Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is it the new thing for actresses to show off their tits?

This is topic Is it the new thing for actresses to show off their tits? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006308

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-30-2010, 11:41 PM:

Ok, I am wondering about this.

First, Marisa Tomei in "The Wrestler",
Second, Naomi Rapace "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"
Third, Julianne Moore in "The Kids Are All Right"
Fourth, Amanda Seyfreid in "Chloe"
Fifth, Julianne Moore in "Cloe"

and now Anne Hathaway in "Love and Other Drugs"

Best set: Anne Hathaway by far.
Seriously, when has it become the norm?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-01-2010, 12:05 AM:

Are you new to R-rated movies?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-01-2010, 12:18 AM:

It really all began back in the silent and early "soundies" era until the 1930 "Hays Code" came out, then things all pretty well behaved itself...

...until...

.... mainstream film producers wanted to get back in getting a bit more "daring" and "realistic"....then out came the MPAA Ratings Code in 1968.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 12-01-2010, 12:40 AM:

Reminds me of this exchange from Scream:

Stu: I wanna see Jamie Lee's breast. When will we see Jamie Lee's breasts?

Randy: Breasts? Not until "Trading Places" in '83. Jamie was always the virgin in horror movies. She never showed her tits until she went legits.

AJG

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-01-2010, 12:45 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
mainstream film producers

It just seems that recently a lot of mainstream actresses are starting to do it all of a sudden.

I always thought a big name star/well known didn't have to...

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-01-2010, 12:50 AM:

And this bothers you why?.... [Smile]

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-01-2010, 01:00 AM:

Love and other drugs isn't the first movie that Hathaway showed hers. She was topless in Brokeback.

I'm also confused why you even care Tom. Most actresses have said as long as there's a reason for it they don't care. Except for Jessica Alba who has said as long as her dads around she won't being going full nude.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-01-2010, 01:09 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
Except for Jessica Alba who has said as long as her dads around she won't being going full nude.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-01-2010, 01:20 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
I'm also confused why you even care Tom

It seemed to me in both Chloe, Kid are All Right and Love and Other Drugs that the actresses were pulling a "hey look at me, I even went so far as to show of my tits for this role...now cast me for the next one"

Love and Other Drugs it looked like Hathaway had a minimum amount of nude shots that needed to be shown as per contract.

And to the fella that mentioned, welcome to R rated. Love and Other Drugs is rated 14A...the equivalent of Pg-13, not sure how the US has a tougher rating.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-01-2010, 01:55 AM:

quote:
And this bothers you why?.... [Smile]

Because it adds nothing to the story line, sets a poor example and is entertainment only for those guys with raging hormones who view women as objects.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-01-2010, 02:06 AM:

You should watch more foreign movies.

*EVERY* French movie has, at least, one scene where somebody gets naked. The problem is that it's usually a fat, sweaty, old man.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-01-2010, 02:30 AM:

quote:
[Smile]
Because it adds nothing to the story line, sets a poor example and is entertainment only for those guys with raging hormones who view women as objects.

I am glad others can see why I started this thread.

Looking back at Naomi Rapace, Lisbeth in the book actually gets implants at one point while in the movie she does not. So I can see the director making a point of this.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-01-2010, 04:12 AM:

Naomi Rapeface is one of the few people I would actually promote getting implants. She really needs them (a face transplant wouldn't hurt, either).

quote: Tom Petrov
It seemed to me in both Chloe, Kid are All Right and Love and Other Drugs that the actresses were pulling a "hey look at me, I even went so far as to show of my tits for this role...now cast me for the next one"

Julianne Moore is almost always showing some, has been for a looong time. Surely you've seen her pubes by now.

quote: Tom Petrov
I am glad others can see why I started this thread.

So nudity is bad? But violence is OK, right? As far as viewing women as objects... who cares? Trust me, women view guys in the same manner, they're just not as vulgar about it.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-01-2010, 08:46 AM:

As we used to say in reference to teen horror movies:

"Quick, your only hope is to take off your clothes!"

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-01-2010, 10:58 AM:

and now you know why I got into this business. . . . Louis

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-01-2010, 11:12 AM:

People get naked in movies because people get naked in real life. The human body is not a BAD thing. (Except for the fat sweaty guys mentioned above, that's bad.)

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-01-2010, 11:14 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
not sure how the US has a tougher rating.

Perhaps it has something to do with US != Canada?

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-01-2010, 12:01 PM:

Hey, fat sweaty guys getting naked is NOT bad. But watching it is. [puke]

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 12-01-2010, 12:01 PM:

It seems to be a recent trend but when an actress becomes famous for "light" roles and then decides she wants to be taken seriously, a sex scene seems to do the trick with critics and Oscar voters. I don't think it adds to the story. It's a career move. Plus, it seems that women who are insecure about their bodies and/or the way their bodies are aging think that showing off is somehow empowering. It's sad, really.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-02-2010, 01:14 AM:

Did you miss Susan Sarandon, Glenn Close, Jessica Lange, Signourney Weaver,Demi Moore showing their tits in the 80s and earlier? Almost every actress out there has been naked on camera.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2010, 01:25 AM:

Hell, Sigourney Weaver was showin' them in some late 90's movie that I played at the UA I was working at. I can't remember what it was called, but I remember her standing in a kitchen topless, probably crying or being all emo. It was an artsy movie, I think.

EDIT: It was The Ice Storm

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-02-2010, 01:36 AM:

Even Julie Andrews showed hers, in the Blake Edwards movie "S.O.B." from the early 80s or thereabouts.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-02-2010, 03:56 AM:

Mike

That's very true about Julie Andrews.
I remember at the time that the topless scene was a major advertising hook for the film.

Rating of film : *** of *****
Rating of Julie's assets **** of *****

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-02-2010, 04:16 AM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
Because it adds nothing to the story line, sets a poor example and is entertainment only for those guys with raging hormones who view women as objects.

I understand where you are coming from but sometimes I would rather see a nice pair of breasts than someones head being blown off.

Meg Ryan made a statement in an interview, I think around the time When Harry Met Sally came out. She said she wouldn't do a nude scene because it would cause the audience to shift thinking about the character she is playing to hey it's Meg Ryan with her tits hanging out. Seems like she may have done a nude scene in a movie since then. Not sure what movie if she did.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-02-2010, 05:03 AM:

I had a projectionist working for me in the late 80's who would cut out the nude and sex scenes when he broke down films. He had a reel with about 5 minutes of footage before I found out about it. Of course I had to preview it, then as I was laughing my ass off I called him a fucking perv. I told him he could keep the reel, but not to cut any more scenes out of prints.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-02-2010, 05:24 AM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
Meg Ryan made a statement in an interview, I think around the time When Harry Met Sally came out. She said she wouldn't do a nude scene because it would cause the audience to shift thinking about the character she is playing to hey it's Meg Ryan with her tits hanging out. Seems like she may have done a nude scene in a movie since then. Not sure what movie if she did.

The one I can think of off the top of my head was "In the Cut" a rather horrible movie actually.

Like Monte and others have said, this isn't something thats all of a sudden the new "IT" thing in movies. This has been going on forever.

quote: Tom Petrov
It seemed to me in both Chloe, Kid are All Right and Love and Other Drugs that the actresses were pulling a "hey look at me, I even went so far as to show of my tits for this role...now cast me for the next one"

Do you really think that these actresses need to show their boobs or other parts to get roles? I know your saying it "seemed" but it sounds more like your stating. How this subject became such a debatebale thread I don't know.

We should have a polling option on the site.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-02-2010, 12:12 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
I understand where you are coming from but sometimes I would rather see a nice pair of breasts than someones head being blown off.

Don't get me wrong Darryl. I believe the most beautiful thing God ever created is the female. But I think putting one's body on public display only cheapens that beautiful creation. And I agree with you 100%. I think today's special effects have gotten way out of line and create a lust in some for that gore.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 12-02-2010, 12:46 PM:

The Bare Facts Video Guide hasn't updated since 2001.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-02-2010, 08:19 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
Because it adds nothing to the story line, sets a poor example and is entertainment only for those guys with raging hormones who view women as objects.

It may not add anything to the story, but it sure keeps me interested in watching it. [Big Grin]

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-03-2010, 01:15 PM:

Why am I not surprised that Tom brought this up? [Big Grin]

Hell, I'm gay and even I think that chick tits are hot. [Smile]

(But man boobs are gross!)

Like prostitution (and notice that TIT is part of that word), nudity in the arts is as old as humankind. Done tastefully, why get riled up about it?

The only thing I don't like is the overall attitude that naked women are hot, and naked men (even those in great shape) are gross. (I do however think man-parts are funny looking.)

There are always those who are offended by one thing or another, and I have no problem with them as long as they don't try to force their morals or standards on me.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-03-2010, 04:35 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Like prostitution (and notice that TIT is part of that word)

Sometimes it helps if you break a word down to understand it better. PROS...doesn't mean anything...TIT...I think we all know what that is...TU...two (tits)...and TION...to say no, to push away, say nu-uh I don't want it...doesn't even belong in this word.

So at this point I think it's important that I see all of your breasts.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-03-2010, 11:09 PM:

Here's my 2¢ on the topic:

I always laugh a little whenever any man pretends to be offended by the sight of exposed female breasts in a movie. Don't try to bring up that scene with the old woman ghost in The Shining. That's not "offense" you experienced, digust and horrible feelings of mortality and nihilism are more like it. Usually if a Hollywood movie camera is pointed at a woman's rack it is pointed there because it looks GREAT! Just like Kellogg's Frosted Flakes™.

Maybe this is the old Madonna-whore Freudian adolescent complex at work, something America has never been able to grow past when it comes to sex and how we see the female body.

There are far worse things out there worthy of inciting offended feelings and self righteous indignation than an exposed pair of female breasts in a scene of simulated sexual activity in a Hollywood movie.

News flash to Tom Petrov: American movies have rarely used nudity in recent years. Most R-rated American movies are R-rated just for violence and profanity -no nudity! Today it's possible for an American movie to be rated R just for references to drug use and smoking! 20 to 30 years ago many more R-rated movies had at least a scene or two with exposed tits and perhaps ass or even BUSH! Sheesh, it seems most women these days (going by the ones I've been with over the last decade) are shaving off theirs. I digress.

Sex in Hollywood cinema is pretty laughable. How can anyone be offended by it? The shit is TAME and LAME at best compared to other outlets. The content seems like Disneyland® compared to some of the programming on premium cable TV. The stuff is positively saintly next to what anyone can easily see on the Internet. And that's just confining the discussion to sex.

I find the trend with violence much more disturbing. The MPAA isn't doing anything wrong with branding movies with an R-rating when the violence passes a certain level. Unfortunately graphic violence is more and more tolerated in cable and free broadcast network TV programming. There's a serious amount of what I feel is R-rated quality blood and gore being put on display. I have the feeling few people if anyone cares about this. It's more palatable to see a nurse on the TV series Grey's Anatomy get her brains blown out by a killer walking the hospital halls than for that nurse to show off her boobs in a love scene. In the Fall season premiere we got the graphic, shot out nurse brains, but no boobs.

Going deeper into this, the whole thing with simulated gore and naked tits is superficial. There's no substance to it.

Want to know what I find most offensive? CRUELTY.

So called "reality TV" liberally indulges in broadcasting cruelty. The TV series Survivor rewards the most cruel, scheming son of a bitch as the winner. Shows like The Bachelor don't show any naked tits. But they sure do show contestants using sex as a weapon to stab each other in the back to claw their way to the top. American Idol is just about done, but its big selling point in the beginning was Simon Cowell being as big an asshole as possible to contestants.

American society is a sick, twisted, judgmental lot -at least if you go by what Hollywood and mass media give us for entertainment. We get off on looking down our noses at other people. It's an American pasttime.

In the end we have to ask ourselves: "why do we have these ratings for movies and TV shows?" Um, sending the right message to children is the usual answer. Well, from where I sit those messages of violence and back-stabbing people for opportunity are toxic to kids. A lot more toxic than tits. But dealing with those issues is just too damned complicated. So let's stick with the easy, superficial shit! No bare tits (or any naked woman parts), no smoking, no smoking dope, no cussing and try to keep the brain exploding mayhem to a minimum. Say whatever you want even if it has to do with fucking. Just don't do it on screen. If you can just do emotionally cruel shit to each other. That stuff is just perfectly fine.

quote: Joe Redifer
It was The Ice Storm

I don't remember Sigourney Weaver bearing her breasts in The Ice Storm. The character she played sure wasn't a crying in the kitchen emo type either, just an icy, selfish bitch. I've seen that movie a couple different times. Although it had some strong sexual subject matter, I can't remember the movie actually having any nudity in it at all. It probably pissed off lots of viewers to see actors talking about screwing, taking part in simulated screwing while wearing clothes and liberally using the "F" word -yet not showing any skin.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-04-2010, 05:04 AM:

Maybe it was some other movie. It bombed pretty badly.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-04-2010, 11:21 AM:

Halle Berry lowering the book in SWORDFISH (2001) really did come unexpected - usually it would have been handled Austin Powers (part 1) style... [Smile]

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 12-04-2010, 01:58 PM:

I suppose one reason why this on-screen nudity creeps some people out is that they have gone through the full intellectual exercise. How weird would it be for YOU to take off your clothes for a film crew and then for countless viewers that you don't know? Do YOU want to be on some web site database of celebrity nudity? Is that what you had in mind when you made your artistic choice? Once you've put your "art" into the world, you have no control over how it's accepted.

The idea that, somehow, the willingness to be naked for a movie makes you a "better" or "more dedicated" actor is pure nonsense. We can see from some of the comments in this very discussion that, often, the nudity is appreciated as it would be if it were common, ordinary porn.

Continue the intellectual exercise. What if the woman getting naked for the film crew were your wife or girlfriend? Your daughter? Your mother? Are you questioning the choice at all yet?

So many of these actresses portray themselves as a "girl next door" or "America's sweetheart" or even a live-action Disney princess before doing stuff like this. I don't think it's any wonder that some of us are disappointed.

Anne Hathaway jokes about her onscreen nudity

Who's being the most honest in that little comedy moment? Who's fooling herself about how the point of it all is serious art?

And, nothing personal, but when you try to turn this into a discussion about "there's too much violence on the screen" you're beside the point. Nobody was talking about violence. Every time someone questions sex or nudity in the media someone else tries to divert the topic into a discussion of violence. It's a weak tactic.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-04-2010, 02:58 PM:

I disagree. IMO, that's the "full intellectual exercise" on why you would personally choose to not be naked in front of a camera rather than an "intellectual exercise" on why naked people on-screen seem creepy to some.

And heck, I'd be a bit creeped outknowing that people had video circling of me even with my clothes on. Does that mean that acting in general is creepy? No.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-04-2010, 03:42 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
why do we have these ratings for movies and TV shows?" Um, sending the right message to children is the usual answer.

That's never what the ratings are about. The ratings are simply to give parents INFORMATION about what a movie contains that they might not want their kids to see. No more, no less. The fact that the studios have turned the ratings into a marketing gimmick, and that parents use them to help them dodge their job of parenting, is not the ratings' fault.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2010, 05:01 PM:

I probably could have said what I said about the purpose of the ratings system a bit better. But it's still kind of the same thing. The parents see the "R" logo and automatically know the movie is probably something they should not allow their kids to watch.

I do agree the ratings help parents dodge some of their parental duties. My parents weren't as squeamish as so many parents are about having frank discussions with their children over adult subject matter in movies, music, etc. They felt it was more important to put that stuff in its proper perspective rather than foolishly trying to sheild us from it. Me and my brother were going to see a bunch of that stuff at some point anyway. My parents wanted us to learn about it properly rather than letting us jump to wrong conclusions and make stupid, destructive, life changing choices on those wrong conclusions.

quote: Greg Anderson
And, nothing personal, but when you try to turn this into a discussion about "there's too much violence on the screen" you're beside the point. Nobody was talking about violence. Every time someone questions sex or nudity in the media someone else tries to divert the topic into a discussion of violence. It's a weak tactic.

No it is not a weak tactic. All I am doing with bringing up widespread violence in entertainment is pointing out the hypocrisy present with America's salad bar style of fake morality. We pick and choose a few things to make off limits while allowing a lot of other toxic crap to be tolerated. There's no consistency.

A big part of American society characterizes sex as a dirty activity that should be off limits to most of us. Another part of American society portrays sex as a type of currency meant to be traded only among the best looking and most affluent people. Again, the intention is there to make it off limits to most people.

Sex is a common, natural, normal part of life. The nude human figure is a natural thing and has been an icon in art for thousands of years.

Sex is necessary to our society. IMHO, sex is a major factor in what drives the American economy. If we didn't have the drive to pair up with someone and start a family our economy would collapse. We wouldn't need the bigger vehicles, bigger houses and all the stuff to fill those living spaces. If the pursuit of sex was not important the vast majority of us would just stay single and live more modest, simple and far more affordable life styles.

The point about "intellectual exercise" and some lady being someone's wife, mother, daughter, girlfriend, etc. sounds like another example of characterizing nudity and sex into something that is dirty. The vast majority of adults have had sex and maintain active sex lives if they're able to do so. That goes regardless of whether the adult is someone's wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father, etc.

With that being said, dramatized sex and nudity can have a place in a movie with adult characters. Sex is a critical part of most relationships and is a factor in maintaining or destroying relationships.

Speaking of what isn't necessary, violence isn't really necessary to our society. I don't go through my daily life committing acts of violence against other people. One could make a good argument that violence isn't very necessary to movies either (although most action genres would be destroyed without it).

quote: Greg Anderson
The idea that, somehow, the willingness to be naked for a movie makes you a "better" or "more dedicated" actor is pure nonsense. We can see from some of the comments in this very discussion that, often, the nudity is appreciated as it would be if it were common, ordinary porn.

Again this sounds like nudity being characterized as something dirty, especially with porn being brought into the discussion. There's a lot more to sex than the superficial stuff shown by the porn industry.

The kind of sex performed in hardcore porn videos and most of the stuff in softcore shows on cable is not normal sex. It's a bunch of mechanical, goal-oriented garbage. It's mostly jerk-off fodder for sexually dissatisfied men; very little of it is designed for women or couples to watch.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-04-2010, 11:02 PM:

It should be mandatory for an actress to show her rack.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-06-2010, 12:41 AM:

If anyone remembers From Dusk Till Dawn.

The Salma Hayek dancing scene works because she did NOT take off her top. It would of spoiled the scene, and then when Clooney says "Now that was a show"....he was right.

While she didn't take off her top, the rest of the girls were nude and her scene worked because she left it on.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-06-2010, 04:12 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
While she didn't take off her top, the rest of the girls were nude and her scene worked because she left it on.

Ah...now it all makes sense.

There are many gay members in Film-Tech. You need not stay in the closet.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-06-2010, 04:36 AM:

quote:

You need not stay in the close

Speak for yourself.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-06-2010, 05:30 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov

Speak for yourself.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-06-2010, 05:32 AM:

quote:
[Wink]

Why you are winking at me?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 12-06-2010, 10:10 AM:

Another weak tactic enters the discussion. When did anyone here declare that sex is dirty? When did Tom say he's gay? You shouldn't be able to "win the argument" by making up something the other guy didn't say and then criticizing the other guy for it. (But it happens in politics all the time.)

I would modify the statement that "sex is a common, natural, normal part of life" by saying that it's a common, natural, normal part of a person's private life. And that's why, when it appears in the movies, a lot of people don't appreciate it. That's also why a lot of people can't process the idea of sharing any of it with a movie crew or random viewers.

When I hear someone talk about a "nice rack" on an actress who's trying to be "a serious artist" I tend to conclude that her "art" is being appreciated as it would be if it were common, ordinary porn. Porn is in the eye of the beholder, of course. When did I say that nudity was dirty? For all you know, Bobby, I am attempting to appreciate fine art while surrounded by guys who cheapen my experience by talking about "a nice rack."

There are plenty of people who have absolutely no hang-ups when it comes to sex; People who do it a lot and are as satisfied as you can imagine. Out of those people, most of them don't even like to talk about what they do in private, except for with their chosen partner. There's nothing dirty about their lives but they still don't shout about themselves. Why should they?

Ironically, it's the porn industry which teaches us that "bad" people are having sex or that "naughty girls" take off their clothes. Hollywood often reinforces that same message.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-06-2010, 11:00 AM:

There was a time when saying someone has a "nice rack" was kind of tawdry, something dudes would say in a bar, but I think now it's almost taken as a compliment. Hell, I've heard WOMEN refer to some other woman having a nice rack.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-06-2010, 12:21 PM:

For some women now, it's a purchasable commodity, a status symbol like a Mercedes Benz or a Hummer. So that is why it's not considered dirty anymore. I think there have been entire episodes of those "Housewives" reality shows devoted to getting a "new pair of tits," If I hear the conversations three or four times flipping through channels in an hour, I can only imagine how they are corrupting women who watch them for a straight hour, then twitter about them.

As for female nudity, some of the stuff on here is laughable. First off, nudity isn't always about sex. Men have been sculpting, painting, and drawing naked women for probably ten thousand years. There are pictures of naked women scrawled in red paint on the walls of caves.

Even since Ancient Greece, the naked female form has been considered the pinnacle of human beauty.

Women in Paris in the 1600 used to bare one or both of them, in a royal court that I assume the Church Hierarchy would be present for.

So all this talk about how it is this recent modern corruption thing is pure horseshit. The fact is the United States more than others, is incompletely separated from the Victorian Yoke of the 1800s prudishness.

Go back even a hundred years earlier and sex was far more accepted, openly talked about.

What chaps my ass is when someone has the audacity to request that a fiine art nude photograph be taken down from an art show at a college (it was instead moved. . .to the back). Naked statues are covered up; students work censored in high schools.

Even in the Victorian Era these things would have been accepted.

But nudity in movies is nothing new. It's been in MODERN movies since the late '50s early '60s. It's been in movies since their beginnings up until the mid 20s. It's been used to titilate little boys and working men into visiting the nickelodeons since the beginning of this industry, just as skimpy outfits and risque subjects were used in stage plays and vaudeville before that.

In fact, stage plays had a big draw during censorship because plays DIDN"T sensor what movies did at the time. Just watch the theatrical version of "The Man Who Came to Dinner," and compare it to the Hollywood production. Even the word "ASS" didn't survive the censors in the '40s. They must have cut out three or four pages of the script!

So, to be blunt and answer the question: NO, it is not a new thing for actresses to show off their tits. Sex has been selling all aspects of entertainment since the beginning of time.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-06-2010, 01:10 PM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
Even the word "ASS" didn't survive the censors

What I find hilarious (and somewhat inexplicable) is that today, on TV, if someone uses the word 'asshole,' they will bleep the "hole" and leave "ass" intact. WTF?

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-06-2010, 01:53 PM:

Yeah, ridiculous. I think it has something to do with them censoring body parts and functions?

Shit and fuck are OK now though, after a certain time? Not that I am a prude, just surprised to see tits and F-bombs on TV a mere six years (four actually) after Janet Jackson's showing off her "Go-go dancer" outfit at the Superbowl.

Howabout censoring out "God" in "Goddamn" or "Jesus Christ."

My favorite "Judas PRIEST, Jack!" when Jack Goddell (Jack Lemmon) takes over the control room at his nuclear plant in "The China Syndrome."

It was so ridiculous, I actually commented "What a stupid line," until I found out that was a dub.

Is that *really* an effort to show religious reverence, or is it more an attempt to censor out religion lest it offend someone?

I think invoking the "Lord's name" in a situation where someone points a gun at you is a perfectly appropriate use of prayer, even by those of dubious faith. . .

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-06-2010, 02:49 PM:

quote:
My favorite "Judas PRIEST, Jack!"

They used that in the TV version of The Exorcist too...except for the Jack bit.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-06-2010, 02:57 PM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
Howabout censoring out "God" in "Goddamn" or "Jesus Christ."

I saw Back To The Future when it came out, and then after that only on television until we ran it last year. I was really surprised how often it uses "Jesus Christ" as an expletive.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-06-2010, 03:37 PM:

I laughed at a cut for TV version of John Carpenter's: The Thing. They changed "bullshit" into "bull stuff." One of George Carlin's best jokes on this topic was "shoot." You can't fool me! "Shoot" is "shit" with two Os!

quote: Greg Anderson
Another weak tactic enters the discussion. When did anyone here declare that sex is dirty?

I didn't say anyone here said it was dirty, but it is a fact many Americans do indeed characterize sex as being dirty and they're not joking about it. Some of the fellows here may poke fun at the issue of nudity in movies with coarse jokes, but it's pretty dismissive to suggest they're appreciating it just like they would "ordinary porn."

BTW, John was joking with Tom when he suggested Tom might be gay. Not that there's anything wrong with it!

I don't agree with Tom about that scene in From Dusk Til Dawn. It took me out of the movie a bit when Selma Hayek didn't take off her top like the other exotic dancers. She's a character who dances in a strip bar. Hello! When she kept her top in place it made me think of Hayek's acting contract rather than concentrate on the movie.

quote: Greg Anderson
I would modify the statement that "sex is a common, natural, normal part of life" by saying that it's a common, natural, normal part of a person's private life. And that's why, when it appears in the movies, a lot of people don't appreciate it.

The problem with this statement is that movies are made up largely of what goes in with the private lives of the characters being portrayed. The viewer is the voyeristic fly on the wall being witness to all sorts of things we don't see a lot of in our daily lives. All sorts of private activities are blown up on the big screen by movies. Even lots of scenes that don't involve any sex or violence. We're still being voyers to it all.

I agree sex is a private activity for real people. More than a few actors are not comfortable shooting simulated love scenes in the nude. Most male actors, except for maybe Harvey Keitel, are not willing to be full frontal nude on camera for obvious reasons. But that's part of a long list of things many actors aren't willing to do on screen out of concern for how it might affect their movie star persona.

Death is also a private matter. I don't want a bunch of cameras taping me take my last breaths. Yet we see fictional characters die all the time in movies and TV shows. The deaths of real people are sometimes shown in news programs. IMHO, those terrorists in Iraq made about the most offensive porn videos ever by sawing off the heads of bound, defenseless people while chanting "God is Great" for the camera. Military people I know say it was common to find people on the street corners of Baghdad selling DVDs of that stuff right alongside pirated DVDs of Hollywood movies. I can't imagine how terrible and violated the families of those murder victims must feel with snuff videos featuring their loved ones being traded on street corners.

Thankfully what goes in with Hollywood movies is mostly make believe and the actors are willing participants.

quote: Greg Anderson
Ironically, it's the porn industry which teaches us that "bad" people are having sex or that "naughty girls" take off their clothes. Hollywood often reinforces that same message.

It's more than just the porn industry and Hollywood doing that. The advertising industry, music industry and fashion industry twist sex around in the same manner. Going in the other direction different groups of people just try to block it out as much as possible as if it didn't exist. IMHO, neither side is dealing with the issue in an intelligent manner. That makes it more critical than ever for parents to have the courage to teach their teen aged kids properly about the subject, and not just the consequences of sex either.

quote: Mike Blakesley
What I find hilarious (and somewhat inexplicable) is that today, on TV, if someone uses the word 'asshole,' they will bleep the "hole" and leave "ass" intact. WTF?

I wonder why they bother bleeping any of it. It's very easy to fill in the bleeps and blanks. Kind of like Wheel of Fortune. We know what the character said even if we didn't hear entirely all of the phrase. It's not all that difficult to lip read either.

A long time ago Mad Magazine had a cartoon of a family sitting on the couch watching TV. The voice balloon above the TV set had some phrase with a word bleeped out of it. Every character on the couch, including the family dog sitting next to the couch, had thought balloons above their heads filling in the blank.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-06-2010, 03:41 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
A long time ago Mad Magazine had a cartoon of a family sitting on the couch watching TV. The voice balloon above the TV set had some phrase with a word bleeped out of it. Every character on the couch, including the family dog sitting next to the couch, had thought balloons above their heads filling in the blank.

Ha! I remember that one! [beer]

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 12-06-2010, 04:28 PM:

I was always taught in school that "taking the LORD's name in vain" was using it as a curse.

Short of watching a Sunday televangelist asking you to tithe for an hour in the name of Jesus the Carpenter (Which in some cases I find to be far more brazen and offensive), where can you hear "Jesus Christ" on the air?

The twats that scrub the airwaves aren't even smart enough to get it right. While they're at it, why don't they get rid of "Jeez" too? That's just shorthand for the same thing, like "GO[O]DB[']YE" is a corrupted form of "GOD BE WITH YE."

They say they're showing tolerance to religious faiths, but they're just scrubbing the airwaves of anything prone to cause controversy, like they're covering up tits on classical depictions of Justice as a naked Greek goddess.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-06-2010, 07:20 PM:

To paraphrase George Carlin there's really no such thing as "bad words." There are bad feelings and bad intentions, but not bad words.

That's part of what makes the attempts to sanitize movies, TV shows, music, etc. both funny and sad. The message is still getting through loud and clear regardless of how the superficial surface is changed. This is one reason why I am more offended by certain so called reality TV shows and trash TV talk shows like Jerry Springer's than what I see in mainstream Hollywood movies.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-06-2010, 11:55 PM:

There are 400,000 words in the English language, and there are seven of them you can't say on television. What a ratio that is! 399,993....to seven. They must really be bad! They'd have to be outrageous! to be separated from a group that large! "All of you over here, you seven: BAD WORDS!"

(Classic Carlin)