Here's my first movie review. We watched "Open Water" on DVD a couple of nights ago, and I thought I should give warning to all of you who haven't seen it yet: Don't.
It was boring. It didn't have the ending we expected. It had some pretty bad acting. And it had a full frontal nude scene that was totally unnecessary. Let me explain why this bugs me so much.
In the movie, this couple is on vacation and the air conditioning in their hotel room is broken. Fine. So you're hot and you want to sleep. No problems there. But why show us that on the movie? The wife is laying in bed, reading, with just the sheet on. However, the sheet only goes to her waist. The husband comes to bed, but with the clever camera angles, all you see is his bare back. No butt or anything. A minute later, the wife turns to turn off the light, the sheet comes down, and you can see everything below the waist as well as above now. I did NOT need to see that. Seriously. There wasn't a need.
Here's something else that really bugs me about the whole thing. The next scene the light is turned on and the husband is kneeling on the bed with a newspaper in his hand and he is trying to kill a mosquito or something. He is wearing blue underwear. Now, I don't need to see this guy completely naked, either, but I don't understand why we can see so much of the woman, but nothing of the man? Why is it acceptable to show full frontal nudity of any woman, but not of a man? Why the double standard? I've noticed in a lot of movies that you will often see a woman's breasts (at least) and the most you'll see of a man is his butt.
I really want to make it clear that I don't want to see either person naked in any movie. I just want to understand where this double standard came from and why. In fact, on some show like Entertainment Tonight I saw an interview and an actor stated, "I don't understand why a nude female generates an 'R' rating, but a nude male generates an 'X' rating." I don't remember what I was watching or who said it, and I know that the actor was mostly complaining about lack of nudity, not excess, but it is a valid question. Personally, I think both should be an "X" rating (or NC-17, or whatever). I really and truely don't think it is necessary to show nudity!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Well, one of the reasons might be that men make the rules, and they don't want to be surprised by a naked man on screen in case they like it.
I have to agree with you on frontal nudity in films. It's usually gratuitous. There are very few situations I can think of where it's necessary to the story.
Ditto you.
Ditto Karen.
Ditto, ditto, ditto.
I wish I had something more original to say, but right now I don't. Sorry.
Strangly enough I had this conversation with a friend a few days ago. We came to the conclusion that womens bodies are more attractive than mens bodies. Even though we are not same sex attracted the actual lines of a womans body are more appealing than a mans. These people are artist, even though i don't necessarily agree with the art, and they know what is more appealing to the eye or what will be more appealing to a wider range of audience. Its in there on purpose. In rare cases there will be full frontal male nudity, but i think its only in there for shock value, to say they are the ones pushing the envelope.
Thanks for the warning about the movie. Now I know it was a good choice not to see it. But then again you liked N.D.
Yes, I liked Napolean Dynomite, but I can recognize how insanely stupid it is, too. It needed a stronger plot development (okay, so it just needed development), but I love it because there are some flippin' funny parts and it's fun to see so many people that I know and love in it. It actually makes me kind of miss living in Preston!
Larry David (co-creator of Seinfeld) is of the opinion that the reason women are less promiscuous than men is because the male genitalia is less attractive; a woman must really love a man before she would subject herself to seeing him naked.
Maybe he's not the only one in Hollywood who feels that way.
I think nudity is inappropriate as a gratuitous addition to the show, but I have to say as one who has travelled to Italy that Michelangelo was not a porn king.
I watch movies with both genders nude all the time.
Off course, they do happen to be of primitive tribes for anthropology class.
Anyway, come on, admit it: Not one female I've spoken to minded AT ALL how much of Christian Bale was shown in American Psycho.
And I could've told you about Open Water. I see a LOT of movies.
I agree with Proud Mum that people who admire the male form (like sculptors) can make the male form look attractive. But I also agree with Alyson that male nudity is probably meant to shock -- like those Celtic warriors who fought naked. (I was going to say berserkers, but apparently they fought in "bear" skins, not "bare" skins.)
At least I hope I'm agreeing with them. Maybe I'm just putting my own two cents in again.
i have thoughts on this, and though it by no means justifies the double standard... i think part of it is the goods. i mean, full frontal nudity of a woman, is not the same as full frontal nudity of a man. you know, as far as hanging appendages and what not. i mean... we aren't forced to see spread eagle shots of a woman- which is when you see the ... oh man, this is far too explicit and i apologize. i just think that's how they must justify it in their own minds.
i can think of zero movies i've seen where nudity was necessary. i can think of movies where it was done more tastefully than in others, but none where the story could not be told without it.
we are a sex fiend nation though. it's everywhere... and just continuing to push the boundaries at every turn. it's a sad testament really.
Post a Comment