Steve Crook

Have you ever bought a newspaper or magazine that includes mention of any "celebrity"?

If you have bought one and don't complain to them saying that you don't want to see such nonsense then they feel justified in continuing to include it because their sales figures show them that that's what people must want.

Steve

faceoff

Time to slap the papparazzi down.

I am most surprised that celebrities do not get there own back on these vultures. Having a camera stuck in their faces all day or even under skirts (to check out underwear) would have turned me into a vengeance seeking missile. A few weeks of the papparazzi being stalked and embarrassed might make some difference to the gutter press's attitude. The reporters would no doubt hypocritically scream their right were being infringed. GOOD!

ChristineCB

I'm not sure how to alter the pappanazi behavior or the press' self-created avalanche of delusion about what the public wants. One of my Soviet friends said that, after living in the States for 12 years, "At least we knew who controlled our press - Americans have no idea who controls theirs."

I think the confusion serves those masters very well. And this goes back to Women's Sexuality as represented in films. There is such a foggy notion of who's manipulating who, who's the victim, who's the perpertrator, etc.

My husband's notion of a Naked Woman Film Genre seems more correct - a film that has so little going for it that it requires Naked Women to be strutted about in order to keep the audience's attention. Of course, then he says most of these lack the numeric sufficiency in Naked Women to really do a good job - "Trot up 90 minutes of naked women strolling across a stage, and that'd be more entertaining than most films..."

Then he points out the joys of porno - "about 5 or 10 minutes of titilation, and then everything gets boring".

I'm not sure that representation of sexuality can be anything more than that. 5 or 10 minutes of watching. If that. And as was written elsewhere, the nude scenes are often a reflection more on styles and atmosphere than the flesh itself.

So why bother? In the '40s, a closed door behind a couple fed the audience all the styles and Looks and behavior cues. Is anyone using a mainstream as their guide to actual love-making? Or even a porno film? (Let's not talk about serial killers and their reviews of porno films! ha ha)

What IS the purpose of sexualizing films? Or using them to represent sexual behaviors?

I know, I know - there are no effective answers to this. I get amazed at the quality of good older films I see and the huge volume of boring films of today that rely on sexualizing or petro-chemical explosions or lopping off blood-splattered body parts. Those are just devices. Are those really easier or cheaper than good writing?

faceoff

Is it my imagination or has the film industry decided that sexualizing anything requires actual sex on our screens. I thought that was the pornographic films job. Nine Songs mentioned in an earlier thread and I read the film review on Short Bus last week. Then there is the French lady director who uses actual porn stars amongst other actors for her explicit sceens in her films etc Main stream films are getting extremely frank and we are being told it is a break through - against censorship perhaps.

I myself find wondering about the actual relationship between Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland at the time "Don't Look Now" was made, makes thier love making scene far more erotic that seeing a real and actual sex act in one of todays Cert 18 movies. The latter is just mechanical and suits the frankly ludicrous scenarios of the porno films far more than a film with a decent screenplay.

ChristineCB

Except it's not 'actual sex'. The porno films display evidence of 'real sex'. Hollywood's still only faking it or soft-core-ing it, and I'm not sure what incredible benefit they believe they're accomplishing.

Are they advocating some joy of voyeurism? (I hope not - canvassing my friends gets a 100% vote that the Real Thing is a lot more fun than watching it on-film.)

Or are they pulling a Cinema Paradiso and capturing blackmail footage of the real sex acts that never made it to the theatres?

I'm not sure what benefits the film industry is advocating. "Destruction of the Puritan Ethic"? Do they believe they're the Keepers Of Healthy Social & Sexual Values? And as such lofty custodians of human values, are they believing they generously educate us? Whoop-dee-doo... (finger in mouth, popping it out)

And all the while, I read about the financial miseries of theatres and Hollywood. Yeah. Great custodians.

faceoff

That film title was "Romance" wasn't it. I think like the Joe Orton film "Prick up your Ears" - "Romance", like the word "ears" was just an anagram too. For something that couldn't be put above the cinema foyers in case it frightened the horses.

They would never be allowed to call a film "The Spy That Shagged Me" would they?

"Romance?" what a euphermism. The anagram? Let us just say the second word of a two word sentence would be "Ran". Something I suspect I would be doing, from the screening, if I saw the masterpiece, mistaking it for a sequel to that Japanese epic.

Moor Larkin

The little-seen British movie "Nor the Moon By Night" features an interesting example of how both sex and the sexuality of a woman were handled in the Fifties and how the coming of the Sixties would change everything.

Late on in the movie, which is based in the Savannah of Africa, it finally starts to rain, after a long period of drought. Michael Craig and Belinda Lee, who have been conducting a typical Fifties repressed Romance rush outside to celebrate.

There is a line of African women (Natives) also celebrating, by dancing. They are topless and their bosoms are heaving; as the ground becomes soaked, the mud starts spattering up their calves as they pound their drummed rhythms.

Michael and Belinda have become absolutely drenched and the effect is very much "Mr. & Miss Wet T-shirt 1958". They watch the line of dripping women dancers, the camera lingers in turn upon the dancers and then the two Europeans. The black folks continue their innocent bouncing whilst the white folks' grins turn to smiles, then set expressions of looming passion. Belinda Lee actually tops this with a carnal leer and the camera pans back to the delighted dancers, whilst Michael and Belinda meld into soak-shirted bliss.....

The two lovers are next seen, holding hands and smiling tenderly at one another as they re-enter the bungalow to rejoin their friends (including Patrick McGoohan who was supposed to be Belina's betrothed!), the rain has stopped.

The whole sequence is remarkable, in part for the nudity of the Africans. I imagine that if Belinda had been topless, the film would have become X-rated. It reminds me of the much more famous movie, Zulu, which featured bare-chested Natives. I'm pretty sure that if white ladies had been so undressed Zulu would have become an X-rated movie... ?

The wetness of the European lovers and the explicit lunge of repressed expression that Belinda Lee makes (Michael Craig wasn't big on expression!) shows the sexuality of a woman, both imaged by the 1950's and prefiguring it's portrayal in the imminent 1960's.

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

Ascoyne D'Ascoyne

I bet they are all under 50!

ChristineCB

Good grief. Don't tell me THAT part of your memory has been forgotten!

Ascoyne D'Ascoyne

It's not the memory which is the problem!

ChristineCB

And this is a whole other facet because there were Africans and Polynesians filmed in their native state even in the '30s for newsreels, I understand it, which were shown in American theatres. (My folks don't recall such things, but my older neighbors do.)

From those neighbors, I understand that the '60s were the Time Of Accepted Change, at least in theatres, and then the '70s ushered in a period of widespread acceptance if not a nudge-nudge-wink-wink enforcement that some nudity be used, although Natalie Woods and Dyan Cannon could not be forced in BOB TED CAROL ALICE.

I wonder what the '70s men felt about having nude scenes inserted into their films? Can anyone recall any nudity in a Robert Redford film?

AA, I ain't a-gonna touch your last line!! ha ha

john audley

If the meaning of this thread is, what is the advantage of sex and nudity in films to inspire box office then I will have to see a lot more of such films before I can make my mind up
But seriously, I do find 'aggressive' sex such in Basic Instincts most distasteful and not at all pleasurable to watch. Men are voyeurs there is no doubt of that but I do think we would prefer artistic taste and license instead of brutal animal lust that is insulting to the eye.
Sexual acts on the screen must always be brutal instead of loving - WHY?
One thing that really gets my goat is, when a gorgeous actress is stripping on the screen and she is clearly going to be nude the Director decides that we, the audience, should not see the result but he and his camera crew are quite allowed to, probably more than once! I say, if they do not want the audience to see what they are seeing they should not do it at all.

rskershaw

"Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" by Laura Mulvey, bowled me over when I first read it in the early 1990's. I should imagine her views on 'the male gaze' have become standard fodder for film courses now.