Is all nudity gratuitous?

Every so often in film discussions, I run across the term “gratuitous nudity”, usually when discussing a movie like American Pie. This leads me to the conclusion that there is and can be nudity meaningful and even important to a movie’s plot. Is there such a thing? Or does the introduction of a naked woman automatically lower the merits of a film? I know that Beach Babes From Beyond is not great cinema, but if it had a great plot, great acting and everything else a “better” film does, and still had tons of naked and semi-naked women in it, would it still be bad for that reason?

It was kinda necessary in The Crying Game.

When the plot involves nudity as a response to puritan values or whatnot then it is probably necessary. Or when showing native people as they were, like in Rapa Nui…Mmmmm…Sandrine Holt…

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover has nudity (sometimes, but not always erotic) that is essential to the experience of the film. It is possible to execute the plot, and convey the themes of the film, without any nudity, but that would have been a poor artistic choice on Greenaway’s part.

“Gratuitous nudity” != “not essential to the plot.” Each film has so many of its own elements that it’s very slippery to nail down.

My theory: if a movie is so bad that only bare breasts will get asses in the seats, that’s undebatably gratuitous nudity.

If it’s a good movie anyway, maybe it isn’t. Sometimes it’s artistically a poor choice… for example, if Galadriel were to strip naked in the midst of Lord of the Rings for no apparent reason, it would probably be in poor taste and there for suspectible reasons. But if there were a tastefully-filmed scene where all of the elves of Lothlorien bathed in a healing pool, it could be a beautiful scene in a beautiful film. I’d take issue with anyone who said it was gratuitous just because it wasn’t in the damned book.

A filmmaker’s job is to show his audience something moving, something beautiful, something stirring, something that provokes a reaction. I can think of no single thing on the planet that does these better than the nude human form.

Not everything in a movie is supposed to be involved in the plot; a movie consists of plot, plus theme, plus characters, plus presentation. Sure, the nudity in American Beauty might not be entirely germaine to the plot, but neither was the long, strange shot of the plastic bag playing in the wind currents. Neither was gratuitous.

For a real education in nudity, see the unrated version of Y Tu Mama Tambien; the movie revolves around sex, and yet is never, in my opinion, gratuitous.

Isn’t “gratuitous nudity” an oxymoron?

There was a fair bit of nudity in Schindler’s List, and I’d say it was entirely necessary for both historical accuracy and to show just how dehumanizing the camps were.

Jumping to the entirely opposite end of the film spectrum, nudity in porno can’t possibly be gratuitous, because nudity is the entire point of that sort of film. If anything, pornos tend to suffer from gratuitous plot and acting.

Why is it that of all the arts, we associate ‘gratuitous nudity’ with film (still or in motion) and not painting or sculpture?

I mean does Manet’s “Luncheon on the Grass” have gratuitous nudity? or Rodin’s “Thinker” and Michelangelo’s “David”? In those cases I assume a model posed, and the artists did their best to replicate accurately every contour and bump in the same way a camera captures shades of light. I suppose when we are seeing people on a screen it somehow becomes more gratuitous.

It is funny, but when Harvey Keitel is asked what it’s like to be famous for being nude on screen or showing his privates in interviews, his response is something like “oh that wasn’t me, that was an image of my character” (I am paraphrasing). That is completely correct, but we just can’t accept that statement at face value can we?

I think the term “gratuitous” is sometimes used to express disapproval without thinking about what the word actually means. “Gratuitous nudity” has become a stock phrase.

I mean’t “or showing his privates, in interviews his response…”

To my knowledge, at least Harvey Keitel has never whipped it out on “The View” or next to Conan O’Brien…

Sometimes one character must be nude to show another characters reaction. Think The Talented Mr. Ripley or maybe The Graduate

(actually I don’t think the Graduate showed anything)

But obviously there are plenty of non-gratuitous nudity.

–snort–

I’ll follow up on what Manduck said. Why is “gratuitous” so frequently paired with “nudity” anyway? Doesn’t that just reinforce the prurient/puritan dichotomy that underlies our screwed-up culture?

I mean, you’d never say a movie suffered from gratuitous automobiles, for example.

Was any part of The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover supposed to be erotic? The experience of that film was about as pleasant as the experience of castor oil.

I’m more annoyed by gratuitous non-nudity. You know, the L-shaped sheets so that a females breasts are covered, strategic shooting so that no naughty parts are shown, etc. It really takes me out of the film.

That, however, would certainly be gratuituous.

I do remember a NYTBR piece which critcized “awards” for bad sex scenes. The author pointed out that Evelyn Waugh felt that “gratuitous” sex scenes were necessary because how a character has sex says a lot about that individual’s personality.

Agreed. Seeing that kind of artificial silliness is often jarring, and I have to spend a few seconds re-establishing my suspension of disbelief.

I find that nudity is incredibly necessary in pornos.

Well, yeah, there are plenty of movies where the sex is supposed to convey something about the personality or character of the participants, etc.

However, there are also movies where it’s obvious that the sex is thrown in just for the sake of having that obligatory hot scene to put in previews. If they had put a graphic sex scene smack dab in the middle of Memento or the Matrix (alliteration, anyone?), that would have been “gratuitous” IMHO.

However, in movies like The Piano, a concrete argument can be made about nudity for an artistic purpose.

Actually, Cervaise brings up a good point, one which I’ve often thought about while watching certain films. A lot of things besides nudity can be gratuitous. Off the top of my head, I just watched the Lord of the Rings DVD again, and it struck me that was a lot of gratuitous stuff in there. There are a lot of long, panning shots of various landscapes and natural features, which do add to the feel and authenticity of the film, but after a certain point, you get a little tired of that shot of rolling hills and mountain peaks beyond, and you start wondering why yet another shot of this is necessary. Certainly not to the plot. And the many, many shots of Elijah Wood looking like a deer caught in headlights- I understand this is meant to convey the horror and confusion of the situation his in, and portray his own character’s response to it, but after the fourth or fifth time the camera lingers on his face at an important moment, it starts to feel gratuitous.

Nudity can be gratuitous- it often does not do anything to either move the plot along, establish character personality or motives, or lend accuracy to the film. Sometimes it’s just thrown in to keep the audience interested. But non-nudity can be just as gratuitous, as the grim spectre of red death pointed out. Carefully arranged sheets, torturous camera angles, et al. can lend an air of inaccuracy to a film. If the characters portrayed are supposed in the plot to be intimate and alone, why the prudish need to cover up? Do real people act like this? I’d wager not. At least, I don’t.

And then there’s the matter, often mocked on The Simpsons, of gratuitous explosions. Must everything blow up? Is every building, street corner, etc. wired with a charge in action movies? Has anyone ever seen Con Air? Most gratuitous use of explosions I’ve ever seen.

Gratuitous gore, as well. Do we really need to see that ‘spurt of blood from the throat’ effect in so many movies? Or that ‘shot in shoulder, but keeps on truckin’ scene?

Could it be that ‘gratuitous’ is just another word for ‘cliche’ when reviewers talk about sex in movies? 'Cause if you want to talk movie cliches, this thread might never end. And I’d argue a lot of cliches are gratuitous- they do nothing for the plot or characters or authenticity, they’re just thrown in due to custom or lack of original scriptwriting.

Or any scene of someone undressing where you jump from a wide shot to a close-up of the face just when too much skin is about to be revealed :rolleyes:. We’re so puritanical here in the U.S.