Why must nudity be justified?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Just a stray thought for a Saturday afternoon.
I see this question asked all the time, whether or not the nudity is justified by the story. The assumption being that if it's not it shouldn't be there. But why?

How often is that asked when it comes to violence or gore or explosions or any number of other purely entertaining aspects of film that happen all the time? So why is nudity any different? Why can't it just be there because people want to see it? Why can't that be justification enough? Movies are entertainment.
 
Maybe because of a taboo against pornograpjy in terms of both watching/exhibiting it and allowing one's work to become it.

But Kubrick didn't shy away from gratuitous nudity and no one ever questioned the status of his films as art. And as for nudity in fine art paintings, etc, forget about it - there's so much. (And some of it DOES seem pornographic to me.) And people also sometimes question if violence is gratuitous for similar reasons.

This is barely related, but for some reason the Monty Python line comes to my mind: "I object to all this sex on the television! I keep falling off."
 
Is this a trick question? Because everything needs to be justified in film. Including violence. If, for example, a couple are having a meal in a restaurant, and suddenly the guy gets up and stabs the people at the next table and then returns to finish his meal, we’d ask “how is this justified”. It is out of place. But if it was set up (f.ex. “he’s psychotic”), we’d roll with it. You need to justify, see?

Same with nudity. People spend most of their time in clothes. Unless you’re showing a nude colony, you need to justify why they don’t have clothes on. If they are having sex, or simply sleeping, or skinny dipping in the pool, well, there’s your justification - if the couple suddenly took off their clothes in the restaurant example, again, we’d ask “why”, because it’s odd behavior. If the story demands they have sex, or sleep or skinny dip, then we are fine - but if it comes out of left field we ask “why” (“why are they having sex and why do we need to see it”. If the action - violence, sex, whatnot - doesn’t fit in the story, we ask “why”.

So the answer is extremely simple - nudity needs to be justified, just as everything else needs too in film. You don’t put anything in front of the lens unless there’s a reason for it. Anything that is unmotivated, including nudity, violence, eating, walking, sleeping etc. will feel strange and stick out. Is it motivated? We always ask that question.
 
This isn't a direct answer to your question, I think. But this doc by Kirby Dick touches on some related points. It's also both fun and thoughtful. Worth checking out. From 15 years ago, but not ancient history. Here's the trailer.

 
I don't think he means absolutely no justification as in "it doesn't make sense" in the context of the moment. But it does seem like in this morally bankrupt country and society of ours(USA) where it seems like pretty much anything goes today, nudity in movies and shows is still taboo, to a degree(outside of HBO, Showtime and Cinemax... Lol). Much like how alcohol consumption, sometimes to excess degrees, is still OK and even glorified, but weed is still an illegal drug under federal law. I guess our Puritanical roots still run deep. At least in public. Whatcha think the browser histories look like on the computers of those who publicly decry nudity from the tops of their moral soap boxes?
 
OldCorpse said:
Is this a trick question? Because everything needs to be justified in film. Including violence.
Click to expand...

Run&Gun said:
I don't think he means absolutely no justification as in "it doesn't make sense" in the context of the moment.
Click to expand...

Correct. Of course there needs to be a motive, but nudity often has people asking for further justification. It's not good enough to simply say "we showed her nude because she's in the shower. And people usually take showers in the nude."

People will say "yeah but, did you need to show her nude or couldn't you have cut around that? What is your justification for showing her nude?"

And on it goes. The answer almost never being good enough, since their goal is to reject all nudity. Unless... you can give some high art super deep story driven reason why nudity absolutely had to be shown. And that reason always has to be something other than "people just want to see nude people on screen." Even though that's typically the real reason everyone is skating around.
 
In the UK we have a programme on Tv called naked attraction. Do you have it on US TV? A contestant has six coloured ‘tubes, in front of him and they raise up to reveal the genitals of six naked people. The contestant looks at their bits and has to reject one, then the tube raises to show their chest, and more go, and eventually there are two naked people left. At this point the competitor goes and takes their clothes off then he picks his prospective partner. They get dressed and go out to a restaurant. Full screen close ups of their bits and pieces and the presenter and content stand chat about the sizes and features plus what could be done with it.

I’ve not been an angel all my life but I feel very awkward watching it, but it is fascinating. So on British TV we can have big screen closeups and people choosing partners based on the body appearance. However, on a soap opera we give out warnings and help line numbers for some story lines. The world has gone mad!
 
I guess I still don’t understand the OP’s question. Now he’s saying that he’s not asking about justification in the context of motivation, but about why some try to suppress the depiction of nudity. If that’s the case, then that’s what the question should be - “why are some attempting to suppress the depiction of nudity”. Because the censors or objectors demanding “justificaiton” is just another way of saying “you have to have extremely powerful ‘justification’ to depict nudity, because I don’t like seeing nudity”. They ask for extra “justification”, because it’s a roadblock, an extra hoop to jump through, an obstacle to depicting nudity. Not really much of a mystery, is it, that if a censor objects to nudity, they’ll object to nudity, duh. The “justification” is just an extra hoop meant to make it harder to depict nudity.

As to why some object to nudity - see the history of the culture. Again, not much mystery. Film is part of the culture and it addresses the public that’s steeped in that culture. And culture evolves, and so do the standards. No mystery.

Pretty odd question, I must say, given that any answer is of the “duh” kind. Which is why it seems like some kind of trick question as any possible answer is trivially obvious.
 
On the moral spectrum, I've always thought the debate was interesting between violence/nudity. Essentially it so goes, nudity/sexuality is an act of love and procreation, and violence is an act of hate and destruction. So why do we display violence with less of a taboo, and restrain nudity with more of a taboo?

A few thoughts:

1. I believe the above is something of a false binary, or a flattened perspective. Violence can be an act of hate and destruction, but it can also be an act of necessary heroism and restraint of evil. Likewise, sexuality/nudity can be an act of love and procreation, but it can also be a act of devaluation, degradation, or unfaithfulness. Violence portrayed as gratuitous or glorifying should be, IMO, something we are concerned about (I recently posted how I found the bus scene in 'Nobody' to be disturbing in a unique way that I did not find even the John Wick films to be). Nuance is everything, and it may be applied to sexuality as well (i.e. the sex scene in Munich vs pick your portrayal in another film).

2. There is an argument as to what sort of impact on people that on screen violence leads to vs on screen sexuality. There seems to be a statistically low correlation of violent acts committed as a result of most types of on screen violence (though there is certainly desensitization). You could say, on screen violence doesn't seem to lead to increased desire and subsequent action for people to commit acts of murder (this notion is arguable and has been the subject of ongoing debate, particularly as pertains to video games). On the other hand, displays of on screen sexuality do seem to correlate to psychological behavior shifts - addictions to pornography or an increase and lust and relational infidelity. There is a sociological argument to be made for the value of reduced infidelity. Thus, arguments for censorship of sexuality vs censorship of violence may be predicated on the impact of non-censorship in relationship to the values society holds (or at least, used to hold).

3. There is an associated perspective tied to #2 of how we value the sanctity of something. If we perceive violence as non-sacred, we do not degrade violence by displaying violence (though we may promote it or desensitize it, we do not diminish its sanctity because it does not have any such sanctity to begin with). If we perceive sexuality as sacred or something of high value and reserved for certain contexts (say, a loving and committed relationship), than we reduce its value or sanctity by displaying it. The argument for viewing sexuality as sacred says it places a high value on sex; the argument for viewing sexuality as non-sacred considers the alternative view to be repressive.

Most of this resides in the realm of theory, and comes back to the ideas of (A) do we, or should we, have *any* taboos at all?; (B) if so, what are they, what are the rules, where do we draw the lines, and why?; (C) what underlying values below the surface does this reveal, and are they good or bad?

I suspect media will continue to trend towards fewer taboos as the culture at large increasingly holds committed relationships in lower valuation, and sexuality as less sacred. We could also speculate that there is a chance censorship of violence will increase, so depending on how things trend we could be in for a reversal of such. It is interesting to note countries around the world and varying levels of censorship on certain topics and how it correlates with societal values at large.
 
It always drove me absolutely crazy when I saw an actress let's say - get out of a shower with a frosted glass and just before she reached for the towel the shot cut. Or an actor turns over after making love and they cut - hiding any nudity. Every time i saw this it took me out of the moment and I would realize, 'right - schmuck - yer just watching a film.' I remember a hundred years ago seeing a film with Depardieu in it - I forget the title - (the last man?) and there was one scene where he was walking around a kitchen with a semi-erection. (Does that even exist? Anyway...) And I remember thinking, wow I never saw a major actor do that before. So as the viewer ya look and then you go back to the actor's face as a penis can only express so much. I remember the first film I made - i was playing the lead and I had to get out of a bathtub and chase someone who had banged on my front door. And as I jumped out of the tub the producer and script girl were freaked that my dingaling was going to show. I couldn't believe it. So - that stayed in the film. My last film, I have a scene where I'm making love to another character and when I rolled over I purposely wanted to have half an erection and was not going to cut - it was going to play in one shot. Obviously, me and the actress didn't make love in the scene. My wife was in the next room with a steak knife. Anway - I was making indy features so I could get away with this. I think it was Bresson who said if he sees a gun in a film he turns it off. If i see this kind of chicken bullshit filmmaking where the actors/producers are concerned about showing their privates I reach for the remote.
 
Side story - Sandra Bullock, who has a de facto veto power over any shot due to being a major film star, objected to Chivas Lubezki's practice of aiming his camera right at her behind in "Gravity". She was wearing a very tight "space suit" and didn't want her behind to be the star of the film more than it was absolutely necessary. Well, Cuaron is a top name director and he could have objected but Bullock prevailed.

Likewise, Julia Roberts, then a fairy minor star, had a stand-in for the closeup body shots in "Pretty Woman". And, outside of Richard Gere and Bruce Willis, most movie stars won't do full frontal either.

Of course, if one wants to just watch "adult fair", it's free and widely available. It wasn't like that when Hedy Lamarr was shown without her clothes on.
 
That’s a cultural thing. You must decide whether you want to push the boundaries or not. I mean, I agree that being shy with nudity is pretty stupid, but I don’t get overly worked up about it either - there are always all sorts of limits on art, and it’s possible to create great art within the limits (some artists believe that limits are actually helpful!). After all, standards have changed in all sorts of ways through the decades as culture changed, mores changed, and films changed along with it, sometimes pushing the limits and being a factor in the cultural evolution. And yet, great films were created in every era wherever films were made in the world. All within the limits. And so I don’t get overly worked up about it. There’s always some wiggle room if you want to push the limits, insofar as unrated films or NC17 or whatnot. It is what it is.

It’s a non-issue as far as I can see. The nudity vs violence debate has always been silly to my mind. We live in a culture where we have certain values and that’s all there is to it - and values change too. You don’t like violence in films - don’t have violence in films and don’t watch films with violence - problem solved. Same for sex, nudity and whatever other characteristics are prominent in our mass markets at the moment. What’s the hangup here? Are we now discussing why our culture has these values versus other values? Because films are just a reflection of the culture within which a creator operates. If you want to discuss why oh why our culture is what it is, then knock yourself out, I don’t find the topic particularly scintillating. But to each their own. Why nudity, and why not nudity, oh dear, oh noes, what a dilemma! LOL!
 
Run&Gun said:
... Whatcha think the browser histories look like on the computers of those who publicly decry nudity from the tops of their moral soap boxes?
Click to expand...

True story. Sometimes in the mid-00's, my mm says to me, "You know my friends from the apartment XXY? The guy may need your help". So, "the guy" calls me on the phone and says, "Your mom says you're a computer expert. I just got a new PC and don't really know how to use that email/browsing thing. Could you come up, perhaps, and show me?"

Well, they're old Russian Jewish immigrants, a married couple friends of mom. What are you going to do?

We agreed to set up a visit when I had some extra time available. When I got to their apartment, we turned on the PC, I showed them the basics. Someone already helped the husband set up the email account. I gave him a few additional instructions.

Then, for some reasons, I pressed the browsing history bar - sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex.

And, to quote U2, he still hadn't found what he was looking for.
 
OldCorpse said:
I guess I still don’t understand the OP’s question. Now he’s saying that he’s not asking about justification in the context of motivation, but about why some try to suppress the depiction of nudity.
Click to expand...

The question was always about justification. Just a matter of how much justification people require for violence versus nudity. It's often far less for violence. That can usually be passed off as eye candy without a big deal. Nudity on the other hand often requires more justification. The motivation can never be simple like the shower example without it being considered negative.


OldCorpse said:
Pretty odd question, I must say, given that any answer is of the “duh” kind. Which is why it seems like some kind of trick question as any possible answer is trivially obvious.
Click to expand...

They were really rhetorical questions. A way of me saying "I think this is stupid." Like you said, the answer is obvious. People who don't like nudity demand deeper reasons, otherwise they can deem it as perverted and amoral and then go about their day on their moral high horse.
I usually ask questions like this to start a conversation and get people talking, so I can see what other people think about the subject. Sometimes people present ideas that give me a different perspective. Which is always neat.
 
filmguy123 said:
On the moral spectrum, I've always thought the debate was interesting between violence/nudity. Essentially it so goes, nudity/sexuality is an act of love and procreation, and violence is an act of hate and destruction. So why do we display violence with less of a taboo, and restrain nudity with more of a taboo?

A few thoughts:

1. I believe the above is something of a false binary, or a flattened perspective. Violence can be an act of hate and destruction, but it can also be an act of necessary heroism and restraint of evil. Likewise, sexuality/nudity can be an act of love and procreation, but it can also be a act of devaluation, degradation, or unfaithfulness. Violence portrayed as gratuitous or glorifying should be, IMO, something we are concerned about (I recently posted how I found the bus scene in 'Nobody' to be disturbing in a unique way that I did not find even the John Wick films to be). Nuance is everything, and it may be applied to sexuality as well (i.e. the sex scene in Munich vs pick your portrayal in another film).

2. There is an argument as to what sort of impact on people that on screen violence leads to vs on screen sexuality. There seems to be a statistically low correlation of violent acts committed as a result of most types of on screen violence (though there is certainly desensitization). You could say, on screen violence doesn't seem to lead to increased desire and subsequent action for people to commit acts of murder (this notion is arguable and has been the subject of ongoing debate, particularly as pertains to video games). On the other hand, displays of on screen sexuality do seem to correlate to psychological behavior shifts - addictions to pornography or an increase and lust and relational infidelity. There is a sociological argument to be made for the value of reduced infidelity. Thus, arguments for censorship of sexuality vs censorship of violence may be predicated on the impact of non-censorship in relationship to the values society holds (or at least, used to hold).

3. There is an associated perspective tied to #2 of how we value the sanctity of something. If we perceive violence as non-sacred, we do not degrade violence by displaying violence (though we may promote it or desensitize it, we do not diminish its sanctity because it does not have any such sanctity to begin with). If we perceive sexuality as sacred or something of high value and reserved for certain contexts (say, a loving and committed relationship), than we reduce its value or sanctity by displaying it. The argument for viewing sexuality as sacred says it places a high value on sex; the argument for viewing sexuality as non-sacred considers the alternative view to be repressive.

Most of this resides in the realm of theory, and comes back to the ideas of (A) do we, or should we, have *any* taboos at all?; (B) if so, what are they, what are the rules, where do we draw the lines, and why?; (C) what underlying values below the surface does this reveal, and are they good or bad?

I suspect media will continue to trend towards fewer taboos as the culture at large increasingly holds committed relationships in lower valuation, and sexuality as less sacred. We could also speculate that there is a chance censorship of violence will increase, so depending on how things trend we could be in for a reversal of such. It is interesting to note countries around the world and varying levels of censorship on certain topics and how it correlates with societal values at large.
Click to expand...

I like this response. Especially number 3. That's an interesting perspective.

EDIT: Regarding number 1. I wasn't trying to pit violence against nudity as if one is better than the other (although you're right that is a common argument), so much as make the point that violence often requires less justification. People aren't often coming at a film with pointed questions about why the filmmakers had to show the person being stabbed versus just implying it. But whenever there is nudity there always seems to be someone that comes out of the woodwork saying "now why did they have to show that?"
 
Last edited:
paulears said:
In the UK we have a programme on Tv called naked attraction. Do you have it on US TV? !
Click to expand...

I have seen an episode, but no we don't have that show in the US. lol
That show would absolutely never fly in the US without heavy censorship over ever bit.

I'll put it to you this way. I absolutely have no issue with nudity, but seeing that episode left my jaw open. I think mostly because of how casual you all are with it. Something I already knew, but to see it in practice when I'm not used to it had me questioning whether or not this was actually something they would put on TV over there. Even though I knew it was. But it was surreal like that.

I remember there was a big to do over here about the show Naked and Dating, when they slipped up and missed blurring out one shot on one episode where a women had bent over on the beach in the distance and I guess you could see something. Which strikes me as a bit odd that there would be such a reaction to that, considering people are actively watching a show about people who are going on naked dates with people. God forbid you were to see someone naked on such a show. lol

I think what really irks me though is the double standard. It's one thing when you get a show that we don't or vice versa, but it's another when we get the same show, but two different versions.

For example I've been a fan of the show Vikings. I had no idea there was nudity in the show until I had finished season three or four. I don't remember how I found out. But they create a censored version of that show for the United States. In some cases, reshooting entire shots where the actor is clothed rather than nude. In most other cases just cutting around or cropping in or cutting a shot out entirely.

So much for living in the land of the free. When I found this out I felt like we were being treated like children over here. The blu-rays are uncensored luckily. But then I had to go back and rewatch the whole thing, because as a completist I felt like I hadn't gotten to see the real show that Europe, Australia, and most of the rest of the world got to see.
 
The difference on sex vs. violence is that the violence is always fake (well, unless Oliver Reed's involved) and any sex scene can get pretty steamy in a hurry.

Side note - Tony Geary was supposed to wear a body stocking for his love scenes on General Hospital. Except, Tony never wore no body stocking and always went buck naked instead. His on-screen paramour Genie Francis, apparently, either didn't care or didn't mind.
 
roxics said:
So much for living in the land of the free.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that we were founded by puritans. Until the 60s, Hollywood always had to show married couples going to bed in separate beds. Crazy.

Nowadays - someone correct me if I'm wrong - I think that an interesting and unwelcome shift is occurring in what's permitted on screen in big budget stuff. Hollywood is catering to China and India, so ultimately it's most profitable to censor your work to the lowest common denominator, material that no one objects to. Violence and gore is fair game, nobody has much cultural objection. But sex, kissing, homosexuality... best to shy away because you'll offend some traditionalist culture somewhere
 
I've always considered that you produce for the audience. Most of my work comes (used to come) from live theatre. One show I've worked on loads of times is 99% female audience. Good looking guys strut about and take their clothes off and then at the last minute when their underwear comes off, the lights go out. Good show to work on - nice people. Then we did another, titled to make us think it was exactly the same. It wasn't. The lights didn't go off, and behind the scenes there were willy pumps. The audience loved it - my crew and I voted to never do another. Just tacky and unpleasant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top