jess Jackson didn't even do before coming on the show). You know what O'Reilly's main points were? That many white people had never met blacks and only got their ideas of black people from the white media. LOL. Pretty timely discussion, yes? This coming from a white conservative would've floored many people but instead of going into that discussion the news media basically lied and went for the knee jerk reaction. And black folks fell for it like we always do.

Honestly in this country between African Americans, Christians and Jews, our knees should be hurting from all that jerking. Don't ever think, only get mad. Never question why you're mad. Never make an informed decision only ask if you like the person's hair or if they're showing too much cleavage that day. If you mention some scientist believe global warming ended sometime ago then shut up because that's not a popular opinion and let's hound journalist if they write it.

If you mention the dangers of the RFID chip then you're a Bible beating kook, but let's not mention the Orwellian ramifications of a chip that can be implanted and can act as both a tracking device and currency. Let's just watch Paris Hilton wiggle the ass she doesn't have and we can talk about Britney's problems all day long. Then one day when we look around and the country is screwed let's see how the media spins that shi*. Tell us how good it is when gas is $15 a gallon and bread is $5 a loaf. So hell yes, media affects me and everyone in some way shape or form. But that doesn't mean we have to let it.

It's good to have core values and decide what you believe and if the values you're being taught connect. Do you get rich or Die trying or try to make a living and do right by others. Play the lottery everyday or try to start a business. Get high on drugs or get high on your art and living the dream of being able to create. Living another day is another day to write that script or novel or make that film. Stop taking life for granted, people die everyday and we're still here. Comic book artist Mike Turner was 37. He was in the prime of his life and career, still eager fans loved his work probably more than Jim Lee or Todd MacFarlane or Rob Liefeld. But this year, on the first day of this Chicago's Wizard World Comic Convention he was in some hospital dying of a rare bone cancer. Think about it. Sorry Zak, hope I didn't hi-jack your thread.

-Nate

 

[metro2307]

I understand your POV, Nate. So, what are you looking for from Zak's offer?

 

[Zak Forsman]

don't apologize. the discussion is important.

 

[Nathyn]

I understand your POV, Nate. So, what are you looking for from Zak's offer?

I want to see a deep look at how it's done. Something like Project: Greenlight but without all the bull. Like when we did "Wage of Sin" I knew everyone would want to see the choreo stuff, so I made sure a ton of choreo the BTS. I like to see the camera work, the directing. Like on the Blade DVD sets or the Transporter when they show how it all came together for the fights and special effects but I want to see that for the whole film. I can watch that kind of stuff for hours. "Wages" was better than my first film because I got to watch others more and use what I saw. This lead to better angles, tracking shots and better dolly use and a better experience overall as well as trying new things. Very inspirational seeing the process. I wouldn't mind if Zak just set a camera down and filmed everything.

don't apologize. the discussion is important.

Thanks. I hope some of that made sense and I wasn't rambling.

-Nate