Comments on: Part II: Modern Cinema Hasn’t a Clue About Eroticism

By: vampire games

vampire games — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:50:03 +0000

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

By: Geschenke

Geschenke — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:55:58 +0000

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……

By: garment business daily

garment business daily — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:11:27 +0000

Visitor recommendations…

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……

By: jjcomet

jjcomet — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:59:19 +0000

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.

By: billymac72

billymac72 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:09:36 +0000

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

By: And From the World of ‘Entertainment’ — Behind Blue Lines

And From the World of ‘Entertainment’ — Behind Blue Lines — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:25:25 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:30:05 +0000

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.

By: Zabrina

Zabrina — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:02:30 +0000

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.

By: maatkare

maatkare — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:24:35 +0000

HAH! I think you're just too picky!

By: Stickwick

Stickwick — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:16:52 +0000

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!