Part II: Modern Cinema Hasn’t a Clue About Eroticism
by Alicia Colon[Part one of this two-part series can be found here.]
Sixteen of the top 20 box office earners have either a G or PG rating which should be a clue that R rated films ( “Titanic” being the exception) don’t do as well yet studios continue to add gratuitous irrelevant sex scenes that ruin the film. Why? It certainly can’t be artistic license because the principal reaction to them is usually-‘Ew!!! Why did they do that?”
Movie-going statistics have dropped significantly among older adults and that’s understandable since most fare today cater to hormonal adolescents without a clue as to the true appeal of sensual art. Yet senior citizens today are former film buffs who would relish worthy theatrical offerings but their treks back to the wide screen lonely leave them disappointed.
A few years ago I went with an elderly friend to see, “Love Actually,” because we’re both great fans of Alan Rickman. The film has various vignettes of romantic couples and their curious experiences pursuing the love game. One of these couples happens to be two individuals acting in a porn movie and although the intent was to inject irony in the sex scenes showing the relative naïveté of the participants as they try to hook up, it failed miserably. My friend later said that particular graphic display spoiled the otherwise charming film which she no longer would add to her DVD collection when it came out.
Who decides to add these charm-busters to films? What is it about major appliances like washing machines that attract sexual activity? In the film, “Little Children,” Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson drop their drawers to perform sexual gymnastics in the laundry room and several other inappropriate venues. “ Annette Bening has her head banged against a motel headboard while her adulterous lover humps her energetically in the Oscar winner “American Beauty.” Did we have to see Viggo Mortensen’s bare butt as he had sex with his wife on the stairs ( note: stairs are a very uncomfortable place to indulge in this activity) in “ A History of Violence?” Of course not and every film would have generated better box office without these unnecessary insertions — pardon the double entendre.
I could blame corrupt producers and directors but none of these quality-busting scenes would be possible without the cooperation of the actors and actresses involved. I’m continually flabbergasted that these so-called artists actually consider it of thespian merit to simulate raw sex before the eye of the camera. In a way, Eight Avenue peep shows are more candid about their industry.
Madonna was said to be embarrassed about old nude photographs that might impede her adoption of the Malawi child David. Her daughter Lourdes is rumored to be more conservative than her Mom. Big surprise that!
I wonder what the children of Julianne Moore will think of her naked lap dance in “Boogie Nights” when they’re old enough to see the film.
Helen Mirren has managed to eclipse her “Caligula” and other nude, lascivious roles with an Oscar win for “The Queen,” in which she appeared fully clothed but she’s British so she’s can carry that off somewhat.
As a teen and a young woman, I’d buy all the movie mags with their color pictures of beautiful people who could honestly be called STARS. Now I find it difficult to name one female star today who doesn’t dress or act like a skank. Sorry. I realize it’s a sign of the times but that doesn’t mean I can’t prefer a time when class was what determined stardom.
When I look at today’s crop of movie denizens, every single one pales in comparison to our former screen legends. There is no one as gorgeous or as talented as the late Paul Newman. Ava Gardner may have had a checkered love life but her on-screen image is still a paean to her beauty and acting ability not her sexual proclivities.
Supermarket tabloids used to be my guilty pleasure but for the past few years, I can’t drum up interest in any of the figures that the paparazzi chase down. The word “star” is applied to reality TV people who fail to excite my curiosity. I don’t care who’s sleeping with whom nor do I give a whit about what any of them have to say.
Erotica is now dead in cinema and has been replaced by pornography. I’m trying hard to imagine which of today’s Hollywood elite could produce the same sexual heat that a long gone Maureen O’Sullivan and Johnny Weismuller managed to generate in our own minds. I’ve drawn a blank. Any suggestions?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
145 Comments
This author is correct. Let's face it, coitus isn't really all that fun to watch. It's Hollywood so it's choreographed, but even then its still akward. It kind of takes the excitement out of the whole thing. I took a movie appreciation class in high school. One of the movies they showed was "North By Northwest" and when the scene came up where Cary Grant met Eva Marie Saint on the train and they begin flirting you could hear a pin drop. I mean it was amazing, the audience (which in this case were 17-18 year old high school students in the throes of hormonal wildfires) was mezmerized. Grant and Marie Saint didn't do anything physical, but what they did do, they way they talked and looked at each other, it was very erotic.
Also, at the end of the film where Grant and Marie Saint are married and the train enters the tunnel, you can easily guess what is happening, but the director leaves it to the audiences' imagination which is ten times better than what could be shown them (even if the cnesors back them would have allowed them to show anything at all). Afterwards, a guy in class who never even heard of Cary Grant before, said that Grant was his idol. The people in Hollywood today couldn't pull that off and are the lesser for it.
Watching a sex scene is like watching someone throw up or go to the bathroom. These activities all offer relief to the participant(s), but they're all rather unpleasant to watch.
The moment I see two actors naked, I am actually taken OUT of the movie. I no longer see them as the characters but as the people playing the characters.
Reese Witherspoon is the only young actress that comes to mind, who doesn't make films that have to resort to sensationalism.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by lmcginnis33 and Tim Graham, Big Tweeting. Big Tweeting said: BigHollywood: Part II: Modern Cinema Hasn’t a Clue About Eroticism: Sixteen of the top 2.. http://bit.ly/54rorv #BigTweet [...]
Speaking of sexual tension, the scene between Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed in It's A Wonderful Life where she's on the phone and he just can't get close enough is a dandy!
I don't think of modern day film actors as MOVIE STARS. They are just film actors. The term "movie star" has gone the way of record player and "fill 'er up, please." The only living breathing movie star left, IMO, is Clint Eastwood. His dancing scene with Meryl Streep (doing her best Anna Magnani) in "Bridges of Madison County" was erotica personified. No sex scenes were needed after that.
Speaking of Anna Magnani, Italian actresses from the fifties and sixties exuded sensuality while hanging up the laundry. Can you imagine Meg Ryan or Cameron Diaz even coming close?
And though 'Titanic' wasn't G or PG, it was PG-13, making it not that great an exception to the rule. It did have nudity and and a suggestive sex scene, it still was not as explicit as some of the other films written about in the article.
Alicia, Love Actually is a perfect example of an otherwise really incredible movie that was ruined by the pornography couple. I often wish that I had a magic machine that could take movies and remove offensive scenes. There are so many movies that I would like to own or share with my children because of some really profound storytelling or characters, but just can't because one or two unnecessary scenes or language were thrown in the mix. So disappointing. There used to be a company that did that, called Clean Flix(??), but they were forced to cease and desist because of copyright infringement or something. Too bad.
Someone get Spike Spencer back on BigHollywood to explain why they ruined Evangelion 1.01 in this regard.
I believe Ridley Scott once said, "Sex is boring unless you're doing it." Consequently, most (if not all) of his films don't have sex scenes.
And if we're talking about sex scenes that are just gratuitous and irrelevant to the story, then I don't think Boogie Nights belongs here given that sex and nudity are a major part of the world that the characters live in.
Excellent post!!! One's imagination is so much better than anything in reality. Do the film makers really believe we can't imagine something going on without showing it to us? Like being served a picture book instead of a well-written novel.
While as a general rule I agree with the author's complaints, I don't agree that nudity equals lack of eroticism. Also, watching people have simulated sex can be anything but awkward or uncomfortable (unless you're watching them with your mom). There is a lack of skill in many directors that leads to nudity being uncomfortably inserted in a way that detracts from many films it's supposed to help, but the problem is with those directors. Many of those films would lack eroticism regardless of the level of nude content.
Agreed.
But – It's very unlikely that I'll enter a theater, even if the films were better.
I've had too many bad experiences – with the audience. People today do not know how to act in a group – unless that group is watching a sporting event.
The last time I was in a movie theater people were talking out loud amongst themselves – taking and making calls – acting like they were in their living room watching a DVD, not in a public venue where their unacceptable behavior ruined the experience for those around them.
No – it'll take more than just better movies – it'll take a sea change in audience behavior and that, I suspect, will never happen.
But I'm the wrong demographic … what I think doesn't matter.
Very good article.
"Love Actually" has a great cast, and I like the film except the "porn film" parts.
However, I did love the tension and the desire between Martine McCutcheon and Hugh Grant.
As far as older films go, Maureen O'hara and John Wayne seethed sexuality throughout "The Quiet Man"!
I want that picture of Ava Gardner in poster size. Very nice.
The nudity in Titanic was totally gratuitous and could have been left out and not missed. In fact, I thought it didn't fit the character at all since I don't think a properly brought up girl like Rose, rebellious or not, would have just disrobed in front of some guy, artist or not.
Oh please. American prudity at its worst. You don't have any idea about erotic images. Grow up, nudity and sex is nothing to be ashamed of. The days of repressed Hollywood sexuality are over, at least in other countries. If you want to revert to the 50s, just don't watch any modern masterpieces of cinema. There's plenty of Doris Day fare for you.
Erotica isn't the only casualty of today's movie makers, subtlety has been lost in most genres, a horror film has to have blood, guts and gore, a comedy has to have toilet humor and vulgarity and romance has to have sex. I agree with whomever said that our imaginations are so much better than reality. Unfortunately, there isn't much imagination being used in Hollywood. Think about how many movies are remakes of TV shows or other movies. The execs, producers and directors all say they are re-envisioning them, but do the vast majority of the originals need to be redone. Didn't they become "classics" because of how they were envisioned the first time? The art of saying more by doing less is lost on the over the top, gotta let it all hang out, last couple of generations.
Couldn't agree with this article more.
What is the obsession with raw sex scenes in movies these days? Does anybody actually enjoy them or find them to be an essential part of the film? I don't — they ruin the experience for me, and this is a major reason I hardly go to movies anymore.
Between raw sex, intensely graphic violence, and leftist proselytizing, movie-going has become a dismal experience. So desperate am I for a wholesome grown-up movie experience, that I saw Paul Blart twice. I am a 30-something professional with disposable income and free evenings — why doesn't Hollywood want my money?
Is Hollywood listening to any of this? Many a movie have I NOT gone to see because of the purported sex scenes. Make movies we can watch without making us nauseated!
Oh please. Euro-trash, pseudo-intellectual snobbery at it's worst. Grow up, looking at other people's hoo-hoos and tatas is for adolescent boys and perverts.
By the way, I just watched a Doris Day movie the other day and remarked to my wife that even when middle-of-the-road story-wise they are invariably entertaining.
There are a vast amount of people who could do with a little more shame.
Hollyweird is so stuck in its twisted vision and little L. A . ghetto fantasy world that money is not an issue. They can always make up for financial losses across the pond. Those middle-American audiences are no longer of consequence. The days of enjoying a night at the movies is over. They cost too much and have no redeeming value even as entertainment.
What about those actresses that act in a film with a odd, jarring nude scene that is completely gratuitous and not relevant to the plot and ruin it for anyone wanting to watch that film with a mixed audience? My two examples…Thomas Crown Affair (remake) with Rene Russo and Pierce Brosnan : her scene on the beach she's topless but he's in a bathing suit. Huh?
And, early Robin Williams movie (he's Russian and seeking asylym in US):he's in tub with Maria Alonso rubbing her breast and nipples. You're telling me that these two scenes were integral to plot development, right? Or did these two gals needs the paycheck? Either way…way too awkward to watch with a family in an otherwise good movie.
I thought the sex scene in Matrix Reloaded was completely unnecessary and really gross…I mean, they had those weird holes all over them from being in their pods in the first movie. Yuck!!!!!
AJ, I agree with your comments.
What always confuses me is the reverence that modern directors often show when they discuss classic film. To me, it gets back to snobbery, elitism, hypocrisy and cowardice.
I think they often feel that, while they enjoy the subtlety and inference requiring imagination of older movies, that the unwashed masses that they make movies for today would not be able to appreciate it and would ignore it.
Also, I think many of them like filming naked chicks.
shortly after my wife and i moved here to our adopted state of North Carolina, i was reading a list of famous people from, or with roots in the state:
Michael Jordan? meh…
James Taylor? meh…
Ava Gardner? NOW you're talkin'!
[...] add your comments on Big Hollywood to this one No comments Category: [...]
I've thought of an example… The pseudo-squirrels in the last Ice Age movie! We only saw just one nut.
Erotism is confused with graphic voyeurism in hollywood and that's ignoring the obligatory sex scenes in many other movies. The coked up movers and shakers of hollywood have no imagination and pander to those of like taste. Pushing boundaries is nothing new, Idah Menken did it with flare long ago.
Absolutely right. Those two scenes spoiled the films for me, too. Glad I'm not alone.
Blind Side? A Christmas Carol? Up? Fantastic Mr. Fox? Every Little Step? Departures? All due respect, but I think there are movies out there–all of the above were released this year–that meet your criteria and cover all genres.
Two movies that come to mind with no nudity/sex scenes but with a high degree of eroticism were Gladiator and Basic. In both, Connie Nielsen was the lead actress. Come to think of it, she was also in The Great Raid, which had a mild degree of eroticism and NO nudity. I may be biased but I think she is very sensual on screen.
I enjoyed Viggo Mortensen's butt immensely, just as I admired his naked knife fight in "Eastern Promises." And I make no apology for either.
Diane Lane comes to mind, for me.
Even in the outwardly sexual, 'Unfaithful,' there was subtle tension that translated into eroticism. Maybe it was serendipitous way in which the affair occurred and her train ride's excitement that gave it an aire of erotica.
Well said.
You could always edit the films yourself, on an old VCR if necessary. But than you'd still be giving money to the creeps who are doing this.
It depends on the film. Some of the sex scenes you cited weren't meant to be erotic necessarily. For example, the sex scene in A History of Violence was crucial to show just how violence was screwing up the central character, that he was using an act of love as an act of violence. The sex scenes in Boogie Nights were as necessary as the violence in Goodfellas; sex is a crucial part of their lives. Generally I agree that showing little or nothing is more effective than showing everything, but sometimes a sex scene is necessary not to titillate the audience but to explore who these people are. You can learn a lot from somebody by how they have sex. Seriously.
The company was Clean Films, base out of Utah, and they were forced to close. I discovered them right before they lost their case in court as defendants against the Hollywood studios for "editing" the films for family viewing.
I managed to buy four DVDs out of the entire list ("The Abyss," "A Beautiful Mind," "Die Hard," and "10 Things I Hate About You"), but what I wouldn't give to have "The Adventures of Babysitting", "Field of Dreams," "Major League," "Alien/s," "The Matrix," and a few others where the gratuitous profanity gets on my nerves as much as the gratuitous nudity.
Clean Films, you are sorely missed! Thank you, Clear Play, for stepping up to the plate.
She certainly used to, though. She was fairly well-known back in her early days for being willing to strip down for a role.
Man, my family used to love that place. We'd rent movies from there all the time, and we bought several edited films before they were forced to shut down.
I thought that whole sequence in Matrix Reloaded was hilariously bad. What´s your first reaction when you hear about the big fight to the death with merciless enemies coming your way? Right, you dance barefoot in the cold mud and do it like they do on the Discovery channel. They didn´t think of that at Agincourt. At least the English didn´t.
All I could think was: You guys are marked for extinction. Serves you right!
The knife fight was an awesome scene, but it was the stuff of nightmares and not exactly meant to be sexy (though you never know what might be going through Cronenberg´s head). In this case the nudity served the film.
Afraid I have to disagree. Of course, "Boogie Nights" was about porn but did we really have to see it? We know what it looks like. As for A History of Violence, that could have been done less graphically with a little more imagination and cutaways.
Not sure which part of the Tar Heel state you live in, but if you are ever in the eastern part, you really must visit Smithfield's Barbeque restaurants. They are a family-owned chained that started in Ava Gardner's hometown. Every restaurant has movie posters and prints of Ava. Gosh, she was a beautiful lady. I believe there is a Ava Gardner museum in Smithfield, too.
And, feet stuck to the floor in soft drink residue, possibility of catching something nasty (swine flu or worse), no pause button, no adult beverages, cell phones, insanely expensive snacks prepared by people who don't always wash after using the rest room, sound way too loud, fussy babies (of all ages), and you want me to spend how much to endure all this and a so-so film? If I wait a while, sometimes a short while, I can see it on DVD on my LCD w/surround sound from my recliner with remote close at hand if I need/want anything.
As for Hollywood actors with class, 3 words! Catherine Zeta Jones.
In reading this great piece the thought came to me that erotica is chiefly stimulation of the mind – far more powerful than the eye.
The scene from "Babydoll" in the back of the busted up car is an incredibly hot scene.
My favorite memory is a little boy behind me constantly moving and bumping my head – with the mother constantly telling him to "stop that" – for 2 hours. No more summer "blockbusters" for me.
Hey Chiquita:
What's Clear Play?
You're either very young (and there's hope) or you're a very old liberal (sorry).
The author is totally correct about "Love Actually." A charming movie, but right off the bat, they eliminated a huge chunk of their audience. They could easily have portrayed the couple who played nude porn stand-ins as having other clothed careers. I have never seen a more clear cut use of gratuitous nudity and sex. In the airport scene at the end, the film goes all holiday warm and fuzzy. If that was their intent, then why on earth didn't they cut out the nudity and sex, cut back on the rock star's language, and make it a family holiday show? As it is, we wouldn't even view it with other adults, even family member adults. Such a waste!
He voiced Shinji, he didn't write the script. Besides, Spike has gone on the record with his multiple misgivings with that show.
In "Boogie Nights" the sex is essential to the plot, but I think Alicia´s point was the willingness of major actresses to participate in such scenes/movies when it doesn´t improve their allure. And while I consider "Boogie Nights" a fine movie, it doesn´t disprove her other point: these scenes are not very erotic.
"You can learn a lot from somebody by how they have sex."
But that requires a clinical view of sex and reinforces the point about the lack of true eroticism.
Besides, that goes for everthing a character does and it is usually not why they are showing it. I do not remember many sex scenes that improved my understanding of the character and fewer that couldn´t have done another way. Sex is not just an activity like any other and a skilled director should know how to handle it delicately.
Watch a Nelson Eddy and Jeanette McDonald film and watch how they look into each others eyes. Then get a cold damp rag to cool off.
Please explain to me what nudity adds. What does simulated sex scenes add? I haven't seen any film that those two things enhance. They only take away.
Couldn't have said it better! Good for you!
Check out the original film "Cat People" sometime. The story goes that when they first tried to make it, the script had people in cat costumes. It proved to be so cheesy looking that they cut them out. It was shot with just the reactions of the actors and sounds to hint the presence of a large cat. For its genre it was a hit. I draw a parallel here between using subtlety to indicate terror and subtlety to indicate passion. I don't blame the actors and actresses too much for doing the graphic scenes. It is a very competitive business and a refusal to do the strip has led to some not getting roles. Some actors and actresses that I like have never done them but I notice they get stuck in TV land quite often.
Add to that the impossible special effects! I'm so turned off by the video game-lick special effects.
[...] here: Part II: Modern Cinema Hasn’t a Clue About Eroticism This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Seriously, I DON'T want to know! There are much better ways of exploring character!
Someone above mentioned the "Thomas Crown Affair". The original was much better. The scenes with Steve and Faye were so very "intellectually" erotic with absolutely no nudity.
Guest
Agreement here.
Stickwick –agree.
Alicia Colon said it well.
Sex to me is not a spectator sport, and I don't need a 'How To' movie.
Anyone who wants that can get it at a porn shop.
Give me a good story line and subtle undertones, as I'm not lacking in imagination, theres no need to push 'it' in my face.
The funny thing here is –Does Hollywood ever portray the Herpes, HIV, Syphilis, and Gonorrhea that multitudes contract every year? Or does everyone in the movies practice safe sex? Hmmm….One to ponder.
Sex in Hollywood is portrayed to look glorious, free, and without consequences until you wake up the next morning.
The creep-producers get totally OFF on asking the young girls if they are willing to do a nude scene, and then making them prove it in an "audition." It's bizarre. And what's even more bizarre is the young women fall for that b.s. High concept. heh.
Here's what The Eagles say about those full-length feature-creeps (from their tune "King of Hollywood"):
"We gon' get you an apartment, honey.
We gon' get you a car.
Yeah, we're gonna take care of you, darlin'.
We gon' make you a movie star.
For years I've seen 'em come and go."
He says, "I've had 'em all, 'ya know.
I handled everything in my own way.
I made 'em what they are today."
After 'while nothin' was pretty.
After 'while everything got lost.
Still, his Jacuzzi runneth over.
Still he just couldn't get off.
He's just another power junky.
Just another silk scarf monkey.
You'd know it if you saw his stuff.
The man just isn't big enough
Cheap thrills. People have minimal talent these days and it's much easier to just shed the clothes, grunt and slobber than to work on getting a non-physical chemestry built up. Audiences are used to instant gratification (been programmed for it) Everything is numb and dumbed down and all is too jaded. Used to be people were shocked at the hint of sexuality, nowadays you get Bruno's penis talking to the screem and people still aren't shocked. we live in a society where the first thing out of somebody's mouth is not "What's your sign?" any more.. it's "Are you gay or bi and do you have HIV"? Not very romantic or erotic. Everything has turned to shit and it all started with sex on the movie screen. Mushbrains
Reminds me of this great cartoon.
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rcjoa2b.gif
Repressed? Doris Day? Rent "Pillow Talk" and get back to us.
There is some company now that sells a DVD player where you download the film info from a website into a memory stick, plug it into the DVD player and it "edits" the movie as you watch it. I guess that avoids the ridiculous ruling by the SC.
Oh snap. Atom, you just got told. :-p Conservastripper Seal of Approval for YOU!
*MissQuinn*
Just a thought. Do you suppose that the problem with the film industry is that there is nothing new to be said? They throw sex, bad language and violence in to keep things "edgy." I know that this is a bit off topic, but I actually keep thinking about the Transformers (both movies), which ought to be viewable by young people – I mean they sell the toys to young people, but they insist on putting sexually explicit dialog and over the top violence in the films when it really isn't necessary.
Yeah. After Chiquita mentioned Clear Play and I dumbly asked her what it was, I realized we have this really cool technology now called the Internet and I looked it up myself. It seems like a great idea and the machine and the membership are really affordable!
I just wanted to add a comment because I almost pissed myself to see the line saying "(Comments) 69." Dude!
Very very much meant not to be sexy! And his sex with the prostitute was also very much meant not to be at all sexy. It was purposely anti-sexy.
I'm trying to remember the movie better and I think that the young woman that he *was* interested in… that would be considered the "love interest" in the movie… they didn't have *any* sex scenes, did they? I don't tend to put movies into permanent memory and it's been a while, but I thought the tension and attraction in that relationship was stronger than movies generally manage.
I use Clear Play for my family all the time. I love being able to show movies to my kids w/o worrying about language, nudity, and sex scenes. I highly recommend it.
I like the scene in Gone With the Wind where Rhett sweeps Scarlett into his arms and takes her up the stairs. The next scene shows Scarlett lounging in bed, obviously daydreaming of what took place the night before and giggling to herself about it. You can imagine what went on and it's more fun that way. Showing Scarlett and Rhett 'doing it' wouldn't have added much to the movie.
We have become a sexually ignorant (illiterate?) culture. What is the true essence of a sexual relationship? What are its characteristics? For me the first characteristic is that it is private, not public. It doesn't belong on billboards or on a media screen. Neither done nor seen. (Boy, have we missed that one.) Conversely, it belongs in a committed, public relationship, normally called marriage. (So far, we are not scoring too well…!)
Context matters, as always. Take a film like Monster's Ball. The sex scene between the two main characters is absolutely pivotal. It has to be equal parts desperation to connect to another human being and the animalistic need for relief. It doesn't work otherwise. If you simply look at the visual images, it's borderline pornographic. If you keep it in context, it becomes essential and adds hugely to the impact of the movie's message.
it just goes to show you that the film industry is not as interested in selling their movies as pushing their agenda. Artistic integrity my ass…
It's the chemistry she conjures up. That's a damn good skill that you can't bottle or teach. It's just instinct. And bless her for that.
Funny thing about Ms. Neilsen. . .she IS European (Danish), from the land of sexual freedom and liberated attitudes. Interesting how one of it's more sensual actresses impresses people more with her clothes on. :-p
*MissQuinn*
Don't disagree, Dame. Could have done without those scenes. But I think that Cameron still stayed within the lines enough to keep from offending the vast hordes, otherwise it would not have been the hit it was. I think if they had pressed the sex further for an R rating, hundreds of millions of dollars would have been lost.
Tombstone. Dana Delany as Josephine was the sexiest woman I've ever seen. I could immediately identify with Kurt Russell's reactions to her. I"m not too familiar with a lot of her work, but she played that role magnificently.
Or watch Day with Clark Gable in Teacher's Pet; if that's the sort of "prudery" you decry, take me there now.
I have to disagree about "Love, Actually", although I understand the reaction of the author's friend and others posting here (my daughter's was the same). For me the porno stand-in couple are a commentary exactly along the lines of the heart of this article: that movie sex is a cold, mechanical thing which must include the dull business of having stand-ins as the lighting and camera crews set-up. The payoff of the couple being such innocents despite their line of work worked for me.
"Love, Actually" is a treasured part of my DVD collection and one I watch every holiday season.
On the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.past-films, there once was a discussion of classic movies that were highly erotic but without explicit nudity. There were quite a few:
http://tinyurl.com/yel6747
"Charm buster" is the perfect choice of words for what those scenes do to a movie. In the movie 'The Electric Horseman' the charm buster was when Willie Nelson said he was going to get a girl "who can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch". It was a stupid and gratuitous vulgarity that tainted an otherwise excellent movie.
The great director Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator) was once asked why he never puts sex scenes in his films. He replied, "sex is boring unless you're doing it." I wish more filmmakers understood this simple truth.
Get over yourself. Who made you the grand decider of what is prudity? Is that even a word? And who said nudity and sex is something to be ashamed of? How bizarre that you're unable to differentiate sex from engaging in sex for an audience. Repressed? Again, subjective.
As far as I'm concerned, people who perform sex acts for a movie are whores. You see, I'm not a prude, they're the whores. Get it?
This is one of the sexiest scenes in movie history.
Exactly the reason I see so few movies. I have no desire to watch other people engaging in sex nor can I stand gratuitous nudity.
Since you mentioned Titanic, my opinion is that it was a missed opportunity to be a great film. Set, story-line, and music were great, but the dialogue, acting , and choice of lead characters sucked.
Actually I think that the language of sexuality changes over the time. What was erotic 20 years earlier isn't anymore. People are more outspoken about it. The "skank" remark I find biased and aggressive. Class is not only about the perfect hair do.
Sex scenes in Hollywood movies are usually quite generic – and they do depict female sexuality in a very unrealistic light – a male voyeuristic point of view – but so did movies with Maureen O'Sullivan.
Also, it's not only the sex scenes in them that are generic: Mainstream Hollywood movies are mostly bland and painfully predictable.
My impression was that the sex scene in "American Beauty" was not written to arouse people, but to ridicule the act. Some movies try to tell other stories with their sex scenes, estrangement, violence, power struggles or desperation, and if they succeed or not, is of course up to the viewer – and sometimes the objective is to make viewers uncomfortable. It might help or not help to reconsider their own stance about sexuality in their lives, about what it means to them – I cannot say I find it pleasant but I appreciate the effort when I see it.
Erotic scenes with Ava Gardner or Maureen O'Sullivan are obviously aesthetic – the women as the scenes themselves – were luxurious, well groomed, clean and non offensive. Both of them were great beauties, great actresses and had very sparkling personalities. In their time they were the perfect sexual fantasies for male viewers. This is how the world remembers the golden era of Hollywood perhaps: "Where women were still women and men were still men." – I doubt though that actresses like Kate Winslet will – or even wants to – be remembered solely for her glamorous beauty.
There's a reason Shakespeare's plays are still around. They are some of the most brutal and violent pieces ever written (especially the histories), but seldom, if ever, is any actual violence shown onstage. Hollywood could learn from that…even if they choose to ignore their own past. The most powerful storytelling device ever considered is what is NOT seen and what is NOT heard. If you, as a writer, director or performer, feel the need to hammer an audience over the head, then you're underestimating your audience, your subject matter or both.
Buster Keaton in "The Cameraman," jostled in the crowd up against the hair of the ingenue (name unrecalled at the moment — apologies).
One movie that was erotic without being, shall we say, "gross" was A Room with a View. There was male nudity in it, but it was neither offensive nor sexual! Of course, all it took in Pride and Prejudice was Colin Firth in a wet shirt, and the girls went wild, as evidenced by over 1600 reviews on Amazon. Seriously, 1600 reviews?! Whew! And, let's not go too overboard. There are such romantic (chic flick?) films left as Legally Blonde, Clueless, and Blast from the Past. None of these have sex in them, but they are at least "interesting," at least to my female sensibilities. Great article, and I wish Hollywood would take these words to heart. I have a feeling that money talks louder than words however, so we should all just continue to vote with our feet, and only go to see movies that are not total crap. Eventually someone will get the message, or at least the crappier Hollywood production companies might go out of business.
I'm pretty sure the "porn couple" in "Love Actually" was supposed to be a couple of body doubles doing a nude scene for another film. That's a little different, and I always thought it was kind of wryly poking fun at the current fad for nude scenes and the highly paid actors who require doubles.
In older films (circa 1950ish and earlier) with nudity and sexual activity not permissible, more attention was given to the kiss and conveying passion in other means. Directors had to pour as much zeal and excitement as they could manage in love scenes. Modern films on the other hand can simply show a little nudity and sex. This skips conveying passion to the viewer and very often results in a terribly clumsy sex scene more likely to induce a giggle rather than any sort of arousal. As a result, romantic films of the past are better capable of communicating emotion.
Modern films have taken a short cut regarding romance. Instead of spending screen time building up emotion, they just throw in a few overly quick, graceless sex scenes and move on with the rest of the plot. Also note how "love scenes" are so rough in modern films. It's almost as if they need to release what little passion they have on screen all in a few minutes so the film can continue with the main plot. I find that terribly artless. At least older films treated romance with more respect in general and attempted a more artful expression of it.
A particular segment involving Clara Bow and an office desk comes to mind from the 1927 silent feature "It" starring the actress herself alongside Antonio Moreno. At least it was stimulating the first time I saw what she did and how it was done. "Sadie Thompson" was another silent I enjoyed for similar reasons, except here it was her mere facial expressions that made her so devastating to a young man. Nothing today comes near it. The silent era people knew what sexual tension was all about and today nothing is changed in God's world except Hollywood itself; which town, for all I care, can stand in the corner to watch and learn what desire truly means to a human audience. The robot sex is wearing thin. I wish that last sentence was further from literal. It's literal.
Great article, by the way.
They are just moving closer and closer to porn, than movies…
They even try to go as far as they can in 'soap operas' now days…Yuk! Don't have any desire to watch teenagers trying to act like adults, in a sex scene! They have lost my audience…thanks for nothing!
The proprietor of a video store catering to movie buffs told me that the overseas market is so lucrative that Hollywood plays to the lowest common denominato; minimal dialogue, graphic sex, action, violence and special effects that play well to non-english speaking audiences. A few years later he went out of business.
LOL! That was a great story!
Amen to that! Like its politics, Hollywood's general production appears to reflect its sensibilities when attempting to portray erotic scenes. The verdict: Low rent, low class, intrusive, gratuitous gutter crap that leaves nothing to the imagination and imagination is obviously something these "story-tellers" lack big time.
They don't seem to realize that a fully-clad desirable woman of intelligence, wit, warmth, and sophistication, for example, can be far more erotic that a gorgeous woman in full frontal nudity. This off-putting garbage inflicted upon us seems to reflect, I'd guess, the limited range of sexual experiences of the creators and I'm not referring to positions. The full extent of what appears to be their points of reference in such matters seems to be the lap dance and pole dance. Hefner lost it with Playboy's full frontal scenes and Hollywood wasn't far behind.
Give me Catherine Deneuve in a negligee any day over a close up of Julianne Moore's swollen nipples. Give me Megan Kelly or any one of Fox Business Channel's tastefully-clad female business commentators giving "good mind" any day. Intelligence and taste are far more erotic than slutty behavior, at least for those of us who have moved beyond sophomore year.
Even now, Helen Mirren can't do too many nude scenes to suit me. THE QUEEN disappointed me because I was hoping there'd be a shower scene or something.
It seems that many producers are under the impression that they are still rebelling against the "prudities" of the 1950s or something.
As well, the European film industry almost makes in de rigeur to have full frontal nudity. I think I read an interview by someone like Juliette Binoche who said–to the effect–that French actresses are required to bare their breasts in french cinema. I have yet to see many french films that contradict that. French actresses are "made' by the quality of their first nude scenes.
Take a look at someone like Marion Cotillard, or any French or European actress really, and you will see that their early films are a testament to them being "brave enough" to "take off their kit." The men–not as much but this is changing.
Hollywood, instead of pursuing the traditional Americana film that made Hollywood what it (was) is, has decided to go gratuitously after Euro cash and they think that means translating that Euro-sex element in their films. In many ways, it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. American films are American films and shouldn't try to "become" like their European counterparts. It doesn't work. When American films go for the explicit sex it always comes out looking more porn and less erotica. It's kind of embarrassing, I think.
In fact, I argue it has actually hurt the American brand around the world. And, I argue, it has hurt the reputation of American woman around the world.
Take the Bollywood film for example. Bollywood is very wholesome on the whole. One does not expect a Bollywood film to be filled with explicit sex. Bollywood is the second largest film industry in the world–or is it first–and it's growing.
Hollywood could learn a lesson or two from Bollywood.
Two cents anyway.
What will Carrie Prejean tell her kids?
I give credit to Catherine McCormack (sp?) who refused to even do modest nudity for a Vogue cover. She's a quality actress, and she's taken personal responsibility for her own image and reputation. A lot of actors/actresses will do it for the work, and hide behind the excuse that 'it's what the role calls for' without questioning if it adds anything to the film or advances the story in any way.
This pointless sensationalism needs to be driven out of films from the ground up, meaning the viewing public needs to stop buying tickets and DVD's of this trash to send a clear message to the studios that this is not what we want to see.
Yup, nudity and sex by its very nature is erotic, so cutting them out isn't erotic. Erotic is explicit by its very nature. Atom here has a point.
Des' post answered your question alreay, IdahoGal, but you sure evaded what he posted. If you really need someone to tell you what nudity and sex adds, then it sounds as if you need to have someone explain "the birds and the bees". Claiming that you haven't seen any film that is enhaced by nudity and sex (i.e. erotica), means you probably haven't watched any.
I suggest: "Mom was pretty hot in this video, huh?"
"The news sensationalized an intimate moment between me and the man I thought I was in love with. They cheapened an early sexual/intimate experience for me just to get ratings."
OH, there is nothing sexier than Clark Gable swooping Vivian Leigh in his arms and stomping up those stairs! The next morning she is singing and giggling to herself. Yes, indeedy!
Thank goodness I have my Jane Austen adaptations to keep me satisfied; usually just a look between the leading couples are far more emotionally impactful and meaningful than any sex scene I've seen in a film.
Mariska Hargitay is probably the only actress I can think of who is talented and gorgeous and has not fallen into the Hollywood trap. She has never been in the tabloids for trashy behavior. She always looks attractive and put-together. She has a wholesome family life. Hargitay started Joyful Heart Foundation to help victims of domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault.
AMAZING scene – VERY HOT
Sarah Jessica Parker is another actress who never does nudity and actually had in her contract for Sex and the City that she would always have clothes on during her "sex scenes".
There are some, yes, however most of the movies that meet my criteria are either animated features aimed at children or are about things that don't interest me. I loved Up, but there are only so many children's movies I can see in one year, and I have no desire to see Blind Side or Every Little Step. I long for grown-up comedies and dramas that simply leave the overt stuff out — the kinds of movies Hollywood was making twenty+ years ago.
If directors simply stopped inserting all of this graphic and political crap, how much box office would they lose? I predict zero.
Hollywood had a hugely profitable weekend, so I'm guessing they satisfied far more people with their smut than they offended. I am resisting Blind Side as well, but too many friends have recommended it wildly–from all over the audience spectrum–so I think I'm going to have to succumb. And Every Little Step and Departures were really great films. 'Step' does what a good doc should–get you interested in a topic you thought you'd hate, and Departures is simply one of the best dramas I've seen in ages.
AVA!
Woof, woof, woof!!
(clog steps & elbow waving)
Whatta babe.
She wont tell them anything. If they ask questions she'll tell them they're being inappropriate.
One my favorite "erotic" moments comes from Persuasion, when Wentworth (Ciaran Hinds) lifts Anne (Amanda Root) into a carriage. It's just a small gesture–a hand on her waist. But it;s so charged with longing.
And I never really liked the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice, but the scene where Elizabeth and Darcy are arguing in the rain–very swoonworthy.
There is no question that the our greatest sex organ is between our ears! Sure we can have all of it but what the imagination can do will always be more erotic than just showing it all. I happen to be a naturist (nudist). I can love the naked body and appreciate it. Covering it up though can often times be a bit more interesting!
I had a chance to watch the movie Bedazzled staring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore on TCM this thanksgiving. Peter Cook plays the devil and Moore the shill selling his soul. The movie had actors personifying the seven deadly sins. Lillian Lust was played by Raquel Welch. There is a scene where she enters the room with Dudley to distract him. She does remove her robe but the lingerie underneath was more than Brittany Spears dances in a video today. She does move suggestively but she never touches any erogenous zone of her body. She seeks to turn Dudley on by talking to him of fruit and pineapples, how hot she is, etc. The camera never really showed the good parts of her body as it was covered by blankets as she got into bed with Dudley who was clothed in a full body stocking. That two minute scene was infinitely more sexy than an entire Girls Gone Wild video. If you can rent this movie you will see the difference between eroticism and pornography.
You beat me to the punch. Great scene.
So, what I hear you saying is that actual sex, or a simulated version thereof, is icky. Imagined sex, subtly alluded to, is fantastic and gratifying. Wonder why so many women found themselves disillusioned in the 50s and 60s. Truth is, when a smelly Tarzan rapes Jane, it isn't as fabulous as the movie made it out to be.
You picked one of the best films ever made to prove your point! Hitchcock didn't need to stoop to cheap Vaudville tricks to sell his stories… what films are mostly missing today, is good writing… the production quality is so amazingly high… on Sound, Special effects, Sets, etc… that these movies can "seem" big, even when the script isn't…. 2 films were pivotal in my grow as a young man, High Noon and Mr Smith goes to Washington… both portray men at their worst and at their best and celebrate courage over expediency… something the current generation of Politicians has yet to learn… yet neither film required much to tell the story but both had remarkable writing… I would put those 2 movies up against any movie made in the last 10 years… these are films I've never tired of seeing again and again, because they celebrate what is best in a person… they defined heroism for a young boy as simply "doing the right thing". That's a lesson we should all be reminded of these days. – Mag (MagChat)
Oh. That was beyoooootiful!
You picked one of the best films (North By Northwest) ever made to prove your point! Hitchcock didn't need to stoop to cheap Vaudville tricks to sell his stories… what films are mostly missing today, is good writing… the production quality is so amazingly high… on Sound, Special effects, Sets, etc… that these movies can "seem" big, even when the script isn't…. 2 films were pivotal in my grow as a young man, High Noon and Mr Smith goes to Washington… both portray men at their worst and at their best and celebrate courage over expediency… something the current generation of Politicians has yet to learn… yet neither film required much to tell the story but both had remarkable writing… I would put those 2 movies up against any movie made in the last 10 years… these are films I've never tired of seeing again and again, because they celebrate what is best in a person… they defined heroism for a young boy as simply "doing the right thing". That's a lesson we should all be reminded of these days. – Mag (MagChat)
Not if you want to devalue the family and implement the kinds of control you find in Brave New World.
I have just read that book and it is curious how that philosophical motiff seems to fit right in with the new sexual morality of the left.
"Everyone is for Everyone else" and the love of a mother for her child is pornographic. Not sure Huxley is exactly right but it is intriguing to consider where he does seem to be a pophet and where he missed the boat.
How much actual sex did you see in Boogie Nights. Not sure it has been a while but if I remember the scenes seemed chopped. We saw a few seconds of the actors appearing to have coitus because that is what they would be doing on a porn set but then it sequed to dialogue or the actual plot. That is different in my view than a three minute scene where it is completely gratuitous. Not disagreeing with your point I don't really remember the movie that well.
Of course one could argue that even porn actors have complicated lives and do a lot of things other than have sex so could we not have written the story without the scenes and still got the message across.
You picked one of the best films (North By Northwest) ever made to prove your point! Hitchcock didn't need to stoop to cheap Vaudville tricks to sell his stories…
What films are mostly missing today, is good writing… the production quality is so amazingly high… on Sound, Special effects, Sets, etc… that these movies can "seem" big, even when the script isn't…. 2 films were pivotal in my grow as a young man, High Noon and Mr Smith goes to Washington… both portray men at their worst and at their best and celebrate courage over expediency… something the current generation of Politicians has yet to learn… yet neither film required much to tell the story but both had remarkable writing… I would put those 2 movies up against any movie made in the last 10 years… these are films I've never tired of seeing again and again, because they celebrate what is best in a person… they defined heroism for a young boy as simply "doing the right thing". That's a lesson we should all be reminded of these days.
Erotica in Hitchcock?
Try the opening of "The Birds" – Janet Liegh in her pristine white slip, having a nooner with the boyfriend.
Of course later, after she steals the money, she's in a black slip. The hussy.
That was "Psycho"
If you mean Betty Freidan's book. That was a bunch of crock. I never bought the whole feminist crap because it was very hypocritical and anti-woman from the beginning. Women are probably women's biggest enemies.
If however a publisher wants me to write about that, I'll need a big advance.
My next article for BH will be about TV. Stay tuned.
None of the top movies has graphic sex or violence, from what I can tell: Twilight, The Blind Side, 2012, Old Dogs, A Christmas Carol. I'd say the fact that these were hugely profitable vindicates my point.
But…you just said you couldn't find stuff that met that criteria…and all of the above _do_ (no overt sex, gore or politics), thus vindicating MY point!
LOL! This could go on forever.
I should've added the criterion that the movie has to be watchable or interesting to me — I mean, that's the whole point, I'm paying to be entertained, right? Ten, twenty years ago, there were enough good, interesting, not-gratuitously-graphic movies that I was visiting the theater at least once a week. Let's look at this week's offerings: By all accounts Old Dogs is terrible (as the reviewer at Christianity Today succinctly put it: "Woof"); you couldn't water-board me into seeing Twilight; not interested in Blind Side (I detest most sports movies). I did see 2012 last month and enjoyed it — the first movie I've seen in the theater in months — and I plan to see A Christmas Carol sometime in the next few weeks. So I guess that's an improvement over this year's average of one movie every 2-3 months. It's a Christmas miracle!
HAH!
I think you're just too picky!
Movies used to be something you could take the whole family to, from Grandma to the kids. Half the innuendo would go over the kids' heads, and that was fine. The adults "got it," were entertained, and appreciated it, while the family had an outing or a night of entertainment together. Now the choice is to skip the entire movie containing awkward and offputting scenes of sex, violence, or vulgar toilet humor, or just go to a good-quality kids' movie (carefully chosen in advance to avoid the vulgar ones). But–hello, Hollywood?–we adults are not entirely satisfied by kids' movies. Where are the "Casablancas" and "Philadelphia Stories," the "Wincester 73s' and "Treasure of the Sierra Madres" (good B-pictures) of our age? Where are the bright, original, funny, entertaining (not offensive, lame, awkward, risque, perverse, or downer) movies for us to see together over the holidays? And don't give us more botched, "updated" remakes. This article is right on. In our family we are three generations of avid Hollywood film buffs but except for the occasional Pixar or Harry Potter movies, we stay home and watch the real grownup classics on DVDs with the kids. Thank goodness for DVDs and Turner Classic Movies. The people running Hollywood these days are not like us and don't understand us. They can't do what the old Hollywood did. I assume they don't want to. Funny they wouldn't want to tap this turned-off market.
OK… I don't mean to be snarky, but seriously. These posts make you all sound old. Old, and past your prime.
Has there been a pornographication of eroticism in movies? Sure. Is Fox in the first five minutes of Tranformers straight out of the first five minutes of any Barely Legal? Sure.
But now is no different from any other time in cinema history. Things changing, some for the better, some not. New tools wielded clumsily and ham-handed. And always, the pace of society's embrace of carnality is just a liittle too fast for lots of people.
But let's step back. What hurts a movie? Distractions. Things that stand out, interrupt the feel and authenticity of the film. More than probably any other, eroticism is high-potential for distraction, as our reaction to sexuality is visceral and profound. And that's before we even register approval or disapproval.
We can do erotic gooood. It's being done. Lots of films utilize the higher production values we enjoy with subtlety and precision. Some don't. But look at eroticism the same way as f/x, or any other tool of movie making. Did most people over-do the CGI thing? Obviously. Can the score try to hard, with it's Dolby and THX and 200.5 surround and 3D audial processing? Yeah. Dialogue, action, editing… and eroticism. All are TOOLS, used in one way or another, to add dynamics to the film,to tell the story.
Thing is, we can so much shit now. It's like with CGI. It's already indistinguishable from reality for the most part, eventually it will be in the big ways as well. When that happens, directors are going to be judged much more harshly. Because when you can do ANYTHING, there's no excuse for producing a shitty movie. Who or what can be blamed when you literally are in control of every individual pixel and every individual frame of the film?
Eroticism, like CGI and action choreography and writing, can be used deftly, exactly and effectively… or not. So don't let the pining for your youth screw up your critical faculties. Don't treat over-eroticism as more an affront than over-anything else.
Ok, rambling now, probably a waste of a post. But two more things:
1) How can you watch the oldies — Ava, Leigh, etc. — and find them truly erotic? I mean, sparks are sparks and simmering desire is simmering desire wherever one may find it, but personally I find the period of those films a big distraction to fully being pulled into the romantics. Would the current me really find those women, some who couldn't even vote, really romantically fascinating? Nobody's fault, but I find the un-enlightened rigidity society suffered from back then very… unattractive. When I try and place myself in that period, I feel like I'm going backwards in every important way. Was their love more pure back then? Hardly. It was more naive, misunderstood and elusive. And that goes for their women (or men) as well.
2) I disagree with Colon on "The Nature of Violence." It was important to see Viggo's ass, and her muff. It was their authentic, profound and playful sex lives which more than anything informed the authentic, profound and playful nature of their relationship as a whole. Remember when she almost puked when he admitted being someone else? You don't get a full body, reality-jarring reaction like she had unless you've formed a full body, full reality relationship with someone, and their healthy romantic lives gave evidence to that end.
IMO.
[...] to portraying the erotic, the current crop doesn’t have a clue. From Alice Colon’s recent piece on the subject at Big Hollywood: A few years ago I went with an elderly friend to see, “Love Actually,” because we’re both [...]
I have fallen in absolute love with an actress named Amy Adams (Julie & Julia, Catch Me If You Can, Sunshine Cleaning, Junebug, Enchanted, Doubt). Trust me fellas, even though she "dresses down" for many of her roles, do a quick google search and you'll see how gorgeous she really is. One of the best smiles you're ever bound to see. I've found that even though many of the stars of the golden age were beautiful (Tippi Hedren, Eva Marie Saint, Veronica Lake, Janet Leigh, etc.), they didn't always have the personality to go with it. Adams' always comes across as nothing less than engaging, likable, authentic and yes, sexy because of it. To my knowledge, she hasn't done nude scenes (although isn't opposed to some tasteful underwear-clad moments), doesn't babble on about politics, and seems to have no desire to play hookers or drug addicts. In interviews I've read, she has spoken of her Mormon upbringing and how that may have effected her need to play characters with positive dispositions. Just gaining career momentum in her mid-30s, she's a bit of late bloomer in Hollywood. I really hope that makes her less likely to change the way she is because I can't get enough of her! (to the chagrin of my fiance, who has figured this out. She knew something was up when I suggested we watch "Enchanted" together
Is this stupid bint still nattering on? Methinks someone badly needs to get laid – of course, posting that picture of her ugly mug isn't likely to help that cause much.
You must be logged in to post a comment.