Nakedness in Hollywood (TV, Movies, & Stage)

Is it necessary? Does it add anything to the story? I’m not a prude, nor am I suggesting censorship of any kind. I’m just wondering at its value in the story telling.

One of my favorite scenes is in the movie All That Jazz called Air Erotica. It’s a suggestive dance number and halfway though, the dancers strip down, the men to their jockstraps, the women to panties & bra. Except for one woman who takes off her top exposing her large breast. Near the end of the dance, is an orgy scene, where for lack of a better word, our topless dancer is flaying about with her breast bouncing around. I found this to be a bit of a distraction; however, the scene with the two male dancers in their jockstraps was a hot scene IMHO. I don’t see how taking them off would have added anything to the scene.

Would it make a difference in the new James Bond movie, for example, if Pierce Brosnan and/or
Halle Berry were totally naked? (I haven’t seen the movie, isn’t there a love scene with two of them?)

Thank You.

Nudity is an extreme form of physical exposure, just as crying or screaming are extreme forms of emotional exposure. Sometimes they can be used to make the audience uncomfortable - because storytelling isn’t all fun-fun squishy-wishy - or to act as a mark of beauty. I mean, really, I found the topless Thora Birch to be quite beautiful. On the other hand, the naked woman (who was to be sucked dry) in Interview with the Vampire was very disturbing… not sexual at all.

i like nakedness

More nudity! Even unnecessary nudity. Especially unnecessary nudity!

“The Crying Game” definitely needed at least a certain amount of nudity. You can tell in some films that it is needed, or at least it makes some amount of sense.

Remember the bathing scene in “Room with a View”? It had to have the nudity (as harmless and unerotic as it was). It would not have been half as hilarious is it was without it.

I agree, though, that sometimes there really isn’t any need. I call many of these flashes of nudity (often just boobs) as “obligatory titty shots”—meaning, the producers felt it was expected of them to show some titty, and so they did it. Not because they felt from the bottom of their soul that it was necessary for the plot.

They usually appear in the first fifteen minutes of a film as well, reinforcing the idea that they’re there to compell viewers to watch closely, looking for something that the filmmakers are finished providing, as if there was a reason for providing it in the first place. I’m thinking of Reese Witherspoon in TWILIGHT but only because I saw it yesterday. Happens all the time.

I know that this is blasphemy to some…I thought that in Schindler’s List there was too much emphasise on bare breasts. I’m not talking about the concentration camp scenes, because this was done showing the degradation of humans, but the other scenes where Speilberg shows bare breast. I don’t think it added to the story. IMHO

[Chartered Accountant]I would only perform in a scene in which there was full frontal nudity … [/Chartered Accountant] :smiley:

IIRC Hollywood will also add nudity and foul language to get the MPAA rating to an R status. I guess an R rated movie carries a certain appeal.

Probably the worst headline of the past five years (and relevant to this topic):

Is everybody familiar with, incidentally? Wanna know what movies Mira Sorvino or David Charvet have been nekkid in? Here’s your one stop source.

Please change the second link above to

Easily the sleaziest legitimate and reliable information source on the web, but one I have bookmarked.

Actually, Bomzaway, that would be rather counterproductive to bust a movie up to R, since they are nosing out a pretty big demographic (teens 13-16 years of age). Though nudity doesn’t automatically give a movie an R rating. I was relatively surprised when I found out the 5th Element had nudity in it, since it was rated PG-13. And now that movie theaters are seriously cracking down on people under 17 getting into movies, it may be a bigger issue now.

People probably expect the Catholic, conservative crank to be four-square against nudity, right?

Well… not exactly.

The “obligatory titty” scene mentioned above certainly WAS a reality in movies for a long time. But you know what? I’d say there’s a lot LESS nudity in current mainstream Hollywood movies than there was in the late 70s and early 80s!

Nowadays, Hollywood’s primary market is adolescents, many of whom can’t get into “R” rated movies. So, Hollywood studios invaraiably shoot for a PG-13 rating, which means a lot of killing is okay (as long as there’s not much real gore), and a lot of scantily clad women are okay (plenty of thong bikinis, lots of cleavage, etc.), but VERY little nudity and no graphic sex.

Think about it- nowadays, you often see action movies with a scenes set in strip clubs, where the strippers are wearing bikinis!
And I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen couples in bad, under the covers, after what’s SUPPOSED to have been a passionate night of lovemaking… but when they get out from under the covers, they’ve got UNDERWEAR on!

Again, this has less to do with prudishness than with business- Hollywood WANTS to show sex, but NOT so much that it will bring them the dreaded “R” rating that will keep kids out.

Remember Kate Winslet’s semi-nude scenes in “Titanic”? That’s about as much nudity as you’re likely to see, these days, in a Hollywood film that’s aimed at a mass (i.e. young) audience.

Of course, you also have to bear in mind that we’re living in the age of cable and the Internet. When I was a teen, it was a rare thrill to get into an “R” rated movie and see some nekkid girls, even if it was just the odd tit or ass here and there. Today, a kid who wants to see full nudity and graphic sex of any kind can see it at will. He doesn’t have to pay 8 bucks to see it at a theater.

A teen today can see all the naked girls and all the sex he wants for free. He’ll only pay 8 bucks at the theater to see things he CAN’T see at home. That means BIG action sequences, which fit nicely within the PG-13 boundaries.

Well, the motorcycle ride in “Waking Ned Divine” wouldn’t have been worthwhile if David Kelly had on tighty-whiteys.

My gripe is that nudity is very rarely portrayed accuratly. I don’t want naked people all the time, but if you show a scene in which a couple has obviously just made love, why show the guy getting out of bed in his shorts? I mean, really.

Or just about any scene with a married couple. I mean, I’m sure that when my wife sits up in bed, it’s not with her back carefully to me, holding the sheet up untill she reaches for her robe.

I don’t know…I suppose there’s a fine line in there, but I’d just rather nudity in movies be more realistic than it seems to be. Not “boobs for the sake of boobs”, but more like “This is how real people act”.

I love the fact that the better the body of the actor/actress, the more “essential to the plot” the nudity is. Strangely, it’s never essential to the plot if it’s a scene with Wilford Brimley, Ed Asner, or Oliver Platt. (Exception: Kathy Bates did a nude scene in AT PLAY IN THE FIELDS OF THE LORD and Olympia Dukakis in ROUNDABOUT, but 9 out of 10 times it’s an actor/actress under 40 with a personal trainer.)

What about Burgess Meredith? :eek:

Yes, there’s less nudity now than in the 70s. And it’s more often a minor actress appearing nude, not the star. An R rating is to be avoided, so directors don’t show much skin.

Nudity can be essential to the movie, or it can be distracting. It depends on many factors.

BTW, the “Air Erotica” scene in All that Jazz is probably the most erotic musical number in the history of film.

Just one breast?