Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

A while back I was watching a movie directed by Sean Baker called “Starlet”.
Starlet is a brilliant movie that deals with cross -generational friendship and I was very pleased with the film until all of the sudden this explicit sex scene comes up. By explicit I mean pornographic,as we get to see scenes of sexual penetration. I asked myself why would a director ruin such a beautiful film with what is in my opinion just plain bad taste. Baker in an interview stated that he wanted a Cinéma vérité vibe,but it looks more like a teenage prank for me. I'm not trying to make a moral or a bigoted statement,but I believe that artistically speaking there is no need to show genital close ups of sex scenes (or close ups of toilet scenes) in a film ,unless you are looking for juvenile shock value.
We're not in the 1950's anymore ,pornography nowadays (which I have absolutely nothing against) is well accepted and easily available,so there is no need to mix it with mainstream movies to portray some kind of intellectual rebelliousness towards society.
Furthermore ,this year the Palm D'or at the Caannes film festival was won by a movie called “Blue is the warmest color”,and according to Imdb the audience was reportedly 'shocked beyond belief' by the graphic sex scenes that took place throughout the course of the movie.
More than shocked I would have been bored to tears,but that's just me.......

Never seen it, but I may well do now :).

:):)

I wouldn't consider either one of those movies to be "mainstream".

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

You're not European. :)

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

By mainstream I meant everything that is not pornographic :)

I think you have a much broader definition of pornography than I do.

If it bothers you, you can always find out if the movie has explicit sex scenes in it before hand and not watch it. Or you can do what I do during scary movies and have a blanket ready to cover your eyes.

I've yet to see a movie where it bothered me. Sex is a big part of life and movies are going to reflect that.

Add me to the list as well!

No it doesn't bother me,and I don't mind sex scenes in film if done tastefully or at least with a purpose.
I just don't find porn quite stylish and artistically provocative as some indie directors would want you to believe. That's also why I thought Enter The Void by Gaspar Noe' was quite mediocre .

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

I've seen Starlet and I agree that the sex scenes were very graphic and in my opinion unnecessary. I actually spoke to the director about this after a screening. He said that through his job he got to know a lot of people who did pornography. Part of his inspiration for making the movie was that he wanted to present a typical day in the life of a porn actress, in order to demonstrate that they were just like everybody else and had personal lives, triumphs and challenges. He felt that it would have been unrealistic and dishonest to attempt to do this without showing what they did for a living in detail, which is why he felt it was necessary to include these graphic sex scenes.

http://weeklyhubris.com/wp-content/u...greendoor.jpeg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...onesposter.jpg

http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/images/t...%20of%20oo.jpg

I may agree here. The tendency of more recent movies to be much more pornographic is part of our modern juvenile rebellion against established rules of good conduct.

But when 9/10 of all R rated movies will become pornographic, however, directors who want to be rebellious will need to cut out the explicit sex scenes and so another trend will emerge. ;)

oy! One just came to me! Ok heres the story. I went to Blockbuster video bout 10 years ago, BLOCKBUSTER! Youd think they'd have had a tight vanilla screen. So I rent the Meg Ryan movie (I am so Imdb'ing the name of it cause I try not to memorize drivel) In The Cut, yknow the one where she took this hard edged dramatic Kathleen Turner Body Heat turn. Meg cant hang with Kathleen Turner btw.

Anyhoo I'm watching this Then they showed that hummer! I bout crapped in astonishment! I was equally amazed I rented it at Blockbuster. I always opted for the Directors Cut, but daaaaaayum! :eek:

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

A while ago I watched "The Brown Bunny" with Vincent Gallo. This film he drives around alot and feels sorry for himself looking for his lost love. At the end of the film is this very explicit sceen where he receives oral from his lost love. Since Vincent Gallo both wrote and directed this film, I felt the only reason he showed this sceen was to show the world his genitalia. Very distasteful

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

mmmmm mainstream movies with pornographic style sex scenes, I'm trying to think of some but coming up blank. Sex scenes are quite common in most movies ,especially over the last couple decades, some have even been quite shocking, for example rape scenes in Once Upon A Time in America or that horror movie which I just cant remember now. Full penetrative scenes in "mainstream" movies are quite difficult to come across and I haven't seen any of the movies listed by you guys.

On the topic of sex scenes, I just think scenes where genitalia is visible and you can see penetration is simply ridiculous in a non-porno. It's a bit childish to be honest. If people wanted cheap thrills I'm sure they could log onto their internet accounts at home.

I have no issues with nudity, but I feel the same way about un-simulated sex in non porno films. And it became a thing in art films with films like Le Idiots, The Brown Bunny and Short Bus

mmm it's true, sex scenes and explicit ones at that have found a home in "art" films, a lot of which have been French. I guess it's because these movies need a level of publicity which they wouldn't have otherwise. And there is also this perception among some film makers that explicit sex is somehow more artistic, I am yet to be convinced of that fact.

Well for the French stuff France has different cultural views on sex that are much more open about it. Amelie which is rated R in the states was released with our G equivalent in France. And Lars Von Trier was raised in some sort of nudist convent or something.

But why the Brown Bunny needed a BJ scene even after cutting down the movie after the infamous Cannes screening? No clue...

That's what she said (Chloe Sevigny).

ha!

Damn I've got movies in my collection that I bought just for the sex scenes, am I wrong. :p

Basic instinct
Showgirls
Wild things

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

^ Those are PG rated compared to something like 9 Songs from the director Michael Winterbottom. Absolutely rubbish film where all the sex is real between the two leads.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Songs_film.jpg

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/a...n/64/MPW-32236

And then you have thespian porn!

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

I thought the sex scene in macgruber was the best part of the film

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

I've never understood the argument that showing a sex act is a distasteful cheap thrill, while showing a horrific act of violence is good cinema. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Shortbus has been mentioned here, and I find that to be a terrific example of showing sexual acts as a necessity to plot in a positive manner. The main objective of the main character is to achieve a perfect orgasm. How else would one show this journey without the act of sex? It was a surprisingly sweet film that had wonderful character development along with (and during) the sex. I was happy to see a film that celebrated a natural act that most of the human population will engage in.

Shortbus is the rare exception with sex, unfortunately. Generally, the use of graphic sex is shown as shattering to the characters. Antichrist is a perfect example. Again, the film is about sex: loneliness during sex, sexual power struggles, selfishness of sex, etc. Though I didn't care for the film much, it's hard to argue that the movie would make just as much sense without the sex. It wouldn't. The sex was a necessary part of the story and themes. Lust Caution and Blue Valentine are similar recent examples of this sort of depiction.

It's a shame that there's a thread where people have to really think hard to find movies with sex, but I can go to the multiplex and see Evil Dead, The Purge, and Hangover III, all of which have pretty gruesome depictions of violence.

So why can't sex be artistic? Why does it have to be considered low brow if it's used in service to the plot? And even if it's not, what's the problem? So much of what Hollywood puts out these days in terms of violence is gratuitous. Did Kill Bill really need to show as much decapitation as it did? No, but it was considered art. I just don't understand the no sex stance, beyond the "sex is icky" argument. If that's your only argument, than I would consider you to be juvenile.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

I like subtle direction that implies an action has occured instead of needing to show it explicitly. For example, Sam Mendes in Road To Perdition and American Beauty would show guns pointed to the head, then move the camera away and we would only see blood splattering. We are left to assume and imagine what has happened. For sex, I think it's sufficient to imply the action; for instance, show a couple getting into bed and beginning to kiss then fade to the next scene. Why do we need to see the sex taking place? Unless the movie is about sex or trying to make a related statement, I really don't need to be watching porn in the middle of a film.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

I can certainly appreciate the aesthetic of subtly; the Reservoir Dogs ear cutting scene for example. And I do believe that much of this depends on personal taste. But I have a problem with the labeling of showing beyond anything kissing as "porn".

I fully accept the label of "torture porn" given to films like Saw and The Hills have Eyes. These films exist only to create fear in the audience and to show a gross death. I'm not knocking those who like these films, but they're going in with a certain expectation and nothing more. Same as sexual porn. They are trying to arouse the audience by showing sex.

So violent porn = fear/gruesome deaths. Sexual porn = sexual arousal/graphic sex.

But what about a film like Fargo which includes graphic sex and violence. Considered as by most to be one of the greatest movies of all time, you would be hard pressed to state the sole purpose of the film is the create fear and sexual arousal. The sex and violence is used more as a tool to present realism. Fargo starts of stating "this is a true story". To bolster this lie, they shoot the film in a very still, almost documentary style. Nothing is really glorified, it's just there. The foot in the wood chipper, the cheek being blown off. And the sex with the escort. Just plain, un-arousing, sex.

Would you consider the sex scene in Fargo to be sexual porn? Or the violence to be torture porn?

I havent seen a movie with explicit sex yet thats been worth a damn. All of these movies just plain suck. Caligula bout ruined Malcolm McDowells career even. Chloe Sevigny hurt her career with that Brown Bunny drivel.

So you ask why cant there be a great movie with explicit sex? Ill answer that with a question. When is it necessary to have explicit sex in movies? Ive seen plenty of simulated sex in film that aroused me way more than any porno. Why have explicit sex in movies?

In response to Tongo's "So you ask why cant there be a great movie with explicit sex..."

Well, you really didn't answer the question of whether or not a great film can have sex. You just kind of punted it. But I'll play along. It clearly seems that you have a problem with sex in films, and coming from a conservative upbringing I find that completely understandable. Whether it's a religious philosophy or a general discomfort regarding sex, everyone has a right to be turned off by sexually explicit material in a film. And you can choose to not watch it.

There are many critics who believe there is nothing wrong with arousal in films. Roger Ebert wrote a positive review for the Angelina Jolie movie Original Sin, stating sometimes it's nice to see good looking people having sex. And that healthy, loving sex is vilified in the media so much that the vilification seeps into our own lives. Now, I'm guessing you're going to call that view ludicrous, so I'm not going to defend it (though I agree with it).

I will take issue with your assertion that sex must equal arousal, and therefor must be pornography. It's my opinion that sex in films are not always used for arousal, and sometimes the visual depiction of sex is the most direct way of communicating an idea to an audience.

I've already given examples of films that depict sexual acts in a brutal, no arousing way. Antichrist, Blue Valentine, and Lust Caution. I've stated that Fargo was certainly not arousing. But you may not consider these "great movies", or haven't even seen them (I hated Antrichrist and Lust Caution myself).

So I looked at AFI's 100 best films and took out two examples where sex and nudity are used in non-arousal situations. There are more examples on this list, but I'll just stick with two.

#8 on the list is Schindler's List. During one scene, the Nazi's take off the clothing of their Jewish prisoners to evaluate their physical fitness. There are graphic depictions of nudity of both male and female genitalia. Visually, this brings home the idea that the Jewish people were treated like cattle. I don't think anyone could say they were aroused by this scene. Film is a visual medium and one of the first rules of screenwriting is to show, not tell. Too much dialogue or explaining can take away the impact of the visual nature of a film. So, in this scene, would it had been more effective if we were just told that they were naked?

Schindler's List also has a depiction of a sex act between Ammon Goette and a young woman. This scene is immediately followed by random killings of the Jewish workers (Ammon shooting them from his balcony). In this scene, the opulence and debauchery of Goette his heightened because he has rather meaningless sex directly before shooting a number of prisoners. In this scene, sex, murder, they're all the same to the man. And he appears to take no pleasure in both. He is a psychopath. The scene is portrayed without any dialogue. Again, it's certainly not arousing. I personally do not believe that this scene would have as much impact if it were just talked about.

#70 on the list is A Clockwork Orange. Now, many people thought the film was pornographic when it was first released and it was slapped with an X rating. That has been lowered to an R since then, but I understand the viewpoint. But again, I'm going off your assumption that nudity and sex is only used for arousal.

The film is about images. Kubrick was a visual director who used little to no dialogue in his films (like 2001). For us to believe the story of a young man who has to be cured of his evils, we have to first believe that what he does is evil. And this is shown by two somewhat graphic rapes at the beginning of the film. When I first saw the film, I threw up. The depictions are so cold and isolated that one really gets the feeling of the horror and randomness of these situations. Again, Kubrick deals with images, and to simply say "Alex raped a few people" would not have the visceral and emotional impact that the images provide. These scenes were not arousing at all.

So here are two "officially" great films that show graphic acts of sex and nudity, do not elicit arousal, are used to forward the themes and plots of the films, and use the language of the visual image to portray their scenes.

So, I put the question back to you. Are Spielberg and Kubrick pornographers? Should these films not be considered great because they visualize sex? Would these scenes have the same impact that they did without these scenes? And am I a pervert because I found meaning in these films?

Plus, Maclom McDowell's career was not ruined by Caligula. If that were the case, Clockwork Orange (where he shows just as much nudity) would have ended it. Per his biography, his career slowed because he was initially typecast as the young villain, and as he aged, his career took a nose dive.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

The OP of this thread and most everyone here is discussing UNSIMULATED sex acts in films. Films where actual sex acts occur, not simulated scenes like you have mentioned.

The Brown Bunny had a real BJ in it, Caligula had hardcore porn thrown into it's unrated cut by Penthouse mogul Bob Guccione. Some of it ranging from two lesbians urinating on an actor whose character is dead, a random lesbian sex scene, to a grotto scene where a women is becoming very forward with a snake... luckily that bit was cut away from.

I think most people here do not care or have no objection about love scenes, nudity in films, or even graphic simulated sex acts.

I agree that most people don't care about simulated sex acts. And I do know the story behind Caligula. I'm more responding to those who had problems with films like "In the Cut", and the ideas of pornography. And then to Tongo's question about "panning away" equals arousal.

But even to that point, what's the difference between un-simulated and not? If the actors are willing to perform an un-simulated act, why bemoan them and not those who simulate it? In simulated acts, the actors are nude, they rub against each other, they kiss, they perform various acts of arousal on each other. The only difference is they often wear a genital guard and no penetration exists.

My question is, what's the difference? If the actor is willing and no federal, state, or United Nation's laws are broken, why not show it if it serves the story?

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Well the difference is pretty simple. One is fake one is not. Pretty self explanatory there.

Also, most actors particularly one in relationships simply do not want to preform unsimulated sex acts in films. I remember reading that caused issues on the set of Lars Von Tier's Nymphomaniac between Shia LeBeouf and and his girlfriend, because Van Trier is one of those film makers that shoots unsimulated sex in his films.

There is also a taste issue. Many people do not want to see penetration in films that they go to see at the multiplex or on DVD. Penetrative sex in a movie is relegated to porn according to society, and most people like to keep their movies and porn separate.

But the biggest difference comes from the ratings bored and the MPAA. The MPAA rates movies based on content (poorly and unevenly though it may be) and films with unsimulated sex are frowned upon by them. These movies do not get released in mainstream theaters and severely limit their box office grosses. As such unsimulated sex will be limited to arthouse and independent fare and not Hollywood films.

If people who make movie put it into their film, the actors are cool with it, they have every right to do so. Most people just do not want to watch it, and those who do will be a very niche audience.

Caligula is still on my To-Do list. I am looking for the uncut version. If i get some time i will try to watch it.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

The uncut version is not that hard to find. Found mine at a store in the mall. And then there is Amazon, where you can probably get it cheaper.

Yeah i know. Its just that I haven't really never really thought of watching Caligula... like "I am gonna watch it tonight" thing.

When i do, i will go over Amazon when i decide. Thing is, if i have to watch explicit sex scenes, why not porn movies! :)

Cant get any explicit than that! :D

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Yeah it is a hard film to watch at times. And you are correct sir, just watch porn!

You said alot of nothing. The question I asked was why have explicit sex in movies? Your response was I was uncomfortable due to some conservative upbringing. Obviously such things dont bother me as Ive posted about a few of those crap films Ive seen. Please dont be longwinded in an attempt to sound smart because this subject isnt that complicated.

The ONLY reason to have explicit sex in a film is to produce shock. Thats it! Filmmakers that have gone that direction usually arent of Kubrick or Speilbergs caliber. Kubricks best stuff sure as hell wasnt Eyes Wide Shut, but Ill give him a pass on that one cause he died before he could edit it. Speilbergs movie accounting the holocaust being discussed in a thread about explicit sex in films is just imbecilic.

McDowells career took a hard beating from Caligula, and if he could do it all over again Im sure he'd skip that gig. The film was bad! In The Cut - bad! Brown Bunny - bad! and on and on. Not one of these films discussed were good in any way. Clockwork Orange was much much harder than any of these piece o crap films, and that proves my point. Youre insinuating that if Orange can pass why cant explicit sex. Youre saying theres no moral grounds because the effect is worse in other mainstream films.

Youre right, BUT bad track records for genres equals less of those genres being produced. There were no fantasy movies being made until Lord Of The Rings broke huge financial ground. This is a business. There isnt alot of explicit sex in films because the track record of these films have been horrible. Its a page just not worth turning, and the best directors have the storytelling chops to not just equal that piece of shock but surpass it.

Why does there have to be a law against it for it not to be done? Taking the law and morals out of it, explicit sex detracts from the story, and usually the point the directors trying to make.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Regarding myself ,my upbringing wasn't strict and I'm agnostic.
So from my point of view it was never about morality or religion.
I also firmly believe that eroticism is a beautiful and complex art form.
However eroticism and pornography are two distinct and separate things.
The main reason that pornography exists is to obtain sexual arousal in the most quick and direct way possible. It's serves purely as a need for a physical desire,nothing more,nothing less.
Now...why would I want to achieve this type of stimulation in a non pornographic film?
I would rather prefer to be involved with emotional and intellectual issues (such as plot,cinematography and character development) while I'm watching a movie.
I'm not against pornography at all,it has it's place ,but not in “mainstream” film.
Every once in a while a film director comes along and decides to put some hardcore scenes in a movie,because he can think he can shock the audience.
Sometimes by doing this, he considers himself as Avant-Garde.
Well, this person isn't being Avant-Garde in my opinion,quite the contrary he is being cheap and Retro.
Pornography in film could have meant something artistic maybe 50 years ago,when hardcore was still a strict taboo.
Currently we are over flooded with adult material, it's easily obtainable and massively consumed.
Everybody is watching porn,it's everywhere …..it's really no big deal.
I'm pretty sure that nowadays more people have watched adult movies than auteur film.
So as a final note,you can put explicit sex or even a detailed defecation scene in a film,no one is stopping you, but it will only result in bad taste and not in artistic enlightenment.

I don't believe that the director of Shortbus was trying to shock his audience. I've read a few interviews with him and I understand why he felt his actors should have actual sex rather than simulate it.

**forgot to add that it's a fake penis in In the Cut. Just in case anyone cares.

It got a G in France? wow

Amelie has the G equivalent yeah. lol

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Yes, it got the lowest rating in France, U. Suitable for all ages. They are rather relaxed.

Other examples that all ages can see in France:

The Hangover - this was for 15+ only here in Britain...
The Last Stand - 15+ only here...
Zero Dark Thirty - with over 40 uses of the word f**k on top of everything else...
The Departed - even more hardcore with the swearing...

And more that are 15/18 films in Britain and other countries. It's very interesting to see what they feel is suitable for any age to see.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Angel Heart

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

One of the first scenes that popped into my head on this subject was the one between Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry in MONSTERS' BALL...very explicit and, surprisingly, not erotic at all.

Two films where I have seen no holds barred genuine sex in a un simulated manner are "Antichrist" where you see Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg having full penetrative sex within the first five minutes of the film and also in "In the Realm of the Senses" where frankly nothing was off the table. The thing about Senses though was it was not in the least bit erotic, after a while it just became dull.

One other film that I simply couldn't finish was "Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom" as in one scene it simply went passed the boundaries of decency for me and if you have seen it I think you will know which I mean.

Von Trier hires porn stars for his sex scenes, so no it was not the actors.

Just FYI (and I haven't seen the film), but those were body doubles.

EDIT: winter monkey ninja'd me.

Yeah? I didn't realise as it was not mentioned in the credits (though looking at the entry on Wikipedia I see that now) but I still found it amazing that it was in there. Just of interest what rating did the MPAA give Antichrist? It got an 18 here in the UK but I know things are different in the US.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Strong NC-17, which is the worst rating you can get here, short of being banned.

Did it get much of a release? I have heard that this sort of rating can limit what advertising is done and where it is shown. To be honest I do not remember many adverts in the UK. I am unsure how I heard about it to be honest.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

One of the first sex scenes that seemed real to me was between Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland in Don't Look Now, although you wouldn't call it explicit. Probably a bit shocking as I was underage to see that film at the pictures and you didn't see much sex on TV in those days. As I got older tho I came to appreciate that scene as it was sex between a married couple, redemptive and healing.

Does anyone here feel uncomfortable when watching these scenes? I remember when I went to see The Dreamers a members of the audiance walked out because of some of the moments in it and to be honest even I thought some of it was just a bit OTT.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Well it's on the Criterion Collection, so tons of people here have seen it.

As far as uncomfortability, it's circumstantial, does it add to the theme, does it feel distracted from the narrative, is it uncharacteristic, etc. In Antichrist I thought it was all legit. It's the first part of the Depression trilogy anyway.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

No von Trier films get much of a release in the US.

I saw Nymphomaniac Vol. 1 and 2 in a small packed theater with a friend. Nothing's uncomfortable for me anymore now. :p

What about films by people like Larry Clark? I amazed he gets away with as much as he does.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Eh, he appeals to a niche audience who buys into nonsense, at this point he's appealing to them so he can get away with anything.

Hi. I read your post and found it fascinating. I have a 10 year old son and I make sure I monitor what he watches. But, regarding me, I'm with you, I don't think that gratuitous and graphic sex and violent scenes in movies necessarily make the movies better. A good R-rated story can be told without reaching those levels.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Most of the time I find it to be a way to mug the audience.. Since the writing isn't good enough, surely no one can resist a pair of boobs and/more.

I remember wanting to see a film at the theater because of a beautiful girl and her ****. But I was 11.

I don't mind the old movies - where the lights go dim, we knows what's going on, and there's more room for the film to talk. But, having said that, I wish I could have seen some of those beauties from 50 years ago, but once you've seen the girl, the image sticks.

Speaking of, I remember watching "Showgirls" over my neighbors' and seeing the most phoniest sex scene with Jesse Spano.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

where is the thread of videos of explicit sex scenes ;):D

Do you mean the one in the swimming pool? That's a great scene. :laugh:

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Don't have a problem with explicit sex and nudity in films; I also don't agree that including that content automatically makes the movie "exploitation", or even that exploitation movies are automatically "bad", whether it's violence, sex, or anything. I think of it as "junk food for the brain", and just like real junk food I don't think that it's "bad" as long as it's consumed in moderation. Plenty of people can appreciate deep films like the Godfather trilogy, and still occasionally enjoy a horror movie or raunchy comedy; the idea that anyone who watches movies like that must be an unintelligent boob really isn't true - the same with the idea that violence or sex exploitation in entertainment "turns kids into killers"; countries which are the laxest on censorship also have the lowest crime rates.

IMO society's still too prudish about "sex" and "nudity" about due to a lot of bad ascetic mentalities still lingering from a bygone era. To the point that showing graphic torture in a movie won't get it NC-17 rated as fast as an uncensored sex scene.

I guess the blood of the Inquisitors sill runs in our veins.

Well said Ace. In America we love violence and murder but heaven forbid even the mildest nudity in a movie. If you take Django Unchained and replace all the graphic thrill-kills with sex scenes the movie would be an XXX film.

Close, it's the blood of the Romans in our veins. Western society was built by the Roman Empire and we still lust for bloody Coliseum games.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, but don't you think the fact that nudity is real and the violence isn't has something to do with it. I know as a father I would be uncomfortable with my kids growing up to do nudity as opposed to violence in movies.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

We treat sex and violence differently because--get this--they're really different.

Not to MovieGal.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Touché.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Saucy mainstream films are slowly becoming softcore porn films. Just look at Nymphomaniac for instance - absolute filth! But because of mainstream cinema's slow decent into the depths of depravity, hardcore porn just isn't enough for me any more. I think I pose a danger to the public.

How in the heck did I get brought into this SWAN!


There is nothing wrong with a bit of violence mixed with sex in a film....

Never seen nymphomaniac - the idea that explicit sexual content is "bad" however is more of an ascetic and puritanical mentality, and not substantiated by facts.

Basically I'd agree than films or entertainment without much substance other than visceral stimulation (sex, violence, etc) are basically the mental equivalent of 'junk food'.

But that doesn't mean that mental junk food is automatically 'bad' if it's consumed in moderation, rather than a stable of one's diet. I think a person who's so OCD about never eating junk food is probably less mentally healthy in the long run than someone who eats healthy most of the time, and occasionally enjoys junk food without stress.

The disproportionate obsession with "sex" as demonstrated in your post above (sarcastic or not) still strongly makes a case about our Puritanical mindset that's still holding out - we freak out over two people touching genitals together as though Allah's going to blind us for seeing it - but another Saw film isn't even a blip on the radar.

Thanks Ayatollah Komeini. ;) JK

One is commanded by Allah to ensure salvation - the other is Harem which will damn us to hell, I agree ;)

That's a valid way of looking at it - personally though I strongly disbelieve that the negative attitudes regarding sexual content are objective - I strongly believe they have more to do with social indoctrination based on archaic ascetic mentalities, and that there is not a lot of factual study indicating that being exposed to it is harmful to oneself or to society - similar to the mentality that violent video games 'cause violence', despite nations with the laxest censorship having lower violent crime rates.

I view it similar to our double standard in mentalities regarding drugs; we freak out about marijuana because it's considered "a drug" but don't give a flip about legal drugs like alcohol, even though objectively I believe alcohol is more dangerous; which is largely in part just to social conditioning. If the prohibition had never been repealed, but pot had become legal decades ago, I believe our mentalities would be revered, because when it comes down to it, we (people) are emotional beings first, and rational second.

Sci Fi Slob..hun... lets talk about Niku Daruma.. once you watch that.... you will go back to your so called "soft core porn"...

In the underground cinema scene, there are many films that put extreme violence with sexual exploitation Anymore, add a bit of necrophilia to the mix and you have something that can be explored to the depths of your mind.

(stupid spell check!)

Heres something I brought up earlier, is there one movie with an explicit sex scene thats worth a fiddlers damn? Even one?! I dont know of any.

Most of them are for shock value at least the ones I have seen... Neiba and I watched a few that were just down right fun... I mean... really that stuff doesnt happen in real life...

Most likely not - since having an explicit sex scene in a film (or a video game) will get it X-rated 90% of the time, most big budget studios don't bother with it knowing that major theater chains and retailers will refuse to carry it. So the explicit sex usually gets reserved just for low budget porn and exploitation films.

If the censors weren't as strict about it we'd probably see more quality flicks with explict sex scenes.

hey there are some fun films... gesh.. havent you even seen my commentary thread??? Neiba and I had some fun with a few of them... especially "A Chinese Torture Chamber Story"...
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=38586

I wish I had someone to watch more with and post here... I have a couple of websites full of this stuff as recommendations.

My favorite movie with a lot of sex is probably Larry Clark's Bully. I don't think a lot of people here like it though.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

I'm not for explicit sex scene in mainstream films. That's what NC17 is for. I just find America's love of murder and violence disgusting. And no I'm not for censorship. But I do think that graphic violence should earn a stricter rating...R bumped to a NC17 or PG13 bumped to a R.

Most of the American cinema that does mix explicit sex with violence, like the stuff I watch, has a Non Rated status on them. There are some that are R rated... as far as what they call NC17 is mild to me... Most of the stuff that I watch that is extreme is foreign and even some of the film's content wouldnt make it in American cinema.

Thanks for sharing that recommendation.

I was thinking more along the lines of serious dramas and romantic films featuring explicit sex in a classy context.

I'm not big on films that intermingle "sex" and "violence" since I believe that's just treating it more like "explotation fodder", and associating it with something "bad".

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

I wouldn't know about all that...I prefer to watch Doris Day sing or Fred and Ginger dance.

Did anyone know that there was a film from 1938 that got under the Hays Code of Conduct for cinema? I told Cricket about this. The film is Child Bride and how the director got away with it, is saying its a documentary. Its about underage marriage in the Appalachian and Ozark Mountain ranges. For the 1930's, this had a lot of violence to it but the other content was a bit out there.

I know you do.. and I understand how you feel.. but this is what sets us apart and gives us great conversation topics.

Thanks MG, I support your freedom to watch or like what you ever want.

Child Bride...never heard of it but it sounds interesting.

I looked it up, what's interesting is that it was a 1938 film meant to draw attention to the lack of laws banning child marriages in many states at the time.

What's interesting is that as we've become more lax with censorship of explicit sex, we've become more proactive at preventing actual sexual abuse - while the reverse was true in more prudish times - similar to what goes on in Islamic countries today.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

What? I really don't know what your driving at with this. Could you explain further?

This conversation really has no focus, which is fine. However if people think we need to be more lenient about what we alliw in film I'm confused. As far as I can tell the only thing off limits anymore is child pornography.

Actually what is disturbing.. is that it has a 11 yr old girl nude in a swimming scene...

I seen it on youtube and it was pixelated bad.

I'd say if I could choose I'd prefer more lenience in R rated films regarding consensual adult sex, and stricter attitudes towards violence if anything.

As it stands any film with explicit sex will most likely be too graphic for a R-rating, yet all manner of torture and violence can get by.

Why should two people making passionate love on their honeymoon be considered too inappropriate for mainstream theaters than people being dismembered alive in a film like Saw or Hostel?

The FBI is coming for you as we speak ;)

that should have happened long ago....if it was due to my film watching.. but thats the only one I seen with underage people..... I just seen some really weird ****...

Ok, two questions. Do you think the fact that violence is fake and gratuitous sex and nudity is not has anything to do with this at all?

What do you mean when you say we have become more proactive about preventing sexual abuse similar to Islamic countries?

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

An unrated film is simply a film that was never submitted to the MPAA. If it's direct to video, there's really no reason to submit it (it costs money) except that it won't be sold by some chain stores and rented by certain outlets in the U.S. There is nothing "stronger" than an NC-17 since if you'll accept that rating, your film doesn't need to edit anything. It's just that if it's made and meant to be primarily shown outside of the U.S., it's going to be unrated as far as the U.S. is concerned. :)

Three things I'd like to say to this. Firstly, it depends on what you'd call explicit. Secondly, no, because Drew hasn't done one yet and, lastly, wouldn't The Fiddler's Damn be a great name for a pub?

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

Team America: World Police. :p

Well, first off, it usually isn't: lots of films with passionate love making scenes have R ratings. The ones that are rated NC-17 are usually far more explicit and/or not the kind of wholesome hypothetical you're asking about.

But beyond that, there are lots of reasons:

1) Violence is faked. Nudity can't be. You can pretend to be killed, but you can't pretend to be naked.

2) Ratings are based on the effect on the viewer, not just the moral properties of the act being simulated. If that were the standard, an image of a mushroom cloud would be considered more gruesome than any horror film.

3) Sex and violence are not equally imitable. Watching violence does not generally make people want to commit violence. Watching sex does generally arouse people. You'll notice nudity in blatantly non-sexual circumstances is often treated differently, IE: documentaries about African tribes, or Schindler's List being broadcast without restrictions on network television. People don't freak out at any display of the human body.

4) The kind of violence you describe is already universally seen as abhorrent, so most people don't consider its depiction as an endorsement. Sex, however, is the subject of all sorts of cultural debate, particularly debate about how publicly visible it should be, so depicting it is essentially taking a side in that debate. And the depictions are rarely of the kind you describe. If they were, I imagine people's reactions would be different.

There are other reasons, too. The main point is that the trite old "oh we can watch a guy's head get blown off but we freak out over a nipple?" pseudo-argument is pretty facile when you actually consider it. It's a false equivalence between two dramatically different things.

Re: Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.
 

The only thing more beautiful than a woman, is two of them. But really, I love seeing a pair of boobs, and a chick's butt, but, when it's redundant, doing it for "mental junk food" - stimulating us to make us think we're enjoying the "film" when we're enjoying ourselves.

I am for complete freedom, but some discretion and good taste would be best.

While I agree that young people exposed to sexual content might try to experiment sexually at too young an age, and that this is a more realistic possibility than a kid 'becoming a serial killer' from seeing a horror film - I don't fully agree that there's not a double standard. (And on the flip side, I think a kid seeing a graphic horror film at a young age where their mind can't totally understand the difference between fantasy and reality might be more scarred than simply seeing a nude or sex scene).

For example, most films, video games, etc with graphic sex acts would receive an NC-17 rating or equivalent and wouldn't even be allowed to be sold in most mainstream theaters or store chains - even when they're clearly intended for adults, not children (horror films on the other hand are clearly not intended for kids either but manage to slip by with an R rating; they typically don't generate nearly as much controversy in the media).

I think you have too much faith that culture's standards on things are completely rational; cultures have been known to be decidedly irrational about many things (just 50 years ago, interrational relationships were considered 'damaging to society' for example).

The argument is not only about imitating the behavior "at too young an age"--I actually think that's a relatively small concern--but rather about shaping their attitude towards sex in general. Growing up in a society where casual sex is depicted often (and depicted as relatively harmless) is going to result in a very different set of preconceptions than one where it isn't.

Remember, the rating is not about what can literally be shown--it's about what can be shown without parental consent. Since parents have an understandable interest in the kinds of preconceptions their children grow up with, the ratings reflect the general parental belief that depictions of sex are more likely to meaningfully influence their children than depictions of violence.

Oh, I don't think anything we do is completely rational. I just don't think it's at all hypocritical or unusual to have very different standards for two very different things. And whatever the blind spots of this particular culture, sex has been treated as important throughout history, across widely disparate times and places. That gives me a pretty high degree of confidence that that particular sentiment is correct.

I believe you meant to type interracial - I don't believe interrational is a word, although it could possibly describe some of what goes on around here. ;)

:eek::eek::eek: