Representation Of Women's Sexuality In Film

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin The display of naked bodies can have an artistic element, like paintings. They're just nice to look at, rather than 'sexual'.

I'd agree about that particular example but I suspect that these Boucher buttocks
ARC :: François Boucher (1703-1770) :: Page 1 of 4
or the Bronzino "Allegory of Lust"
ARC :: Agnolo Bronzino (1503-1572) :: Page 1 of 4
were painted in order to cater to tastes other than the purely aesthetic.

[niasha]

ye i understand the display of naked bodies can be artistic but then u get people who misinterpret that beauty to something less beautiful if you understand what i am saying.... and in film it is always women that are shown fully nude not men. what is the reason for this?? even paintings can be misinterpreted because pple can have very "creative" minds sometimes...for example if you ask many straight men then will say they find it hard to look at the naked body of another male...whether a painting or not(unless if it is just the pple i have been asking!)...why? it is just art right?

[niasha]

oooh thank u every1 for your help...i have been trying to alter my project with your help esp when it comes to the movie choices because i guess they were quite weak... thanks again! & knobbykins wat did you mean?? i was busy reading all the other info that i missed yo little comment

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by niasha ... and in film it is always women that are shown fully nude not men. what is the reason for this?? & what do you think??

Women are nicer to look at naked. Naked men are very untidy

Except when they're sitting up in bed. Then you get the famous L-shaped sheet that covers the woman up to her neck but only covers the man up to his waist.

Steve

[faceoff]

Quote:
Look at so many Clint Eastwood films, stocked with many, many male characters throughout but often with only one female. Dirty Harry's MAGNUM FORCE, SUDDEN IMPACT and DEAD POOL. A PERFECT WORLD. IN THE LINE OF FIRE. Only one central actress yet a lot of male actors. It's almost formulaic for him - but is it exploitative, liberating OR merely "it's a required formula to include at least one romantic lady in each film"? And if that's the case, then is the FORMULA the liberating or exploitative issue? :Unquote

I look back on Clint Eastwoods career with pleasure - because there is an actor you can point too who came through that exploitative period of women in films and grew, particularly as a director.

His spaghetti westerns were almost all male orientated but as ChristineCB mentioned - his Dirty Harry films - I found them exciting but were awfully uncomfortable to watch (for just that reason - I felt guilty for enjoying them at all)and with "Tightrope" and James Wood's "Cop" - it seemed both were part of that set of films too. I enjoy detective films but these were "rogue males - both cop and bad guy and women were just cyphers victims, saints or whores"

Eastwood has given me plenty of more guiltless enjoyment in his latter work - with women being more respected and even outdoing his character in some instances. Shirley McLaine's saintly nun and Sondra Locke come to mind. And now the films he directs. "Bravo", Clint "bravo"

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

Originally Posted by niasha ye i understand the display of naked bodies can be artistic but then u get people who misinterpret that beauty to something less beautiful if you understand what i am saying.... and in film it is always women that are shown fully nude not men. what is the reason for this?? even paintings can be misinterpreted because pple can have very "creative" minds sometimes...for example if you ask many straight men then will say they find it hard to look at the naked body of another male...whether a painting or not(unless if it is just the pple i have been asking!)...why? it is just art right?

niasha, I think you should be careful about making such sweeping generalisations if you want to get your project approved! I recall one or two of my female colleagues at work being quite unable to concentrate after Richard Gere had appeared on TV the previous evening in "Breathless" wearing only his birthday suit. I don't watch many films made post-1980 nowadays but, whenever I have, I haven't noticed the dearth of naked flesh on display in a lot of them...both male as well as female, and not only in films with a "gay" interest like "Maurice."
I suspect that many of the straight men who tell you that they can't bear the sight of another naked man are quite young and embarrassed about discussing such things in case they are thought to be "queer." I have to say that in after-sports showers (many years ago) I was aware that furtive glances were being cast all around, but I suspect this was mainly out of curiosity as to how people compared with each other
I will confess that I find it difficult to look at naked men in films nowadays...but that's because I go into a deep depression when I look in the bathroom mirror later on....still, I bet James Wilby doesn't look so good lately.
To be a little more serious about the question (raised elsewhere) of why people should want to see naked actors/actresses in films when porn is so freely available, I think there could be many reasons for this, and I'll give a few that come to my mind.
Firstly, and obviously, if someone rather fancies a certain actress, it's most unlikely that they will find her appearing in the latest production to grace the shelves of their local adult shop and therefore want to gratify their fantasies by seeing a movie in which she appears naked.
Secondly, someone might be in a partnership where one party disapproves of pornography so can only enjoy themselves by watching nude scenes in legitimate films all the while uttering exclamations like, "How disgusting! If this goes on much longer I shall switch it off."
Thirdly, a story-line adds a feeling of reality to the element of fantasy which the sex-scenes arouse (so I'm told). Even hard-core pornography productions usually have a very thin thread of a plot running through them.

By the way, it can be the case that titillating scenes are not always included purely for the reason of exploiting the tastes of the potential viewing public.
A TV biography of the great dance-director Busby Berkely told how this complex man would often include scenes which reflected his own, sometimes odd, fetishes. It seems that Berkely was aroused by the sight of a woman falling (!!!!) and, sure enough a woman falling appears in several of the numbers he choreographed for films. He was also addicted to a kind of Peeping-Tom voyeurism, and in the girls' dormitory scene of "The Kid from Spain" (1932) the chorus girls who are shown in silhouette behind screens are clearly naked.

[comexbyxsunday]

i have to say this if girls aloud have to be naked to sell music why should film stars be left out,
though i think the silent film star louise brookes was stunning but stilll selling her sexuality to get attention the same as jean harlow and mae west
if women didnt strip in films today no one would see them i mean all them celeb sex tapes would we be so keen to watch them if they were clothed

[niasha]

ascoyne: ye i understand that the male body is not a really popular choice for viewing by many pple incl women...i also made a questionnaire & all the women i asked this que said they would not like to see a men fully naken at the movies because the male body is 'scary' or 'ugly' lol. & straight guys are VERY insecure when it comes to seeing other men naked some guys i gave my questionnaire to actually said they find it hard 'watching themeselves naked in the mirror' sounds funny but it all comes from the same point of not being able to watch other male bodies...weird but tru.. i dont kno if this is just the younger generation but the age range i questioned was 17-20yrs.
& the whole thing of fancing an actress & wanting to see her naked proves my point that women are exploited for their own sexual gratification. if anyone has read visual pleasure & narrative cinema by laura mulvey, where she talks about the 'male gaze' & how a male in the audience can connect with the male in the film who is watching the woman & 'own' that gaze & therefore 'own' the woman. i mean think about the straight women watching the movies tho...ok the male audience get to enjoy the sight of the naked woman & well the women get to enjoy the style & design of her outfits, shoes, accessories or something when shes fully dressed so fair enough hey!! haha! BUT at the same time i think there is the 'female gaze' can also be present, & it is there to relate to the woman in the film but at the same time using her for their own satisfaction. to be more clear: women like going to the cinema & they tolerate the naked women (i never saw a woman in the audience turning away when a naked woman comes on screen) because they can use this woman for a bit to go into this make-belief world where they are hot & have a hunk to save them....who wouldnt like that?! lol

& ye thats tru comexbyxsunday..."sex sells" it is as simple as that hey. so basically men (& in some cases women but that is another issue...) can get satisfaction in objectifying women. through the exploitation of women, men can live their fantasies...sounds "fair" hey. but at the same time tho the women find the pleasure at being looked at so in a way it can be seen as fair enough...but sometimes its they have only two choices...bare it all & sell or dont bare it all & flop so even if its exploitation you have to put up with it u kno....does it not get old tho???

[ChristineCB]

I won't dispute the Sex-Sells notion, and I think it sells to women because they learn what Sexiness is by those visuals.

I get a little depressed that most films target the men as if their money drives the film industry. I suppose it does, because films have been made with this target-audience in mind for so long.

I am heartened, however, by the financial success of THE TITANIC, which may still be the top-money film of all time. And a good amount of that money came from repeat-viewers, and very very few of those were males.

So, for that one film, we have an example of very little nudity and a great special effect were pitted against a sweeping tale of romance. (Well, that's what the critics and teenaged girls called it - I hated the film myself.)

I believe "the sweeping tale of romance" is what brought the girls back into the theatre, time after time, to a financial level that no other movie has attained.

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by ChristineCB I get a little depressed that most films target the men as if their money drives the film industry. I suppose it does, because films have been made with this target-audience in mind for so long.

There will be wiser heads than mine but I think, statistically, Women were the mainstay of the British Film Industry in the periods before and after the War. Hence the Matinee Idol phenomenon of Stewart Granger and all his ilk........

What went wrong in the Sixties? Too much Sex?........

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin There will be wiser heads than mine but I think, statistically, Women were the mainstay of the British Film Industry in the periods before and after the War. Hence the Matinee Idol phenomenon of Stewart Granger and all his ilk........ What went wrong in the Sixties? Too much Sex?........

I would imagine that women are still a high percentage of the audience. Hence the success of nonsense like Titanic. But I think I'm right in saying that most films are still made by men - and quite a few of them are heterosexual and like to see a pretty girl in their film

Steve

[ChristineCB]

I'm not sure. I think the matinee idols (Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, Stewy Baby, etc) certainly were the big names, but I seem to remember even they blinked when the Grace Kellys, Ann Margarets and Kim Novaks appeared. And no one needs a scorecard to tell who's playing who when Raquel Welch is in a film and there's a female character named Lust.

But "Matinee Idol" and "Sex Kitten" certainly were titles reserved for one sex, not the other. The Matinee Idols were usually decades in longevity, and Sex Kittens were Kittens du Jour.

If this is true, then is the Man's longevity as an attractive star (often lasting decades) another symptom of that double-standard where only Young Women are the most coveted sex symbols? And then, is Film doing nothing more than mimicking this? Or is it leading this societal view?

[faceoff]

Actors and actresses are too well known nowadays. The matinee idols and screen starlets had an element of mystery and their star shone for at least a number of years. Stories now tumble out about famous and dead film stars and their supposed frailties or faults, their sexuality or infidelities which would have hurt them at their peak.

Todays stars do not stand a chance to have a long screen life if they are not saints off screen or even normal humans. You are required to be on show 24/7 - told off if you wear the same outfit twice - we get Cameron Diaz skin problems - don't we all get an element of that - what is with these idiot reporters? We have Angelina Jolie's father problems or her on off love life - the same with Jude Law. With the latter although he produces films like sausages - I couldn't name them because his social life bores me.

So thanks to us all (the general public) I suppose, the sexuality of both female and male film stars has crawled off screen now and it is still more unfair to women. Except if your male and suspected of being gay that is. Hetro hunks like Colin Farrell, Brad Pitt etc get the "way to go lads" treatment and actresses like Jennifer Aniston or Sadie Frost are photographed in "dumped and depressed mode". Not considered a person in their own right unless they have a famous actor on their arm. What utter rubbish.

[ChristineCB]

I agree.

I don't accept any blame that the Press uses to justify their murderous pappa-nazi tactics of "giving the public the dirt they want".

I never ONCE asked for dirt on a celebrity. I've never voted for it. I've never picked up the phone and answered, "I'll vote YES to your survey - I want dirt". I think we the Public are force-fed this avalanche - we don't have to want it - it's now so pervasive we have zero choice in it.

It's slammed in my face, on TV, on the radio, news crawlers, supermarket tabloids and even legitimate papers are full of that trash.

I don't know anyone who HAS voted for the press to cover this aspect. They claim the public demands it - but I don't know anyone who demands it. In fact, when I ask, I only get "No" votes.

So, I don't know what population group the Press uses, but I'm not a part of them.

[smiffy]

I agree Christine,but unfortunately the papparazzi have become an industry within themselves,and even though the majority might not want this in your face, tell all,spill the beans reporting,if the mass media thinks they have to use it to sell things they will carry on reporting the way they THINK we want it,
all the best smiffy