Should nudity and violence that's in context with the plot (like that in Schindler's List) be treated differently than gratuitous nudity and violence (like in Showgirls)? I say yes. How about you?

Oh you bet. But I don't especially think that the decision of what's gratuitous and what's in context should be left to the idiots at the MPAA.

Yes. If it actually has something to do with showing how evil a character or situation is, or how bad things get, or something useful to the plot, then yes. But the MPAA has no business rating the movies. Although it doesn't really matter since the ratings are never enforced. I'm 14 years old and don't look any older (although people say I sound older), and I never have trouble getting into R movies or anything like that.

Btw, in Showgirls the whole plot was nude. ;-)

The hard part is determining when violence and nudity is gratuitous or "tuitous".

I remember David Duchovny mocking actors who said they would only get naked in a movie if it was necessary to the plot. He added that it was ridiculous because it was never necessary to the plot.

And yet Mr. Duchovny had a later omitted buttocks scene in The X-Files: The Movie. Talk about hypocrisy. As for this particular topic, I personally believe there is a thin line between acceptable and gratuitous nudity. For example, was it beneficial to the scene to have Ms. Winslet's breasts exposed in Titanic? In my humble opinion, not the slightest bit. The same applies to the scene in Schindler's List in which Ralph Fiennes's character is maliciously subduing Jewish prisoners from his balcony. His lover is in bed and has her breasts frivolously in plain view. How does this further the plot exactly? Of all things I loathe these infamous sexual conduct scenes. Love-making is a private act that ought to be solely shared between two consenting adults. Since when did the motion picture industry decide otherwise? I find it ruins the movie and TV program more than it aids either. Furthermore, they insist on having the misconception of long-lasting relationships and first-sight romances being developed from having the two characters immediately leaping into bed with one another. Let us face it, there is little movies and TV programs with real quality anymore. Rather than having genitalia appearing on the screen and being exploited in various capacities, why not concentrate on the writing, plot, and character development, to name a few? Wow, what an innovation!

...there is little... = ...there [are] little... Typo.

In the case of Titanic, beauty often needs no explanation - or purpose.

Perhaps you are making a casus belli point, so to speak, Mr. Leeder, but the film industry has neoterically been producing and releasing movies containing nudity intended for a succes fou outcome but receives instead an ignis fatuus. I believe this is so because they are consciously or unconsciously following a dernier cri conatus from which exposed genitalia, primarily pudendum, is emerging and consequently being ranked as "beauty" or "appeal." Moreover, the scene from Titanic you and I have been discussing may have been more appropriate with the exclusion of Leonardo DiCaprio, whose presence I personally feel caused the scene to lose its true significance.

Latin phraseology doesn't win arguments or impress. You're right that Hollywood often misuses nudity - that makes me all the more willing to stand up and cheer when it's done right. The same could be said of violence and profanity. Nudity can be exquisite on screen, and, what's more, useful.

I think there's a DiCaprio-bashing page someplace on Nitcentral. Please take your rants there. He's not my favourite actor, but the bashing of him is growing mighty tedious.

In the opening of the movie "Innocent Blood", it showed the vampire lady strolling naked around her room. She had not just gotten up, she had not just taken a bath, nor was she preparing to take one. Just strolling around naked. The only possible reason for it was to titillate the viewers. That's gratuitous.

On the other hand, in the movie "Whispers" the heroine was taking a bath when a serial killer (whom she thought was dead) came into the room. She managed to elude him and dashed out of the room and down the stairs, stark naked. This made sense to me. If I were attacked by a mad killer in my bath, I would not pause to worry about mundane matters such as towels.

Also, in the movie "The Bride" (Remake of "Bride of Frankenstein"), the Bride, shortly after being animated, walked naked through Frankenstein's house until she found him. This made sense, since being newly created, and her mind more or less blank, she had no idea that there was anything wrong in being nude.

Regarding sex scenes--I agree that they show too much. There's a lot to be said about leaving some things to the imagination. I sometimes think directors toss those scenes in just to make their precious "R" rating.

Matthew Patterson: Yes. If it actually has something to do with showing how evil a character or situation is, or how bad things get, or something useful to the plot, then yes

I assume you mean as regards violence, and in that case, I almost entirely agree with you (I would argue that not all violence, at least in the movies, is an object of evil). However, if you're suggesting that the proper function (plot aside) of nudity on the screen is to show how evil someone is, that reeks of quasi-Victorian prudism.

Yeah, that was regarding violence. I can't really think of any instance where gratuitous nudity would be useful to the plot. Brief instances like in the ones that D.K. Henderson mentioned, yes, but those would hardly be labeled gratuitous.

While nudity can be useful to the plot, filmmakers can, if necessary, hide bare breasts, butts, and genitalia. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes it bothers us (the scene D. Stuart mentioned). Sometimes it doesn't (the scene where Oskar Schindler is having adulterous sex and his butt is in plain sight for a brief moment.)

Why is male nudity treated differently than female nudity? Since this appears to be a "guys-mostly" club, I am interested in what you think.

Something about the "tinkler" must repelle the MPAA. I, personally, don't think that there is any difference in showing a pen-is, from a vagina, or breats. Being a guy, I don't really want to see a large package flung across the screen, but I don't think that there is any difference.

What I'm postulating (is SOMEBODY with me here?) is that in addition to being occasionally useful for plot reasons, it can also exist legitimently for aesthetic reasons. Obviously this has to be handled well to avoid exploitation or "gratuity".

Roger Ebert once addressed brilliantly why there's less male nudity (Harvey Keitel aside). It's because gentalia are fatal to the dramatic impact of a scene. They're a kind of punchline - their appearance is so rare and shocking that it's hard to get anything dramatic going on around it. Women can be shown and titillate appropriately without showing off anything too vital; that's harder for men. He jokes that had W.C. Fields survived a bit longer, he would have refused to appear with animals, children, and genitals.

Or it could just be the fact that most directors are men.

I think that in the past, there was only female nudity because directors were aiming solely for a male audience and figured that women would just go to the movies with men.

However, in modern times, I feel that while there is still a large gap between male and female nudity, there are now situations where men are shown naked while women are clothed. For an example, look at the scene in "Trainspotting" between Spud and his girlfriend as he's lying down to sleep after coming home from the club.

I would agree with what Murray and Wes stated in that male nudity, which always involves display of the genitals, is much more shocking than female nudity and this is why many directors are averse to showing it.

I always loved James Garner's reponse, when asked if he had ever done (or would do) a nude scene:

"No, I don't do horror pictures."

This is getting a little off the subject, but how many people besides me are bothered by the gratuitous use of profanity and obscenities in movies? In the aforementioned "Innocent Blood", I only watched about ten minutes of it. (And I like vampire movies.) The reason I turned it off was that, with the exception of the heroine, EVERY character had a foul mouth. "Eff you." "Eff him." "I'm just going across the effing bridge." It was as though these people could not get a single sentence out of their mouths without putting that word in it somewhere, as though it were mandatory for proper grammer.

When you consider that that particular word is vulgar slang for love-making, some of the contexts you find it in are downright peculier. "I'm just going across the love-making bridge." Sounds pretty ludicrous when you put it that way, doesnt' it?

I'm sure that there are directors out there who would say that foul language is a part of REAL LIFE. Well, if I want REAL LIFE, I'll watch the news, not a movie.

Nobody's stopping you.

Mr. Leeder, I had not sought to impress anyone or win arguments, as you so kindly put it, with my choice of Latin nouns and adjectives. Instead, I was lacking the proper nouns and adjectives to describe my opinion and was attempting to emphasize much of the failures the movie industry have exhibited on more than one occasion for current and prior films. And by prior films I am referring to the ones in the eighties. It never ceases to amaze and appall me as to how prolifically these movies displayed nudity, primarily in a gratuitous and obscene manner. For instance, the women's breasts being exposed in both Airplane! and Airplane II: The Sequel, which I at no point found humorous or necessary. In addition, I was astonished by the abrupt image of a young actress's breasts being exposed, which again did nothing for the plot, in movie The Dead Zone, during which time the protagonist witnessed the murderer committing the atrocity. Be that as it may, there is some poignancy expressed through and represented by nudity (e.g., well-written and well-directed WWII-oriented films, specifically in regard to the concentration camps and pogroms).

Mr. Stuart, are you implying that either Airplane! or Airplane! II: the Sequel had plots? They are parodies, deliberately full of sight gags. I believe you chose the wrong movies to make your point.

But what do you make of my postulation that nudity, immaterial to the question how badly Hollywood somehow handles it, can legitimently exist for aesthetic and stylistic reasons?

About The Dead Zone. You're right that the momentary flash of breasts is unrelated to the plot of the movie, but not everything in a movie is plot. Here, it is all about approach, about style. David Cronenberg is no director to shy away from shocking and realistic imagery, and even The Dead Zone, his most sedate film, has its moments. That's one of them. A different director might have chosen to depict that moment differently, but Cronenberg did what he did. It's all part of the approach.

...in movie The Dead Zone... = ...in [the] movie The Dead Zone... Typo.

Perhaps male nudity is less common because it is either sexually explicit or repulsive to females (presumably, I do not know) whereas women look the more or less the same all of the time men change. Sorry about being coy but I do not know what I can say without being censored. In summary naked women look good all of the time but men only in sexual scenes.

You do realize rattings are the better alternative. The form used before them were the Hays codes where a film was outright banned if it broke the codes. these codes are for parents so they can determine if their kids should see a film or not.

No, they're not. If they were, then kids wouldn't be banned outright from movies with certain ratings. That's taking the choice away from the parents.

Schindler's List has a good example of gratuitus vs. non-gratuitus nudity. We see the camp commandant standing on his balcony looking down at the people having their "physicals" (yes, that is what was happening). This is, to me, non-gratuitus, because it shows the casual degradation these people were subjected to - especially keeping in mind how "Puritanistic" people still were at this time. In the same scene we see the commandant's girlfriend stark naked on the bed. This to me is gratuitus, as it really doesn't show anything beyond skin. We could assume how she would be dressed by the setting; we really didn't need to see it.

Anonymous, that is a very interesting comment about male nudity. Altho I think a large part of the reason for female nudity is male directors, your comment could be a subconcious reason why they would also be unwilling to show men. Never thought of it before. As for me, I try not to look at undressed men. (I'm not married, I shouldn't know what men look like. Well, I try.)

Is it really the consensus that the male anatomy ugly to most? Maybe I'm dirty minded female, but I don't consider it ugly, or I feel, if male audiences are getting female nudity draped in front of their eyes, I and other willing female audience members should have male nudity. I get appalled at the double standard in this. I don't get this, where in some areas, when it comes to pulling questionable magizines off the shelf in some stores, but they keep Playboy on, but pull Playgirl off. Now why?! If Playboy is considered more artistic, so why not Playgirl? Or is it not approiate for females to view the male anotomy, and men can view females.
Some may argue that the male genetalia is considered ugly, but question the female readers on this. I think you'll get a different answer. Same goes for the movies. I have seen way too much female nudity to be appalled at the exploitation, and notice very little of the male nudity to think that there is an equal share here. Granted, I aree some of the nudity, [and sexual scenes too] are far off the plot in alot of movies, but I agree some are necessary, like the point of the woman running from an attacker after she showered, and the newborn bride who had no idea.
Nicole Kidman's shot of her taking off her dress, in "Eyes Wide Shut" was just completely unnnecessary, in my opinion, [though the sexual scenes may be just needed to get the feeling of a place not to be well known to the public], and all the sexual scenes in "Basic Instinct" just completly desensitized me.
If you noticed in older movies where it was just not scene, the mere thought that maybe a love-making situation did apply, it was more powerful a message, than just showing the scene right there!
I may feel differently in some movies that has romanticized it, by just showing the couple just kissing each other afterwards, and there is the soft light, and the pretty musical ballads, but then there the nitty gritty was just implyed, and your just getting two people in bed, who are probably just covered up to the chest in blankets.
I quess what I'm implying that TPTB probably did titalate by showing the afterward scenes I discussed a paragraph up, but I think they went to far with just showing everything. I think it is wasting film.

OK, those were my thoughts, and I know I ranted, and I hope that was a plausible answer for ya.

I think the main difference between male and female nudity is that women are all neatly tucked away. To have a female equivalent of male frontal nudity, the woman in question would have to... have her knees farther apart than is normally considered polite, even clothed.

*blush*

I'm gay, so I'm all for male frontal nudity in films. I don't consider naked men ugly, but they do look silly if they're running or jumping about.

My takes on sex and nudity on TV or in movies are many. One thing that really gets me is when you see a fully naked woman in bed with a bedsheet barely covering her breasts but her thigh and leg are fully exposed (The World Is Not Enough comes to mind), or when couples do it under the sheets, or when there's just the two people and the woman feels she's got to cover herself when she sits up in bed. Why? She just did it with the guy, he knows how she looks, so why be shy all of a sudden with him? Sure, some people do have sex under the covers in real life but most people have the covers off so that they're not restricted by them, unless they've got some major sexual hangups, that is.

Did anyone see Lifeforce, from 1985, with a pre-Capt. Jean-Luc Picard Patrick Stewart? He wasn't the star. Anyway, it's about 3 space vampires that are discovered in some sort of spaceship. Two perfectly human-looking males and one female are inside, nude. I think the males get killed but the female gets freed, walks around the compound she's held in, completly nude, shown frontally from head to foot. I felt the nudity was justified (hell, just look at the woman playing the vampire and tell me it's not justified!) cuz the female was of a different race that really didn't care about humans, other than as food, so she didn't care about being nude, except to seduce male humans.

I don't mind some so-called adult language in films, but like with headbanger music or rap (which I absolutely loathe!) I don't like every other word to be f--- this or f--- that, either. Look at Taratino's films. They're full of cussing but it's sort of justified cuz they portray lowlives who don't really care what others think of their language usage. At least in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.

I'm not gay but male nudity doesn't bother me, and yes, there is a double standard about nudity in films. Males created the medium and to this day still are mostly in control of it and so I think it's still got some subtle, subconscious homophobia towards male nudity as being bad and dirty, which, of course, it isn't. It's really just a matter of opinion. Sure, I prefer seeing nekkid wimmin but I'm secure enough in my masculinity not to be bothered by male nudity. Hell, I've had 3 drawing classes where we drew both sexes nude so it's become a nonissue with me anyway.

the issue of nudity in movies seems a bit silly if you realize that film is supposed to mirror real life, and I'm pretty sure everyone gets naked at least one a day. So if people get naked in real life they should be just as naked in the silver screen, and twice as naked on cable.

I mostly like to nitpick but I'll jump into this conversation. I hardly expect to convert anyone to my view but I'll settle for giving my two cents.
About the double standard: There is no double standard. In the movies, we commonly see women naked from the waist up and it's considered nudity. Yet we also see men naked from the waist up and it isn't considered nudity. The difference? Women have breasts, which are considered a sex object by the MPAA or whomever decides what constitutes nudity. It reminds me of a joke: why are breasts like toy trains? Because they're meant for the kids but it's the fathers that play with them. The function of breasts have nothing to do with reproduction until AFTER childbirth but our society treats breasts as a precursor to copulation, which in all fairness I'm sure they can be.
However, when it comes to men, the reason why we don't see thier "packages" is because that's a different category altogether. And the same standard applies to women when it comes to this as well. I can think of two movies (Color of Night and Boogie Nights) where guys showed their "packages" and one movie (Basic Instinct) where a woman showed hers. So I don't think it's a double standard.
Now as for the main question: should it be treated differently? Because I'm over the age of 19, I don't really care what the MPAA or CRTC (Canada's own version of MPAA) rates it. As long as I can see it, I'm not one to care what anyone else thinks of it. It's not as if the standard really makes a difference anyhow. I saw Pulp Fiction three times in the theater before I turned 18 and I bought an issue of Penthouse when I was 16.
Is nudity ever in context with the plot? I don't think so myself and I'm an author. My books are full of gratuitous sex and violence, none of it being integral to anything else. It's there for entertainment value and because it might attract a larger audience. Sex sells. Nowadays that seems to be all it comes down to.

Without violence, there is no Jackie Chan or Bugs Bunny and Road Runner. Horrifying and sickening images of violence and cruelty in Movies such as "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" probably could not have been left out without taking away from the emotional impact these movies have.

I don't understand why we're less comfortable with nudity in film than with portrayals of violence. I guess "nudity" immediately brings up many other complex feelings and ideas; we associate nudity immediately with "sexuality", which brings up the word "pornography", a single definition of which can not be decided upon by anyone. Most folks just aren't comfortable with such things.
I also happen to be skeptical with regard to most people's capacity (or desire) to behave responsibly when given access to many forms of freedom, nudity being among them. Ugh. that got muddy in a hurry.

Everyone's naked underneath their clothes. Could the females please tell me if you get off on male nipples (have boyz bands been charging to little) and to what parts of a man you are attracted. I am not gay but I am sometimes attracted to men but only their faces (like David Boreanaz or whoever (Angel)). Not bodys. If we think from an evolutionary perspective perhaps women with the inhibitors of large breasts tended to pass the other tests of strength because the ones who did not died and men with large penises have a higher probability of conceiving a child since the semen would be a lot closer to the ovae. Since men see their penises from above they smaller perhaps most other men look larger. Since women's breasts are closer to their eyes they would seem larger then other's they might be O.K. with breasts and have very little else to show (being 16 I would not know). Or not. By the way, I am the earlier posted "anonymous" who made up the sexually explicit or repulsive theory. What words are we allowed to use here by the way? Not slang but some people are very protective of their children.

For the question of their being a double standard with regard to the amount of skin that is shown in movies of course there is, but it mirrors the same double standard that exists in our society.

For example a woman who is wearing a skimpy bikini that leaves nothing to the imagination is a relatively common sight on today’s beaches. To most guys there is no problem with a woman dressed in such a manor. Also to most women there is not much of a problem with a woman being dressed like that. Of course the guys think that barely their swimwear is just great while the woman have an attitude of “she’s wearing a swimsuit, so what?”

On the other hand a guy who was wearing Speedos that showed a noticeable bulge in the crotch area is a far less common sight. A guy dressed like that would get some attention from woman no doubt, but far less that the “bikini babe” got from the guys. The guy in the Speedos would get a negative reaction from other guys. Lots of guys would be thinking/saying things like “I don’t want to see your package, put some pants on.”

The same thing exists in movies. I work in a movie theater, and hear many people’s reaction to their friends as they walk out of a theater. After a movie like American Pie I recall a few ladies saying things like “I could have done without the T&A with the Russian girl” I’m sure that many thought that but it was not that big of a deal to them. On the other hand after Wild Things & Boogie Nights many guys were making a big over the fact that they did not like the male full frontal shots. In this day and age many guys feel the need to point out how much they do not want to see other guys’ equipment; anything less and they might be considered gay, or so the macho thinking goes. The studios feel that male nudity (beyond the but(t) shots that are frequently used for a laugh) might turn off guys to their film while experience has shown that female nudity will not keep woman away from the picture (Titanic, anyone)

Mr. Leeder, you were indeed correct when reprimanding me for my ignoratio elenchi, which best replaces casus belli, and Latin phraseological bawbee. Nudity in films is now, more than ever, a feuilleton for audiences, and the particular gender toward which this attraction is geared is obviously the male population. Allow me to give you an example as to when nudity in a film is frivolous or outright dubious. Stanley Kubrik was quite an ingenious director, but I oftentimes questioned his content. In The Shining, which starred Jack Nicholson, there is a scene in which Jack's character encounters the woman who committed suicide in her bathtub some odd years earlier. This is a pivotal part of Stephen King's novel, yes, considering Jack's character really loses it beyond this point, but what exactly is the significance of having her step out of the bathtub appearing in all her glory? Furthermore, what is the attempted connotation behind a nude elderly version of the previous woman? Sporadically--and I am quite definite numerous filmmakers hate to admit this--male directors exploit their position to simply gaze upon naked women. And do not think it does not exist in the medical world, too. Oh, yes. By the way, Mei, I already made that point regarding the inamorata in the bed in that specific scene in Schindler's List.

I, too, become exasperated by the overused profanity in films. Have any of you ever caught Hoodlums on TV or rented the movie? The villain vocalizes every sentence with the ef word placed somewhere and, at times, anywhere. This could be the stereotyped image of a "bad guy." We typically associate profanity with villains, who are, in turn, usually associated with petty lowlifes. There are opulent, eloquent, social-savy, and etiquette-prone villains, too.

Nudity in films, in my humble opinion, is embarrassing. Let us say you are hypothetically watching a movie with your sister and mother and practically every other scene involves female nudity. You would feel a tad bit uncomfortable, right? Or you wish to convey respect to a female date you happen to be chaperoning to a movie and have this type of material slammed right into your and her faces. Timecop is the epitome of a movie exhibiting gratuitous nudity. Someone decided to enshroud Jean-Claude Van Damme's horrendous acting with crude, tawdry dalliances of nudity. All in all, though, it boils down to the culture. Unlike Europe, nudity here in the US is not maturely handled or executed.

I realize this is tremendously off-topic, but the sub-section for which this is intended is no longer available. I shall post the message under this sub-section. It is concerning the Oscar picks of nineteen ninety-nine. That was a presumptuous comment apropos of Shakespeare in Love. I ought to view the film initially before any ensuing critique. The same thing happened with Starship Troopers, but I was indeed correct in my assumption that it would be a boondoggle.

During one particular scene in The Siege, might I add, nearly displays male nudity. If you catch the movie on TV or rent it, you shall immediately recognize the scene. The male actor is obviously nude, and the camera is angled low enough to let slip a few pubic hairs. However, the director decided to leave it to the audience's imagination. Now, if they would only do that prevalently with both male and female thespians.

With whose grammar am I drawing a blank? My own, apparently. The sentence reading, "During one particular scene in The Siege, might I add, nearly displays...," I neglected to insert the words the scene preceding nearly. Hey, we are allowed to make mistakes after all.

Doing that with male thespians is easy. You just don't let the camera go lower than the waist when shooting from any angle other than the rear. Most movies that involve nudity do the same for females, that's where we get the term "T&A movie" from. Even lot's of late night "Skinemax" flicks will show T&A but not show the Umm...Umm..(what to call it) lower frontal reagon. Had a woman been in that same scene in The Siege with the exact same camera angles her breasts would have been extreamly visable. Shooting a scene where a female is supposed to be naked without showing anything is hard to do. Shoulders-up shots and behind the back shots are very limiting. The other choice is to hide it with props. This option is more distracting than the actual nudity and evokes the humor of those famous Austen Powers non-nude scenes.

BTW "Basic Instinct" and "Showgirls" aside; the female genetal area is almost never shown in mainstream movies. Pubic hair is not the same thing as genetils, anyone who does not understand this concept apparently has had very little experance with women.

The nudity in Any Given Sunday and The Whole Nine Yards is utterly frivolous. The nudity in Any Given Sunday is especially gratuitous. I actually feel sorry for the young actress, who portrays a young female prostitute in the movie and whose character only appears in three scenes with Al Pacino--and in all, for that matter--one of which showcases her nude from the waist up. She is such a great actress and was featured on Saved by the Bell for a few years. In all honesty, I feel this type of nudity demeans the actors/actresses involved. As for the actress in The Whole Nine Yards, it simply is not the genre of material for which it is worth exposing oneself. It is aimed for a cheap laugh in The Whole Nine Yards, as well as an intended attention-grabbing portion. Quite frankly, I do not need to see breasts when viewing a comedy (of all categories).

"As for the actress in The Whole Nine Yards, it simply is not the genre of material for which it is worth exposing oneself"

I think that is a very narrow way of looking at things. Believe it or not some people do not mind being seen naked or topless. (Some even enjoy it, but that's another story.) Amanda Peet did bare her breasts in the whole 9 yards. Having never met her, I can not say what her personal attitude toward nudity is. But many American women do take their tops off when they go to a European beach. Perhaps Ms. Peet is a person like that. For her the question of "would you show your breasts?" might not be any more embarrassing than the question of "would you appear in a skimpy bikini in the movie?" Or she may be very shy about her body and have done it just for the money. I just think that saying that a lightweight comedy is not worth exposing ones body implys that exposing the body is inheritly wrong, and needs some kind of justification. That may be the majority opinion of Americans but it is not universally shared by everyone, anyone who doubts that it is not shared by everyone need only look at the recent legal battle in Canada over weather women would have to right to go topfree at pools and beaches if they so choose.

The best example of the hypocrisy (or shall I say stupidity) of the ratings happens in "Last Action Hero" with Arnold Schwarzenegger: The Cop which Arnie plays has just killed a handful of bad guys very violently, bullets flying, guts spraying and so on, and surveys the wreckage, when the kid danny comes up to him and tries to get him to say the F-Word, reasoning arnie can't say it because the rating would go above 12. So, killing people violently should be watched by children, as long as the bad guys are killed, but to hear the f-word or see a naked breast is dangerous for the character and moral of the children?

Maybe its because I'm European, but I think this is pretty dumb.

Apart from that, I'm also tired of many nude women in films, but never naked males: Why is it sort of ok to show naked breasts and stark naked women, but you can't possibly show a mans best thing? What about equality?

Of course, we all know hollywood producers are braindead or -amputated, and the reasoning goes usually: Let's make a male movie with lots of explosions and tricks and babes. When the guys watch it, then its a hit. We don't want to make a good movie, because guys love a movie with tricks, explosions and babes. Plot doesn't matter, character doesn't matter. When we want to do a movie for the women, we will do it as soapy as we can - like titanic - because women want to see a romance. Plot doesn't matter, character doesn't matter, as long as it is romantic.

I mean, most of the recent movies seem to follow that thinking. It's very frustating when you want to see a good movie, with a logical plot, interesting and non-stereotypical characters, a plot that stands alone without the tricks or naked women, then you can't find one. Very sad.

Apart from that, I'm also tired of many nude women in films, but never naked males: Why is it sort of ok to show naked breasts and stark naked women, but you can't possibly show a mans best thing? What about equality?

Little Willy looks usually very ridiculous when shown. Just watch "Opfer der Lust" when it's repeated on Wednesday or Friday somewhere in the future.

Apart from that, I'm also tired of many nude women in films, but never naked males: Why is it sort of ok to show naked breasts and stark naked women, but you can't possibly show a mans best thing? What about equality?

Of course, we all know hollywood producers are braindead or -amputated,

Don't blame the producers, they're doing what the public allowes them to. When a movie has male frontal nudity men don't like it and many women don't like it either. (male bare butts are OK though, but it's usually funny not sexy) When one has naked women (although when was the last time you saw female genitalia in a movie? Topless and nude are very different things, and America should realize that, but getting back to business.....) when you have naked women in movie guys like it and girls don't object half as strongly to it as guys do. Trust me on this, I worked at a theater and I heard more girls b*tching about Kevin Bacon in Wild Things than Denise Richards or Nadia in American Pie. Even when it is important to the film (Titanic) parents who thought it was OK to take their kids to a movie about 1300 people dieing took the kids out when Kate W.'s boobs made an apperance.

Also nudity is far less common today than it used to be (say 20 - 25 years ago) Slasher flicks don't usually have nudity (Scream trilogy, I (still) Know What You Did Last Summer, Bride of Chuckey, Halloween H20, Valentine, Urban Legend, Wishmaster) Even erotic thrillers like Wild Things only has a quick breast shot of Denise Richards and Kevin Bacon's scene was supposed to just be a butt shot but he was standing in the wrong place. Today an Erotic thriller like the theatrical cut of Basic Instinct could never get an R rating without being cut to ribbons.

Check out some 80s flicks like Friday the 13th, early Halloween, early Nightmare on Elm Street, early Die Hard, and early Lethal Weapon. Compaire it to Die Hard 3, Leathal Weapon 4, The Matrix, Gladiator, The Fast and the Furious, and all the flicks I mentioned above. Today when a movie like Starship Troopers or Swordfish have nudity they generate more publicity than anything else in the movie. Most nudity that you see in films today is when it is more relevant to the plot (Titanic, Shakespeare in Love)

I don't like seeing anyone's package in a movie. It may seem s-tupid to cover yourself with a sheet when you are supposedly alone with your honey, but it's better than the alternative. I recently watched too movies that I was upset with one for unexpected violence and one for unexpected partial (risque) nudity.
Nurse Betty, I had assumed was a comedy, so my sister, sister-in-law and I and my five year old neice watching the video. We were also careful my neice watched, waiting till she had gone to bed to watch possibly violent movies, etc. But this seemed innocent. And within a half and hour or so, Bam, someguy gets scalped. Gross, and my neice saw it needless to say we weren't happy.
I just rented Topsy-Turvy, (it's about Gilbert & Sullivan, a Victorian musical writing team). here i am watching it, and one scene opens with Sullivan in a brothel, (or strip club, take your pick) with two women singing each with just a half slip on, and then they both go and sit on his lap. That I was upset about, since that had absolutely no part of the plot, and was clearly only there to get the R rating. The movie was ok other than that, but I won't be watching it again, unless it comes on network television.
Also regarding the reality of the language used, as much as I hate to admit it, it is realistic. Several of my coworkers, use the F-word as an everyday adjective. They may not be as obvious about it as in movies, not every other word, but it is there. I don't like it, but it true. Especially considering the action movies that have a lot of bad language star military or ex-military characters. Which is what my coworkers are. I don't like bad language in movies or real life, but in my experience you can't say that's a movie use of it is not realistic (at least on some occasions) because it is used frequently.
BTW--I think most of the movies show women more than men nude, because the men filming it want to see women nude, not men. I also think a lot of women who appear nude (or even scantily clad) may feel that is the only thing they can do, arouse men.

Nurse Betty is a comedy. But it was a violent comedy. Much like Very Bad Things, War of the Roses, True Lies, etc.

Now, I could see how you might have been misled by some of the promotion for the film. But I don't understand how "innocent" you realistically expected it to be when the movie was Rated R... partly for its violent content (as it is written on the video box). Might I suggest that you examine an adult film more closely before subjecting a five-year-old to it.

As for Topsy-Turvy. Again, the video box details that it was Rated R for a scene of sexuality (probably the very scene you referred to).

I'm sorry to sound like I'm ranting, but you make it sound like you're blaming the filmmakers for surprising you when a small amount of research reveals the truth about it.

What WAS Alam Rachins doing in Showgirls? Did acting work dry up after L.A. Law went off? He wrote at least one episode of Hill Street Blues. Couldn't he have continued as a writer? Anything other than being associated with this embarrassment.

At the time he was cast Paul Verhoeven had an unbroken streak of 3 mega-hits behind him.

I dunno, Adam. Maybe he really, really wanted to be able to say a line like, "F--k some of that baby fat off."

Karen, no offense please but I gotta ask...what on earth is a five-year-old doing watching Nurse Betty in the first place? The most cursory glance at the back of the video box should have told you that that particular movie was made for teenagers and up.

I was startled too by the sudden nudity in Topsy Turvy - the way it's filmed, that sequence sort of explodes out at the viewer after a series of very low-key scenes.
But in the context of the movie, it's not gratuitous at all; it's there to show Sullivan's decadent lifestyle (ie. the stuff he'd rather be doing besides write operettas). Listen to the dialogue, check into Mike Leigh's filmography - even without that scene this isn't a 'family movie'.

I don't really mind nudity in films, if it's not obviously exploitative and handled with a bit of thought and care; I thought the scene in Titanic was exquisitely erotic.
But...I dunno, I just don't think it's all that exciting to women to see nude men, in the way it is to men to see nude women. Cintra Wilson's A Massive Swelling makes the point that an elaborate attempt to create a female-oriented Playboy - Playgirl magazine - failed badly.

Also I'm fully in the camp that considers it ludicrous that we North Americans throw hissy fits over sex in movies, but not gratuitous violence or excessive language...

"Perhaps you are making a casus belli point, so to speak, Mr. Leeder, but the film industry has neoterically been producing and releasing movies containing nudity intended for a succes fou outcome but receives instead an ignis fatuus. I believe this is so because they are consciously or unconsciously following a dernier cri conatus from which exposed genitalia, primarily pudendum, is emerging and consequently being ranked as 'beauty' or 'appeal.'"

Mr. Leeder, I recently glanced back over this particular comment from me and you are entirely correct. This was during my "memorizing the dictionary" phase and I got "addicted" to the latin words/phrases section (a "verbal fix," if you will) at the back of the my overtly outdated collegiate dictionary--words like conatus (yes, I used it instead of conation) and bawcock are archaic words listed. It's certainly no way to win an argument.

I realize this is straying off-topic, but I hardly notice any comments lately streaming into this forum area, anyway. Along with casus belli, there are synonyms, such as contretemps, raison d'etre, a fortiori, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (the latter often with negative connotations). Unrelated, there's cause celebre, ultima Thule, terra incognita, folie a deux, compos mentis, tabula rasa, nimbus, and nisus.

I realize the aforementioned paragraph is frivolous, but please leave it, Moderator, so that my previous comment has SOME backing.

Nothing more to contribute to this topic except being alarmed at the exorbitance of leading lady nudity in movies currently (e.g., Heather Graham in Killing Me Softly, Meryl Streep in Adaptation, and [shudder] Kathy Bates in About Schmidt).

Actually, two movies just came to mind: Mumford and Eyes Wide Shut. Absolute gratuitous use of nudity!

Practically the same thing happened to me that occurred with the noted Nurse Betty incident. The movie was Mumford, and I rented it and watched it with my best friend at his house. His little brother came back from school and was negotiating whether or not to join us for this flick.

A Friday night, boy's night out--bring on the naked women poker deck, right? Wrong. First, my pal and I are the comme il faut, chivalrous gentlemen who take the courteous approach. And secondly, his younger brother was to view the film with us.

It's a lucky thing my fiduciary's younger sibling didn't join us with Mumford, because there are at least seven total instances when you have a regular scene before--BOOM!--nudity. Just out of nowhere, serving no apparent purpose. The previews, like the ones for Vanilla Sky, were quite misleading.

As for Eyes Wide Shut, I'm sorry, if there was some great artistic genius/innovation to this movie, I obviously missed it by the truckloads. Stanley Kubrick's final magnum opus (allegedly) just looked like a fervently surreptitious way to get young (notice how the women are ALWAYS young?) women to get naked. I apologize to Stanley Kubrick fans, but I got the impression that Stanley Kubrick was just a horny old goat.

There is nothing wrong with gratuitous nudity. There is something wrong with not being told about it.

If I rent "Barney -- LIVE!!" I don't want the purple dinosaur to say, "Shimbaree Shimbaraa. Let's take off our F##@$in' clothes!"

If for some reason the director feels he needs that, fine. The rating is a way I can read the box and decide.

So you don't like the MPAA making those decisions? I don't like the FDA making similar decisions. Should we ban food labels or is any, all be it flawed, information better than ignorance?

There is nothing wrong with gratuitous nudity. There is something wrong with not being told about it.

And you thought a movie called 'Showgirls', rated either R or NC-17 was going to be about church?

Actually I enjoyed Showgirls although every once in a while they tried to have a plot.

Wasn't Showgirls the one about the young up-and-coming women struggling to make a career breakthrough on Broadway? I believe they did go to church in a scene or two.

(PS: I'm kidding! )

CR,

It was a documetary on young church going women who loved to dance to old broadway show tunes. I think it was directed by Michael Moore.

(P.S. I'm kidding too.)

Oh, that one!

Thanatos, Via Dolorosa, and Aceldama are other good words.

I forgot a few more, though I'll henceforth include these words under Kitchen Sink's Topic Archives' Etymological musings.

Simulacrum, coup de grace, and pons asinorum.

Personally, I think the MPAA has the system under control. If it says, "NC-17"...keep your kids away from it.

My favorite "cheesecake" films...(no particular order)....

"Showgirls"
"The Wicked Lady"
"Eyes Wide Shut"
"About Last Night"
"Indecent Proposal"
"Braveheart"
"Titanic"
"Striptease"
"Gia"
"Original Sin"

Personally, I think the MPAA has the system under control. If it says, "NC-17"...keep your kids away from it.

Of course the rule says if it is NC-17 you can't being your kids to it. That takes away the parents right to decide weather or not to take their kids to it. (Sorry dads if Evil Dead 2 hadn't surendered there rating you couldn't take your 14 year old son to a midnight screening of it on halloween night)

Also the problem is that since NC-17 has such a stigma attached to it (studios are affraid of taking heat from the religious right for releasing one and papers are affraid to advertise one) they will cut it to an R, but within an inch of being NC-17 so that now kids can get in to see 8mm and Basic Instinct and judging by the rating parents will assume it is no more objectionable than T2, American Pie, or The Matrix.

BF,


Yes, all lines are arbitrary. Lines are helpful but some mor0ns will assume the the line is everything and some other mor0ns will manipulate the system of arbitrary lines to their advantage. Should we let the mor0ns make us do away with the arbitrary lines?

The arbitrary lines were helpful. What do you suggest we replace them with so I don't accidentally take my kids to see Barney in Toyland to find out it stars Ron Jeremy? (With no arbitrary lines that is more possible than with mor0ns trying to use the arbitrary lines for their own advantage.)

In anyone's answer do not try that Krap about me seeing a movie alone first. Does anyone really think I'll spend $8 and then spend another $24? Why am I paying a $8 tax to hollywood because someone doesn't like the arbitrary lines?

Lang: The MPAA is out of control if you ask me. Did you know that on several occasions they have threatened to slap an NC-17 rating on a movie not for any nudity or violence but for IDEAS presented in the film? Or how about how they've threatened to punch up a movie to an R beucase they felt it was 'too long?' Consider the South Park movie for a moment. The MPAA (which was rightuflly trashed in the flick) gave Matt and Trey a LIST of scenes they wanted cut or shortened. So what did our interpid Coloradans do? They made the scenes ten times worse and five times longer. And the MPAA totally missed it! Now consider that they want the right to legally hack into anyone's computer, with no legal recourse for any of us whose systems get BLEEPED by this legal form of harrasment, just because we MIGHT have 'copyrighted' material on our hard drives, and do you still think they have it 'under control?'

BTW, did you know the ONLY criteria for joing the ratings board at the MPAA is you must be a parent? That's it! If you have a kid you're in. Am I the only who thinks the standard should be a smidgen higher?

Then you must set your own standards.

If a movie has gratuitous nudity & violence in it, and that offends you, then don't go see that movie.

Yes, all lines are arbitrary. Lines are helpful but some mor0ns will assume the the line is everything and some other mor0ns will manipulate the system of arbitrary lines to their advantage. Should we let the mor0ns make us do away with the arbitrary lines?

No but we should at least make lines that are better in step with the majority of people, rather than setting lines that are in step with the moral minority and letting everyone else to have to figure stuff like "pg-13 means 10 years and older for normal people"

BTW blue I didn't even hear you address the whole thing about how the NC-17 isn't a guidline that you can use to make a decision about your own 16 year old but a rule that makes the parenting decision for you.

John A. Lang: If a movie has gratuitous nudity & violence in it, and that offends you, then don't go see that movie.
Luigi Novi: And how is someone supposed to know that there's nudity in, or that its' gratuitous?

BF,

NC-17 are moves I don't take my kids to. What part of that are you having a problem with? My son is 11. When he's 16 it depends. If he is studying Caligula and a documentary on Caligula gets an NC-17 that is different than "Nuns in Bondage". I have not wasted $8 and two hours seeing the NC-17 movie someone else did and said, "Wow, this is serious stuff." Are you actually against me getting more information?

They are not banning it, merely giving me more information so I can make my own decision. The alternative is they (not I) decide I should not see it, or shut up and leave me to my own devices: which do you prefer? Frankly I see no serious problem as they are.

If a director has to make changes to get down to an “R”, so? Ever hear of DVD’s? The directors cut will be on their and you have not foisted your morality on anyone but you.

NANJAO: In "Spartacus", Stanley Kubrick comes VERY CLOSE to showing Jean Simmons' "goodies". No doubt, if this movie were done today, they'd show her "goodies".

NC-17 are moves I don't take my kids to. What part of that are you having a problem with?

I have a problem with the fact that you don't have a choice in the matter. R means no one under 17 without a parent, that makes it your decision. NC-17 is not more information. If you go to the box office and say "2 tickets for (an NC-17 movie)" they will not allow you to bring your 16 year old son in with you because he is not 17. Go here if you don't believe me.

http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/

It says:

R: Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent or Guardian

NC-17: No One Under 17 Admited

As for the whole DVD thing. I love unrated Director's Cuts but why should serious film lovers have to wait and watch the real version of the film on a small video screen at home? Many of us would like to see the real version of a movie projected onto the cinema screen.

BTW I've also used the argument about home video as invalidating the whole no one under 17 admited thing. Back when you had to see movies in the theater (and broadcast TV was the only way to see them on TV) not allowing those under 17 into the theater kept them from seeing it. Now with home video if a parent wants to let their kid watch Day of the Dead on the big screen (and it happens to be playing somewhere) they can see it on home video anyway, so why not cut the act like we are preventing them from seeing it and let them have the cinematic experience.

BF,

First your link. The format is /newurl{web address, cutesy remark} (of course with the slash reversed.)

You are right. I never thought about that before. Of course, how many NC-17 movies come to my cinemaplexes to make me aware of it.

As for the whole DVD thing. I love unrated Director's Cuts but why should serious film lovers have to wait and watch the real version of the film on a small video screen at home? Many of us would like to see the real version of a movie projected onto the cinema screen. -- BF

Now I'm going to give you a free market idea and if you believe what you say you can turn a profit from others $tupidly limiting their market. If there is a demand for the true cinematic experience of the real version of a movie, open a small theater showing only director's cuts. (I assume the MPAA is voluntary. It says voluntary but is like how your social security number is not to be used for identification purposes?)

You may run into contractual snags and have to wait until the movies are out on DVD. If you are right about their being a demand that is not being fulfilled then you will make your investment back. If you are wrong, well, hey, bankruptcy happens. Sound too risky? Get a few partners who also want the cinematic experience to share the risk and potential profits.

I assume the MPAA is voluntary.


Since NATO (The National Assocastion of Theater Owners, not North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is part of the MPAA most theaters will not show films that have not been rated by the MPAA.

It's voluntary in the same way that Ticketmaster is an example of the free market and not a monopoly. (Quick sidetrack to explain that one) If you are Pearl Jam who is politicaly opposed to Ticketmaster you can launch a concert tour but never sell tickets through ticketmaster. Of course since most venues have exclusive agreements with ticketmaster you can't play them without selling through ticketmaster.

If there is a demand for the true cinematic experience of the real version of a movie, open a small theater showing only director's cuts.

Only 2 problems with that idea are a single 35mm projector costs about $100,000; to say nothing of the land, the building, sound system, multi-thousand dollar screen. And no studio is making unrated final prints of their films. The unrated DVD version of the movie is made by digitaly adding to the movie after the film was scaned to create a DVD master. Making 2 versions of a release print is something that takes time and money that they are not spending at the moment.

You are right. I never thought about that before. Of course, how many NC-17 movies come to my cinemaplexes to make me aware of it.

Which pretty much proves my point about NC-17 being a defacto mark of death that tells most theaters not to court controversery by showing it, which has hurt the profitability of such movies so much that most studios will cut whatever it takes to get an R rating.

BF,

I never said it was cheap and easy. No guts - No glory. Put your money (actually who ever bankrolls you) where your mouth is. I'm sure there is a way to project from the DVD. Solving problem #1 - get partners. Solving problem #2 - Use the DVD itself and look into big projection TV screens that are movie theater sized.

You can be like France and not really join NATO. (So you have a hard time getting first run movies. So what? You don't show first run movies, remember?)

Hey, this is the end of the free advice. From now on I want a consultant's fee.

First of all DVDs projected onto a big screen don't look nearly as good as 35mm film. Putting asthedic concerns like that for a moment.

I didn't say that I thought their was a big enough market for such a theater. On the spectrum of movie fans, you have people like me who do care about stuff like that. On the other side you have those who want "clean entertainment" and in the middle you have the overwealming majority. These people don't really care that much either way. They'd rather go to the megaplex and read the board to see what's playing (as they had no idea what to see when they left the house) than decide to see a movie and look in the paper to find where it is playing and drive out of their way to see a limited release or diferent cut of the movie in an "art house" theater. Many of these people will buy the unrated version of American Pie if they see both versions sitting side by side at Best Buy (as one often does at Best Buy) but would not drive across town to get it, nor do they care that the version of Requem for a Dream Blockbuster carries clearly says Edited for content on the cover.

If you've ever been to an arthouse cinema before you know that most have outdated projection and sound equiptment and small screens. The fact that people who care about content quality are fragmented throughout the nation is the reason that many people have to wait for HBO or DVD to see movies or better versions of movies.

Before you start saying that I want to change the free market, what I am saying is that we shouldn't let the religious right minority influince what everyone else sees, or the ease that they can see it.

Add "Blind Date" to my list on 2/19/03

what I am saying is that we shouldn't let the religious right minority influince what everyone else sees, or the ease that they can see it.-Brian Fitzgerald

Believe it or not, it's not the 'religious right minority' that influences ratings. It's North American culture in general. Yes, people like you and me may have liberal views regarding sex, displaying nudity, etc, but we are the ones in the minority here. The whole Victorian ethic of sex/nudity=bad has been with us for over a hundred years, and it still influences the way the majority of North Americans think.

Things are, however, improving. Just look at beds, for example. When my parents were young, it was considered inappropriate to show two married people sleeping in the same bed on television (let alone unmarried!). Today, none of us think twice about it. As North Americans as a whole become more comfortable with their bodies and sexuality, we will see more and more loosening of restrictions on television and movies.

Marc

Add "Killing Me Softly" with Heather Graham to my list.

As for Eyes Wide Shut, I'm sorry, if there was some great artistic genius/innovation to this movie, I obviously missed it by the truckloads. Stanley Kubrick's final magnum opus (allegedly) just looked like a fervently surreptitious way to get young (notice how the women are ALWAYS young?) women to get naked. I apologize to Stanley Kubrick fans, but I got the impression that Stanley Kubrick was just a horny old goat.

What exactly were you expecting? The first trailer for that film clearly showed Nicole Kidman's bare butt and breasts for more than half the clip and rummors of much more graphic sexual stuff than ended up in the film abounded for months before hand.

Believe it or not, it's not the 'religious right minority' that influences ratings. It's North American culture in general. Yes, people like you and me may have liberal views regarding sex, displaying nudity, etc, but we are the ones in the minority here. The whole Victorian ethic of sex/nudity=bad has been with us for over a hundred years, and it still influences the way the majority of North Americans think.

If that's true than how come the porn industry makes about as much money every year as Hollywood? If Hollywood makes $100+ budget blockbusters, while the porn industry makes $10,000 cheap direct to video junk but both net similer amounts of money?

Because the porn industry is the industry people try to ignore because it's not an all-audiences industry. But for an industry that caters from children and families to horny teenagers, college students and 20somethings, the public is going to want to make sure that material appropriate for the other is not seen by the one.

But my point is that pron buyers are a big higher than some little minority and more like about half the population of the US has purchaced porn at some time or another.

Pron buyers? Is that simular to a Scpipt?

Marc Lechowicz's point was that the Victorian or Puritan attitude toward sex/nudity still influences the way the majority of North Americans think. That's true. It's not mitigated by whether porn is a booming industry or not, because the key word Marc used was influence. He didn't say it determined every and all choices we make, only that it had some effect on them. It simply doesn't affect them to the extent people don't buy porn.

Yo, Spell Checker Dude: (Did I get the vernacular right?)
Which spell checker? WP10 (but not Word 2002) accepts "pron," even without the period. But neither accepts "simular," probably because it's not a word. (Nor "scpipt," but MS and Corel are apparently not in on the joke.)

Correction: "Spell Check (not 'Checker') Dude"

Mr. Editer is appropriately humiliated.

Mr. Editer:

I think Brian meant "PORN buyers". He just got his O & R mixed up.

"Scpipt" is a Star Trek TOS First Season End Credits error. TPTB had "Scpipt Supervisor....George Rutter" for 13 episodes. Check it out!

I think Spell Check dude was just having some fun at Brian's expense. (That's why he put the smiley)
But he needs to learn how to spell correctly himself!

And it's Editor.

John A.: I think Brian meant "PORN buyers". He just got his O & R mixed up.

:: Yes. That's what Spell Check Dude was pointing out.

(Same): "Scpipt" is a Star Trek TOS First Season End Credits error. . .

:: Yes. That's why I said "MS and Corel are apparently not in on the JOKE." (Emphasis added.)

HannahF: And it's Editor.

:: Yes. But "Editer" is funnier.