Sorry, that last post was actually by me, due to my failure to follow proper logging-off protocols.
Hear, hear.
More hijack – I remember a low budget scifi movie called HARDWARE. Released in the UK, did fairly well. There was a single sex scene in it which got it an X rating in the US, so they cut the scene down (not out entirely) and added more violence, which gave it an R rating here.
The British filmmakers found it very backwards that us yanks had no problem with violence murder and mayhem, but show some nekkedness and we all freaked out.
Honestly, I’d recommend just watching the movie and not worrying about the extremely brief nude shots. I don’t think they’d total 5 seconds of screen time if you added them all together, and the topless Jane Seymour scene was shot so you can’t see any of the fun parts.
Meanwhile, I’m going to go home and search the Atlas for a country where gratuitous movie violence AND nudity are both encouraged! 
People spend a part of their life naked and engaged in intercourse. To omit that from a movie is artificial and sends a message, to portray it accurately or with humor does not carry nearly as much weight.
Or because things like sex and nudity are a natural part of life…
I really hate to stand on the side of implying that The Wedding Crashers is Art, but the above statement does seem to fit the definition of art, albeit in the lower chamber. I’m not criticizing the OP for his(?) opinion on the matter, but tally me up with the folks that find the attitude a mite peculiar.
From what I’ve seen lately from directors like Ki-duk Kim and Chan-wook Park, South Korea is your best bet. There’s been some brutal/sexually explicit stuff coming out of France in the last couple of years, too.
Stranger
Substitute “people of above average attractiveness” or “feet” or “nice scenery” or “extras in the background” or “hair” into the above sentence to replace “naked breasts” and it makes no more and no less sense.
If you don’t like seeing nudity who am I to comment, but don’t pretend the “it’s unnecessary” argument takes you anywhere.
I must jump on the bandwagon. If you don’t like seeing other people nude on screen, that’s your business (and your loss), but the rationalization you put forth is just dopey.
You recognize that the purpose of displaying breasts in the film is to entertain those who would be entertained thereby. You’ll probably also agree that said people were, in fact, so entertained. (If not, I’ll offer some empirical evidence on that score.) But what other purpose does the film have but to entertain? So you’re saying that the film’s goal of entertaining is OK, but that some elements of the film’s gestalt are acceptable or “necessary,” and others are not? You have no basis for such a statement other than to assert that you don’t like it. Which, like I said, is your business. But recognize that it is just that – a personal opinion (which, thank god, most of us do not share) and not based on any framework of reason.
I also think that Socrates would tell you to review your stance – the fact that you accept jokes about titties but not the titties themselves suggests that there’s an internal inconsistency there that self-appraisal might resolve. But I’m not going to tell you to do that, because I’m not him. I do think you’re wrong, obviously, but if you like fresh tomatoes I think you’re wrong about that, too.
Finally, however, I think that you should recognize that your stance demands inferior art. That, in itself, is not necessarily a reason to change said stane – in capitalism, the customer is king, regardless. But having a movie about two dudes who score every weekend but nonetheless find it unsatisfying without any boobs, I submit, would be a worse film than the one we have, because when people have sex they take their clothes off (with the occasional exception) in every context but one – American film (and television). To make a film where sex is such an important component and refuse to show nudity because of some disjointed view of what is appropriate in film means that the movie will be less realistic, will require a greater suspension of disbelief, and will be less effective at saying whatever it wants to say about the characters engaging in such pursuits. (And Wedding Crashers in particular, although its main job is to make you laugh, does in fact make some non-trivial insights into the characters of its protagonists – it’s neither empty-headed nor heartless.) It’s like making a war movie where nobody dies – that’s not how things actually turn out in wars, so having such a scheme weakens the picture. Again, that’s legit if you think that the cost in verisimilitude is worth the gain of not having to feel uncomfortable at the theatre (you must have stadium seating). But recognize that these costs do exist.
I’m not saying Wedding Crashers couldn’t have been made without all those actresses getting their baps out. But it would have been a lesser film for two reasons as illustrated above – 1. the scenes would be less realistic and harder to accept; and 2. it wouldn’t have any knockers to look at.
–Cliffy
This thread has headed in a bunch of different directions so I’m trying to make some sense of it.
Lessee,
I think I should invent a machine that make everybody in a recorded movie look ugly. I could probably make a lot of money. After all, the recognition of physical beauty can only provoke evil thoughts and wreck marriages. We can talk about “hot babes” and “horny sluts” but we should never look at them, that’s only for people that love “hot babes” and “horny sluts”.
It’s OK to paint a picture of a beautiful person (that’s called art) but taking a photograph of that same person is crude and invasive.
“Private parts” are the stuff where babies come from and doctors get a free pass. If you show someone you don’t “love” the stuff that makes babies then you have really screwed up. Therefore, stay out of locker rooms.
Did I get this straight? Have I missed something? I’m just trying to figure this out.
You forgot that part. It makes me sad – I LOVE fresh tomatoes – but at least I know it’s a wrong kind of love now.
Ah well. Back to the sheep it is.
:dubious:
FlyingCowOfDoom - I think there’s a genuine and interesting topic for debate here, would you be happy to participate in a debate format thread on this topic?
‘Appealing to those who derive pleasure from…’ is actually a significant part of the definition of art, I’d say. There’s no artistic reason to include jokes in the movie (assuming there are actually some in there), save for the fact that people want them. That’s entertainment. That’s what it means.
And breasts are just breasts. Really, it’s almost exactly the same issue, regardless of whether the item in question is a word or a breast.
First, whenever I talk about nudity, I’m talking about nudity in a SEXUAL CONTEXT. If you’re talking about paintings, pictures, etc. of naked people that aren’t in a sexual contest, it doesn’t bother me. I thought I said that already, but maybe I needed to elaborate more.
I don’t care if you like to look at breasts, etc. I personally don’t want to see it in a sexual context.
Sex and nudity are a part of normal life, but they aren’t meant to be seen by anyone. You can show a sex scene in a movie without showing the breasts.
If you are ok with watching two people have sex, are you ok with someone else watching you have sex? If not, I think there’s a double standard there.
If you’re going to call my stance dopey, I’ll call yours crap. Point 1: Don’t tell me they couldn’t have used careful camera positioning and blocking so that the audience can’t see boobs but it is clear that the character having sex can. I believe they already do that in the movie (haven’t seen it but I gathered that from descriptions). Point 2: Objectifying women, what a wonderful attitude. There is a person attached to those “knockers”. If you’re watching a movie because of the nudity, you need to get a life and a girlfriend.
And that brings up another point. I believe that seeing boobs and other areas should be reserved for that special person. If you are ok with looking at random people naked, seeing your SO naked isn’t as special as it could be, and that makes me sad. I realize that you might not know the difference or care, but I still feel bad for you. I love my wife, and I love how special our relationship is. I don’t think it’s possible to have the same level of intimacy if you’re ok with seeing other people naked.
–FCOD
BTW - I think this thread should probably be moved, as it’s moved beyond my original question. That’s OK with me, because I got enough information to answer my question.
–FCOD
Assuming that the mods will allow this enquiry to continue, do you mean this in an absolutist fashion - i.e. even though you’re not imposing this viewpoint on other people, does it disturb you that other people see naked people. And how do you relate this to cultures other than your own, in which breasts (in particular, but other body parts too), are regularly visible? Or do you apply this only to your own culture - or indeed is it an entirely personal thing?
Oh, come now. I can just as easily reverse the “that makes me sad” statement about people who are unable to accept nudity and human sexuality outside their bedrooms.
So where do you draw the arbitrary line? In some cultures, it’s more than just boobs that are considered only appropriate in private contexts. Hell, even in our culture, at one point “a glimpse of stocking…” as the lyric goes. In other cultures, open boobs are perfectly fine and non-sexual.
Honestly, to me it’s odd to put that much weight on the relationship between nudity and intimacy. To me, intimacy is honesty/emotional/spiritual/intellectual, as well as sexual. Seeing other people naked does not decrease my desire for my SO. Hell, in many cases, it’s the opposite effect.
If that’s the way it affects you, fine. But I don’t think there’s anything sad about seeing boobies, and it doesn’t make seeing my SO’s boobies any less special to me. Although, to be honest, I never found breasts to be that big of a deal, so I guess I just don’t understand the fixation on them of the OP.
I don’t impose any of my viewpoints on other people. In this case, I feel both disturbed by and sorry for people that readily view sexual nudity without a problem.
Again, it’s not so much a problem if the nudity is not in a sexual context. If I accidentally walked into a nudist colony I would be uncomfortable, but not for the same reasons.
It doesn’t bother me that there are cultures in which it’s acceptable for women to walk around topless. It would bother me if there was a culture where people had sex on the street for anyone to see.
–FCOD
Ditto with the view reversed.
Actually, let me clarify. I really don’t feel sorry or certainly not disturbed for people who are conservative with their view on sexuality or nudity. I just find it a bit odd.
This is interesting; given that you have declared your position as not being a religiously-derived one, what exactly do you mean by “…they aren’t meant to…” ?
This is odd too and doesn’t seem particularly carefully thought-through; I’m happy to watch a stuntman drive a car through a brick wall; do I want to attempt it myself? No way.
On a more mundane level, I’m happy (in principle, anyway) to watch fly-on-the wall documentary about computer programmers tapping away on keyboards; do I particularly want to participate in such a documentary myself. Not really, I’d just rather not.
Or a financial advice programme, scrutinising someone’s spending habits and their bank statement in close detail; interesting to watch and if they’re happy to have that info published, then great, but do I have to do the same? I think not.
The symmetry on which you appear to be basing the allegation of double standard isn’t there, because people can give or withhold consent.