The hypocritical parent: "Son, put some clothes on! Who taught you to walk around naked?"So the internet is abuzz with 300's outstanding box office take after many thinkpieces on whether or not the homoerotic heaps of male flesh would turn potential ticket buyers away. Guess not. Does this mean Hollywood will get less afraid of naked men? Who knows...
I prefer excessive nudity to excessive violence but I'm obviously in the minority. The success here will definitely encourage Hollywood's bloodlust rather than the other kind. I'm sure someone's done research somewhere but doesn't it seem like there's far less nudity in mainstream movies today (male or female) than there was in the 80s and 90s? (And no, foreign films and Shortbus don't count in this debate. Those are Off Hollywood situations)
Posts
16 comments:
Really? I mean come on, there is only one brief, albeit nice, shot of a naked male ass in 300. Yes, they are bare chested and in leather speedos the whole time, but with the exception of one scene, it's a good scene, they have those huge, flowing red capes on. Which I found to be more visually pronounced with their deep reds while the flesh took on the more predominant sepia tones of the film. Also, there is hardly any noticeable aussiebum-esque bulging going on in those speedos and they threw some tits in there for good measure.
Okay, how did that term get around so quickly?
Swear to God, friend of mine who saw the film late Thursday in IMAX used it on Friday, and I'd never heard it before then by anyone else.
Did some huge mass media outlet coin the term without my knowledge, or is there some six degrees of Kevin Bacon going on, Nat?
i have not seen the movie yet (other obligations this weekend)
i heard the term on my new plaid pants which quoted it from aint-it-cool-news.so yeah, it did get around quickyly
i'm sorry to intrude, but what term?
Dude-ity
There is definitely much less sex in (American) cinema these days. People seem frightened of it. Or they're frightened of the puritanical (is that the word?) fundamentalists who will cry foul.
And then there's also the fact that ratings are harsher/lighter these days when it comes to sex and violence. Sure, filet Jesus for over two hours and you get a dandy little R rating fit for the consuming public, but have a couple of sex scenes and it's NC17, baby!
And there's also the weird celebrity demands. When Angelina Jolie flashed em during Taking Lives it was incredibly strange and offputting. When Halle Berry did it in Swordfish it was silly (I was too busy wanting them to get back to Hugh Jackman). But so many others have no nudity clauses.
I remember Reese Witherspoon dropping trou in this really silly movie from the late '90s called Twilight (with Paul Newman, scarily). I find it incredibly hard to believe that she would do that these days now that's she's intent of becoming Miss USA.
Although, if the current trend of ultra-violence is a result of young directors bringing their teen influences to the big screen (people like Tarantino, Rodriguez, Roth, etc) then maybe soon enough a new brand of directors will bring their teen influences to the screen. Instead of their influences being the Cravens, or the Hoopers or the Romeros, it'll be the Pakulas and the Bertoluccis and so on.
Wow. This was long. Sorry.
Oh, sorry, one more thing. Want an example of how ridiculous the MPAA is. Apparently Transformers got an R rating for "intensity" in it's action sequences. Steven Spielberg made a phone call to the right people and it got re-rated to a PG13.
If that's true (and I am sure it is) then that's crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxZc8AqRj2Q
LOL. Just watched the YOUtube thing. Poor, poor, aberrational Pedro!!
That clip was very funny indeed.
yeah that was my favorite moment in this film is not yet rated
If you choose to believe the powers-that-be at the MPAA, they want to "remove the stigma" from the NC-17 rating now. They started the campaign at Sundance, along with "greater clarity and transparency" in the rating system. Problem is, any proposed changes fail to address one of the primary complaints about the rating system - that violence is more acceptable than sexual content.
Excessive violence makes me queasy...plus, I tend to think that excessive violence encourages shoddy screenwriting. As we become more accustomed to violence on the screen, screenwriters are using violence to cover up poor character development and plot structure.
When sex arises to that same level, it becomes soft-core porn suitable only for late night viewing on cable television. However, when violence arises to that level, it can become a Hollywood event.
Here's a terrible story I hate remembering from when I worked at Hollywood Video. Some guy used to come in with his kid (who was about 12) and ask me why certain movies were given PG-13 or R ratings. Which I thought was nice; active parenting, a good thing.
But then one day he asked, in front of his kid: "Is there any nudity or sex in this movie?"
I can't remember what the movie was, but I told him no, although I knew it was pretty violent.
"Well, that's okay," he said. "Violence is fine, because we know that's not real."
Huh? Seeing people killing each other is better than seeing people loving each other? Odd...
I think your average parent doesn't mind if a kid sees violence, but the barest flash of nudity freaks them out because they might have to talk to their kids about sex. A lot of idiot social stigma has to do with people not wanting to feel a little uncomfortable for even a second.
So, guys watch porn, which invariably has two things, naked women and naked men. Yet, for some "unknown" reason guys still watch. So obviously we are not averse to the naked male body.
Me personally, I could care less, though if I had to choose between seeing the men in 300 naked for arts sake versus say the guys in Hog Wild naked for arts sake, I'll take the men in 300. I much rather see the human body at its physical peak, if I wanted to see random Joe Schmoe I'd go to the local beach.
What I found odd, is that the sex scene in this movie made me go, "huh, ok, I mean, yea, duh he's gunna have sex with his wife", but were it not in the original graphic novel I think the movie could have done without it. At least it was decently well filmed, though I was disturbed by the fact that the only moaning going on was hers. I guess we can see naked men, we just can't hear them... The oracle scene was lovely though.
Great flick!
it's been sold out all the time here in Manhattan (well, i'm holding out for iMax and I've had limited time free to see it so i'm waiting for right opportunity.
but again, agreed that it's disturbing how few parents care if their children see ghastly violence. Whenver I'm at the multiplex I see little kids going into slasher flicks with their parents all the time.
which is... disturbing.
Not that Hollywood is ever going to thank gay men as an important ticket-buying audience, but the Variety critic called it last week:
www.bandofthebes.com
Post a Comment