Good article that touches on the reality of shooting a nude and/or sex scene on the actor's side and how it effects them. Proponents focus on consent and professionalism. If both happen then 'a-okay.' Win win for the audience and win win for the actors and directors, so they say. No harm done. Opponents focus on what's shown and how little is shown. Rarely do people discuss the process once that nude and/or sex scene is scheduled.
I think 99% of all the nude and sex scenes depicted in mainstream tv and film in the past decade, if left out, not one project would suffer from their exclusion in terms of character and plot development. It proves that almost all nudity (for the sake of nudity) and sex scenes are just unnecessary additions and add nothing to the overall project. It's just sad once we truly, truly think about it.
No one is wondering 'gee I wish Maria and Baron von Trapp had at least an implied sex scene during their honeymoon.' No one.
Not even in The Bear, a tv series filled with profanity where there, so far, is no nudity and barely any excessive violence, is anyone (in the audience) thinking 'gee, a sex scene would've elevated Season 1.' No one. What people are saying about The Bear 'I wonder if X and Y character will get together' or 'I hope to God that X and Y won't get together because it'll ruin the feel of the show.'
Even the lead actor, Jeremy Allen White, objected to creating a romantic plot between his character and one of the female characters for Season 2. He implied 'why can't they just be friends and co-workers?' And this is him simply rejecting any romantic angle a producer can give it (I also feel White knows where it can lead, given the already existing relationship between the two characters, is simply unnecessary - and not believable). I agree with White. Just leave the characters alone.
Yeah, the common defense of simulated sex and sexualized nudity in film is that "the story requires it." But the two possible responses I have to that argument (depending on the film in question) are either 1) "That's not true," or 2) "You're just admitting the pornographic nature of your story, since porn can't be told without skin."
The only film that comes to mind right now where nudity was pivotal to the plot was James Cameron's Titanic. Isolated, the undressing of Rose played by Kate Winslet would seem odd, but she was portrayed as Jack's model which would later be a plot device. I'd that entire scene was arguable the most "respectful" way one can do a nude scene. It was meant to be awkward and the characters displayed that nervousness and awkwardness perfectly.
I'll also say the implied sex scene between Jack and Rose is classic Hollywood at its best. Some say it's cheesy, but thinking about it I give much kudos to Cameron since he probably said "We've shown enough."
I could be contradicting myself, but the only incidence when I do think nudity is alright within the arts & entertainment world is nude modeling. See: http://www.theravenswoodatelier.com/index.html.
The website linked has art that could be shown in a museum and usually when people visit a museum and see figure drawings and sculpture they tend to ponder on the craftsmanship that went into it. How did the artist make stone look smooth and soft just like real skin? How did the artist make a butt so round? How did the artist make those wrinkles? These questions are NEVER asked when nudity and sex scenes happen on screen, be it tv or film. Though someone had to be nude when the drawing or sculpture was being made, we move from the subject matter to the maker's skillset once the final product it presented. To me, there's a big, big difference from that type of nudity to what's being captured on celluloid.
People tend to collect art because it's beautiful (i.e. art collectors, museums). People who visit art museums can purchase a postcard at the gift shop of their favorite painting or sculpture (as did I a couple of times - Anne-Louis Girodet's Atala au tombeau) usually because they view it as beautiful. That rarely ever happens with tv and film when bare skin is shown or when a softcore porn scene is depicted. That type of "art" is collected by very specific sites.
I disagree with you on your point about the “sex scene” in Titanic. I felt filthy after watching it. It seemed pushed into the film unnaturally. It was out of place and ruined the movie for me.
Good article that touches on the reality of shooting a nude and/or sex scene on the actor's side and how it effects them. Proponents focus on consent and professionalism. If both happen then 'a-okay.' Win win for the audience and win win for the actors and directors, so they say. No harm done. Opponents focus on what's shown and how little is shown. Rarely do people discuss the process once that nude and/or sex scene is scheduled.
I think 99% of all the nude and sex scenes depicted in mainstream tv and film in the past decade, if left out, not one project would suffer from their exclusion in terms of character and plot development. It proves that almost all nudity (for the sake of nudity) and sex scenes are just unnecessary additions and add nothing to the overall project. It's just sad once we truly, truly think about it.
No one is wondering 'gee I wish Maria and Baron von Trapp had at least an implied sex scene during their honeymoon.' No one.
Not even in The Bear, a tv series filled with profanity where there, so far, is no nudity and barely any excessive violence, is anyone (in the audience) thinking 'gee, a sex scene would've elevated Season 1.' No one. What people are saying about The Bear 'I wonder if X and Y character will get together' or 'I hope to God that X and Y won't get together because it'll ruin the feel of the show.'
Even the lead actor, Jeremy Allen White, objected to creating a romantic plot between his character and one of the female characters for Season 2. He implied 'why can't they just be friends and co-workers?' And this is him simply rejecting any romantic angle a producer can give it (I also feel White knows where it can lead, given the already existing relationship between the two characters, is simply unnecessary - and not believable). I agree with White. Just leave the characters alone.
Yeah, the common defense of simulated sex and sexualized nudity in film is that "the story requires it." But the two possible responses I have to that argument (depending on the film in question) are either 1) "That's not true," or 2) "You're just admitting the pornographic nature of your story, since porn can't be told without skin."
The only film that comes to mind right now where nudity was pivotal to the plot was James Cameron's Titanic. Isolated, the undressing of Rose played by Kate Winslet would seem odd, but she was portrayed as Jack's model which would later be a plot device. I'd that entire scene was arguable the most "respectful" way one can do a nude scene. It was meant to be awkward and the characters displayed that nervousness and awkwardness perfectly.
I'll also say the implied sex scene between Jack and Rose is classic Hollywood at its best. Some say it's cheesy, but thinking about it I give much kudos to Cameron since he probably said "We've shown enough."
I could be contradicting myself, but the only incidence when I do think nudity is alright within the arts & entertainment world is nude modeling. See: http://www.theravenswoodatelier.com/index.html.
The website linked has art that could be shown in a museum and usually when people visit a museum and see figure drawings and sculpture they tend to ponder on the craftsmanship that went into it. How did the artist make stone look smooth and soft just like real skin? How did the artist make a butt so round? How did the artist make those wrinkles? These questions are NEVER asked when nudity and sex scenes happen on screen, be it tv or film. Though someone had to be nude when the drawing or sculpture was being made, we move from the subject matter to the maker's skillset once the final product it presented. To me, there's a big, big difference from that type of nudity to what's being captured on celluloid.
People tend to collect art because it's beautiful (i.e. art collectors, museums). People who visit art museums can purchase a postcard at the gift shop of their favorite painting or sculpture (as did I a couple of times - Anne-Louis Girodet's Atala au tombeau) usually because they view it as beautiful. That rarely ever happens with tv and film when bare skin is shown or when a softcore porn scene is depicted. That type of "art" is collected by very specific sites.
What are your thoughts on it?
I disagree with you on your point about the “sex scene” in Titanic. I felt filthy after watching it. It seemed pushed into the film unnaturally. It was out of place and ruined the movie for me.