Why must nudity be justified?

[NorBro]

Really? It wouldn't make my top 100. (or probably not even top 500)

What was the point of referencing it in this discussion?

lol. It's a 90s pop culture classic over here, just for fun for regular people; not forum nerds who take movies too seriously.

And the point of referencing it is just to reference it and no further explanation is necessary. You understand?

 

[Mitch Gross]

True, usually. Although the nudity can also be fake, using prosthetics and the like. Or alternatively, body doubles can be used. And said body double actor can even use a screen name so that no one is put out completely if not 100% comfortable with it.

But we also have to ask, is the real thing bad? Is something better just because it's fake?
There is a reason the violence and gore is fake. And while there may be a moral component to it, it's actively physically harmful. Probably even detrimental to an actor's survival and their ability to perform a second take if needed. I mean, if they're dead and bleeding on he floor, you're not getting a second take. If they flash some naughty bits, no one is getting hurt.

That said, take me for example. I don't like gore, I turn away from it. No matter how much I know it's fake, I can't watch it. Nudity I can watch all day long. So I'm not sure if real versus fake is all that big of a differentiator. I think it's more about a person's reaction. And I say that with the understanding that some people have the same reaction to nudity that I have to gore. But I'm also not asking filmmakers to justify the gore the way people often do with nudity.

Whether the nudity is real or fake many people if not most would assume that it is the real body parts of the actor. You keep referring to how you and other audience members might react to nudity. I am talking about the actors and how being asked to expose themselves may make them feel. We all know that the moment something comes off it will become fodder forthe internet for time immemorial. And that can be pretty unwelcome for any person immagining thousands of creeps out there. So real or not I can imagine many not wanting to put such stuff out there, and I know that many actors have contract clauses that stipulate that if they refuse to perform nude no body double can be used in their place, because then people will think they did it anyway.

Model Irina Shayk had a dispute with a magazine that photoshopped a photo of her. Of course such images are retouched as a matter of course, but in this case the magazine changed her clothes to make it appear that she wore something quite revealing that she would have never agreed to. I believe there was a lawsuit and her lawyers noted in the call for damages that Ms. Shayk carefully cultivated her image and public persona and that this went against her express position, one that was apparently made contractually clear beforehand.

Y'all can get your jollies looking at pretty naked people. But don't be surprised if some of them aren't exactly into that.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Anyone see the Under Siege cake scene?

I mean, she plays the part of a Playbody Playmate popping out of a big cake, so I imagine she understood what she was getting into, but eah, not exactly vital to the story or character development.

 

[ahalpert]

Emilia Clarke has revealed she felt uncomfortable acting in some of her nude scenes in Game Of Thrones.

The British actress played queen Daenerys Targaryen in HBO’s sprawling epic, which became notorious for its explicit portrayal of sex and violence.

Clarke, who was 23 when she started filming Game Of Thrones, said she would be in tears before shooting certain “terrifying” nude scenes.

Speaking on actor Dax Shepard’s podcast Armchair Expert, she said: “I took the job and then they sent me the scripts and I was reading them, and I was like, ‘Oh, there’s the catch!’

“But I’d come fresh from drama school and I approached it as a job: if it’s in the script then it’s clearly needed. This is what this is and I’m going to make sense of it and that’s what I’m going to do and everything’s going to be cool.

“I’ve never been on a film set like this before. I’d been on a film set twice before then, and I’m now on a film set completely naked with all of these people, and I don’t know what I’m meant to do, and I don’t know what’s expected of me, and I don’t know what you want, and I don’t know what I want.

“Regardless of there being nudity or not, I would have spent that first season thinking I’m not worthy of requiring anything. I’m not worthy of needing anything at all.”

Clarke, now 33, said she had “imposter syndrome times a million”, but credited Game Of Thrones co-star Jason Momoa with protecting her.

On the podcast, Shepard brought up a season one scene in which Momoa’s character, Khal Drogo, “virtually rapes” Daenerys on their wedding night.

“He was crying more than I was,” Clarke replied.

“It’s only now that I realise how fortunate I was with that, because that could have gone many, many, many different ways,” she said. “Because Jason had experience – he was an experienced actor who had done a bunch of stuff before coming on to this – he was like, ‘Sweetie, this is how it’s meant to be, this is how it’s not meant to be, and I’m going to make sure that that’s the poo pooing gaze.’ He was always like, ‘Can we get her a poo pooing robe? She’s shivering!’ … He was so kind and considerate and cared about me as a human being.”

Since Game of Thrones, she said, she has become “a lot more savvy” with what she’s comfortable with, and with the level of nudity that’s needed for a scene. “I’ve had fights on set before where I’m like, ‘No, the sheet stays up,’ and they’re like, ‘You don’t wanna disappoint your Game of Thrones fans.’ And I’m like, ‘poo poo you.’

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...e-game-of-thrones-nude-scenes-were-terrifying

Then there's all the allegations of James Franco coaxing people into performing sex scenes for his acting school films by dangling the promise of parts in front of them.

And coming back to Kubrick, there were sleazy stories in his biographies. One sound mixer on the Shining said he listened into Jack Nicholson's mic during a tea break to catch the genius pearls of wisdom that Kubrick was whispering to him, but it turned out that Kubrick was saying, "Did you get a load of the tits on that tea girl?" And Kubrick had wanted the rape victim in Clockwork Orange to audition for him topless so he could see if he approved of her torso but she refused. Which makes you think about Kubrick at 70 directing Eyes Wide Shut, which was full of naked young women with similar-looking bodies. Was there an extensive casting call that Kubrick sat through?

Then there's the Last Tango in Paris where Brando and Bertolucci conspired to surprise Schneider by using butter in the sex scene because they “wanted her reaction as a girl, not as an actress”. https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...-last-tango-in-paris-response-maria-schneider

I agree with Mitch that there is a broader issue of power and exploitation in the making of films that viewers then participate in, knowingly or unknowingly. Not always targeted against women but more often than not.

 

[JAMedia]

lol. It's a 90s pop culture classic over here, just for fun for regular people; not forum nerds who take movies too seriously.

And the point of referencing it is just to reference it and no further explanation is necessary. You understand?

I suppose if you are a teenage boy it is a classic film. I still can't see the point of referencing it in this discussion?

 

[NorBro]

It was just a segue, bro...it happens everyday on forums since the creation of forums.

I mean...you're either 100 or you truly haven't seen it before.

In any case, how could you possibly not see the point of referencing it in this particular discussion that is questioning whether nudity requires justification?

It is a perfect scene to analyze in a case study - rather than endless amounts of text - of how nudity was used and whether or not the film's creators had any reason in using it.

Seriously, out of all the discussions and random off topic comments and thread diversions that take place on a daily basis, you don't see a point in referencing a scene with nudity in a thread about nudity?

 

[Tim Sewell]

"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.""

More to the point, why is it necessary to show her even taking a shower?

It is nearly always she/her - most nudity in most movies and TV shows is female nudity, is superfluous to the story and is put in purely to titillate and attract young men to the movie theatre and pay for their tickets. It's nearly always women who are asked to do nude auditions, who are pressured to show more of their bodies and on and on it goes. If I was an actress, damn right I would want any scene involving me getting naked for the delectation of millions of male eyes to be justified and required for the story's development.

 

[JAMedia]

It was just a segue, bro...it happens everyday on forums since the creation of forums.

I mean...you're either 100 or you truly haven't seen it before.

In any case, how could you possibly not see the point of referencing it in this particular discussion that is questioning whether nudity requires justification?

It is a perfect scene to analyze in a case study - rather than endless amounts of text - of how nudity was used and whether or not the film's creators had any reason in using it.

Seriously, out of all the discussions and random off topic comments and thread diversions that take place on a daily basis, you don't see a point in referencing a scene with nudity in a thread about nudity?

I have seen the film. It is aimed at teenage boys. The nudity in it is so fleeting and a non-event that it even makes it past the YouTube nudity rules.
the few seconds topless werejustified and hardly sexual which was the point.

 

[JAMedia]

"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.""

More to the point, why is it necessary to show her even taking a shower?

It is nearly always she/her - most nudity in most movies and TV shows is female nudity, is superfluous to the story and is put in purely to titillate and attract young men to the movie theatre and pay for their tickets. It's nearly always women who are asked to do nude auditions, who are pressured to show more of their bodies and on and on it goes. If I was an actress, damn right I would want any scene involving me getting naked for the delectation of millions of male eyes to be justified and required for the story's development.

In many parts of the world non-sexual nudity is an every day thing and no one bats an eyelid. eg https://www.swskinny.org.uk/

However you are right that many films do put in gratuitous female nudity to attract some male viewers.

 

[NorBro]

I have seen the film. It is aimed at teenage boys. The nudity in it is so fleeting and a non-event that it even makes it past the YouTube nudity rules.
the few seconds topless werejustified and hardly sexual which was the point.

It's one example. They made about 76,349 movies like that.

That scene is a famous moment from those American pop culture 90s action movies. (Replace it in your mind with whatever UK stuff you like.)

And many executives running corporations today would not agree with your opinion. There is a system in place with ratings and guidelines.

 

[JAMedia]

It's one example. They made about 76,349 movies like that.

That scene is a famous moment from those American pop culture 90s action movies.

You guys really need therapy.

(Replace it in your mind with whatever UK stuff you like.).

That's not going to be easy as that clip you are saying it is iconic but in many parts of the world it would be an every day non- event. male or female nudity.
Then again as some one noted back up this thread Europe off loaded it's Puritans to the New World it is worth reading the interview with Helen Mirrem I posted back up this thread on the situation. It is this sort of repression that leads to the situation of the males in power exploiting it be it in Hollywood or the Catholic Church and other similar organisations,

And many executives running corporations today would not agree with your opinion. There is a system in place with ratings and guidelines.

Hence the decline of Hollywood films. Though it is ironic that people on DVXuser are complaining that Hollywood is not "censoring" films to fit the Chinese market. It makes sense financially as China is a huge market. Hollywood missed the boat for the Asian market hence the rise of Bollywood so they are not going to miss the Chinese market.

 

[NorBro]

You guys really need therapy.

ha...you only wish you could ever have the privilege of setting foot on American soil.

 

[JAMedia]

ha...you only wish you could ever have the privilege of setting foot on American soil.

I have I worked in California.
I currently work with a couple of US outfits.

What would me setting foot in the US do to help this discussion?

 

[NorBro]

You would understand better and wouldn't have wasted our time.

Because you start off ranting yesterday by bending some details from a scene - sounding like you've never seen any American horror before - only to conclude nothing while getting in a cheap shot on the country. Then when I make my own movie reference you pester for an explanation because of your own rationalization for the content in question when clearly most of the planet doesn't share the same loose values on the subject, at least publicly.

___

If you randomly shared a clip of Mr. Bean, I wouldn't say:

"Hey, man - what's the point of referencing that? Is he okay? Why is he making those faces? Is he having a medical emergency?"

___

Here, this will get us back on track.

 

[JAMedia]

You would understand better and wouldn't have wasted our time.
Because you start off ranting yesterday by bending some details from a scene - sounding like you've never seen any American horror before - only to conclude nothing while getting in a cheap shot on the country. Then when I make my own movie reference you pester for an explanation because of your own rationalization for the content in question when clearly most of the planet doesn't share the same loose values on the subject, at least publicly.
___
If you randomly shared a clip of Mr. Bean, I wouldn't say:
"Hey, man - what's the point of referencing that? Is he okay? Why is he making those faces? Is he having a medical emergency?"
_

Here, this will get us back on track.

You really seem to have some issues.

 

[NorBro]

ha, what's the matter? You don't like Mr. Bean?

 

[JAMedia]

ha, what's the matter? You don't like Mr. Bean?

not particularly. Not my sort of comedy .
BTW I haven't wasted anyone's time. You seem to be trying ot obfuscate the discussion and cause problems.
The question was about nudity and the attitudes of various cultures to it.
The main one being Hollywood who produced most of the films.

 

[filmguy123]

So much for living in the land of the free.

If they flash some naughty bits, no one is getting hurt. That said, take me for example. I don't like gore, I turn away from it. No matter how much I know it's fake, I can't watch it. Nudity I can watch all day long.

being shy with nudity is pretty stupid... 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? ... films are just a reflection of the culture within which a creator operates.

There are valid sociological reasons for content censorship. Working on a number of justice films in a wide spectrum of fields, a very, very common recurring pattern when talking with experts in their respective fields is the commonality of how things trace back to the family unit. It's a near ubiquitous repeating pattern - absentee or abusive fathers, strained marriages, single parent households. Many of these lead to psychological development issues, or socio-economic imbalances (often both). There is a large statistical correlation between such things and increased crime rates, work and relational problems, etc. etc.

Of course, all of these problems for these individuals impact society at large. It means we may need to pay more taxes for police or welfare or other programs. It means we may be impacted ourselves by crime, or have our own sons/daughters impacted by such things. In more recent years, psychologists have become increasingly concerned with the impacts of pornography on relationships and marriages, and thus by extension, sociological development issues for children and thus future generations/society.

Whether or not one takes issue on any specific sub-point of an given issue, the point is, the school of thought behind censorship is not focused merely on individual rights, but on societal structures. Even in individually focused societies, we recognize they simply cannot function well without a certain degree of collectivist focus. We need sufficient structure and safety to give individuals freedom.

With that in mind, the opposing perspective would state the following:

"So much for living in the land of the free" - Freedom is not found in inbounding permissiveness, it is found in the tension between restraint and openness to create the proper balance in which individuals can flourish. We know this instinctively - your rights end where another begin is one example of needed confines. We also know this in terms of a 100% laize faire free market that devolves into survival of the fittest vs a partially free market balanced with intervention to prevent monopolies, ensure safe working standards, minimum wage, etc. Again the point is not any specific policy or sub point, but the meta principle that freedom does not equal inbounding permissiveness, but is a harmonic balancing act

"If they flash some naughty bits, no one is getting hurt." - That depends on how myopic (short sighted) we want to be about it. If a person watches porn, no one around them is physically harmed in that moment by extension. But we have many experts in fields of psychology and sociology that would articulate convincing a priori theory to the contrary, and growing empirical evidence to the contrary. If we look wider and broader in time and space, that appears to become less true.

"films are just a reflection of the culture within which a creator operates." - There is a compelling argument to be made that that is a low view of the influence and power of films. Yes art reflects culture, but art and film also creates culture. George Lucas famously talked about the power of stories such as Star Wars as encoding values and lessons for future generations. One of the reasons many of us desired to make films and to tell stories is to make a mark, bring things to light through the power of art. To dilute film to "only a reflection" is to miss the influence and power they have to create and form reality.

 

[DLD]

From Newsradio, a great American sitcom from the mid-1990's.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave : As I predicted, we have something of a mutiny on our hands.

Jimmy : Oh yeah! You're completely under siege. Just like that guy in that... that movie... What's it called?

Dave : Under Siege?

Jimmy : No...

Dave : Under Siege 2?

Jimmy : No...

Dave : Under Siege 3?

Jimmy : That's the one.

Lisa : I don't think they made Under Siege 3.

Jimmy : Hey... I can dream, can't I?

------------------------------------

Which leads to romcoms. With or without nudity.

 

[Mitch Gross]

You would understand better and wouldn't have wasted our time.

Because you start off ranting yesterday by bending some details from a scene - sounding like you've never seen any American horror before - only to conclude nothing while getting in a cheap shot on the country. Then when I make my own movie reference you pester for an explanation because of your own rationalization for the content in question when clearly most of the planet doesn't share the same loose values on the subject, at least publicly.

___

If you randomly shared a clip of Mr. Bean, I wouldn't say:

"Hey, man - what's the point of referencing that? Is he okay? Why is he making those faces? Is he having a medical emergency?"

___

Here, this will get us back on track.

Since no one else is, I guess I'll be the one to point out that the nudity in question is only indicated in this Mr. Bean clip, not expressly shown. In that way it does certainly go to the heart of the question of justifying the nudity for the sake of the story. In this case it was all about Mr. Bean's reaction to it, not the nudity itself.

In the case of Under Seige, even as a fleeting sight of bare breasts, there's not much in the way of justification one can make beyond a prurient one. Is it the end of civilization? Hardly. But let's not kid ourselves as to why it is present in the movie. And while I don't particularly know details, I would point out that the actress Erica Eleniak was in real life a former Playboy Playmate so clearly had no issue with exposing her body on film. I believe in the movie she's referred to as Miss whatever-month/year, which was in fact the date of the issue in which she had actually appeared in the magazine.

As an aside to the question of American tastes v those in other countriesand cultures, I think many of the coments here are a bt misguided (on both sides). I can point out more "puritanical" content in various cultures and more "permissive" in them as well. I'll note that the same culture that produced Mr. Bean also unleashed Benny Hill to the world. So let's all relax a bit.

I will note that some aspects of American culture have evolved a bit, and I'd like to think that it is in a positive way. In 2013, Alice Eve appear n Star Trek Into Darkness and at one point stripped down to her underwear in a scene that had little if any justification. Of course the camera lingered on her figure, the shot was featured in the trailers to promote the movie, and I'm sure if one Googles "Alice Eve Star Trek" it will be the first image to pop up. However after the film's release, a number of people protested the gratuitous exploitative nature of the shot, and the movie's co-writer posted an apology on Twitter after being called out. He noted that Chris Pine had also been shown partly disrobed, but that these appearances were integrated far more into the plot while Eve's underwear scene was pretty much just there for itself. And he pledged to take responsibility and be more mindful in the future. the modern Star Trek movies were full of physicall fit, attractive younger actors appearing physically fit and attractive, so it's hard to complain about seeing them show off their figures, but to just have them strip for the sake of stripping is a bit much.

To celebrate it's 35th anniversary, Top Gun is playing in theaters in the US right now. I have a female friend who loves the film and went to see it in no small part to enjoy the volleyball scene.