Sex scenes (not “chaste”)

Tools    





Yeah, you’re right of course. I really hate Caligula, but that’s very much due to personal experience and likely not objective. My take on it (which I’m in no way defending as objective/analytical) is that Tinto Brass et al secretly wanted to make porn and that is what they made, regardless of how much care was taken and money spent and McDowell and Mirren and CO’s undeniable talents. But I know I’m probably overreacting. Like you, I was disappointed on every level.

In terms of “believable” sex, I am weary of making this thread go around in circles because I know how exhausting that is, but to my mind there’s no intrinsic value in sex in films being “believable” other than very dubious ideas of “boundary pushing”, “shattering stereotypes” and such very much ideologically driven motivations.
The problem that I have is that once you get into that realm, you get to where the details of the sex take over the commentary. How much skin shows, whether the bodies are "good" and the exact nature of the activity and anatomy become points of contention over whether it's Art or porn. Nowhere else in movies is there so much scrutiny over something where it would be easier to suggest what's happening than to get mired down in the details.

My recollection (long time ago) was that Caligula disappointed me as either history OR porn. Whatever other merits it might have had, we all knew what we were really waiting for.



Caligula is a hard movie to judge relative to the "filmmakers' intentions" because it was a notoriously troubled production with conflicting creative visions. Gore Vidal turned in a screenplay that was largely rewritten by Tinto Brass (I understand the key change was that Vidal framed Caligula as someone corrupted by power, while Brass had him as a monster from the get go), leading to Vidal trying to get his screenwriter credit removed (that's the reason the film says it's "adapted from a screenplay by Gore Vidal"). And there's the battles between Brass and producer Bob Guccione (publisher of Penthouse) over the sexual content. The hardcore scenes, which look nothing like the rest of the movie, were shot by a separate crew without Brass' involvement. I'm not an expert in Brass' work, but I suspect Salon Kitty, with its flamboyant approach to the subject of decadence, would be a good indication of what Brass' intended version might have looked like. (That movie basks in the Ken Adam production design, while in this one Brass apparently wanted to deemphasize the sets, so his artistic instincts are not beyond reproach either.)



I don't think the movie is very good (despite the outrageous proceedings, it's shockingly boring and indifferently directed, and only Peter O'Toole's performance "works" despite him apparently not getting along with Brass), but it's a pretty fascinating artifact.



On the other hand, a movie like Wild Orchid being generously edited with care bringing to mind the softcore themed atmosphere it offers from start to finish.



One thing which I will never apologise for liking despite it being less than classy entertainment is Wild Things. Great male full frontal too, Takoma!
That car wash scene will never be forgotten....



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
They don't do as much for character development as the scene where John reflects on how Holly is "the best thing that's ever happened" to him, but then again, they're not meant to, nor do they have to, any more than the moments where Ellis gets caught snorting coke, or when a drunk guy straight-up kisses John upon his arrival at the party, or when one of the SWAT team members accidentally pricks himself on a thorn while walking towards the building. They're there to make the movie feel more real, to make the story feel like it could be really happening (because they're the kind of things that would be happening in real life), which is why a lot of the MCU and other modern blockbusters lack that particular authenticity, because they're determined to sanitize their content as much as possible to appeal to the broadest audience possible, which tends to make their movies less unique and less interesting as a result in general.That aspect was somewhat dropped from his character as the series went on, a series that tends to have a sub-PG-13 level of sexuality to them, to the point that it went for twenty five straight movies without having a single sex scene, a fact that I think says a lot for itself.
I was wondering about how you said that showing a naked woman in Die Hard while being caught with a guy having sex makes it more feel more real... A movie like The Dark Knight also had terrorists take over a building with two people having sex being caught in the middle of it, but they didn't show nudity during that. But does that make it less real feeling than Die Hard?



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
One thing which I will never apologise for liking despite it being less than classy entertainment is Wild Things. Great male full frontal too, Takoma!
I never understood the car wash scene as being hot. Just because two teenage girls are washing a car, that means it's hot...? different strokes I guess .



I never understood the car wash scene as being hot. Just because two teenage girls are washing a car, that means it's hot...? different strokes I guess .

Scantily clad women washing cars is a bit of a trope, no?



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Probably. I guess it was done in Dodgeball (2004) as well, but can't think of it done much else. But maybe I just need to get out more.



Probably. I guess it was done in Dodgeball (2004) as well, but can't think of it done much else. But maybe I just need to get out more.

Cool Hand Luke?



Beverly d angelo has never looked sexier in Widow s kiss , that sex scene is amazing, beverly s legs are amazing btw



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Cool Hand Luke?
Oh I haven't seen it. I can check it out.



Caligula is a hard movie to judge relative to the "filmmakers' intentions" because it was a notoriously troubled production with conflicting creative visions. Gore Vidal turned in a screenplay that was largely rewritten by Tinto Brass (I understand the key change was that Vidal framed Caligula as someone corrupted by power, while Brass had him as a monster from the get go), leading to Vidal trying to get his screenwriter credit removed (that's the reason the film says it's "adapted from a screenplay by Gore Vidal"). And there's the battles between Brass and producer Bob Guccione (publisher of Penthouse) over the sexual content. The hardcore scenes, which look nothing like the rest of the movie, were shot by a separate crew without Brass' involvement. I'm not an expert in Brass' work, but I suspect Salon Kitty, with its flamboyant approach to the subject of decadence, would be a good indication of what Brass' intended version might have looked like. (That movie basks in the Ken Adam production design, while in this one Brass apparently wanted to deemphasize the sets, so his artistic instincts are not beyond reproach either.)

I don't think the movie is very good (despite the outrageous proceedings, it's shockingly boring and indifferently directed, and only Peter O'Toole's performance "works" despite him apparently not getting along with Brass), but it's a pretty fascinating artifact.
It's unfortunate, because, having had some background in Roman history, it could be a huge source of historic drama, but for the troubling problem of 1900 years of church propaganda about them being so awful and spending all of their time on lurid sex. It's closer to truth that the empire was the best thing going in the West for several centuries, to the extent that once it was gone, Europeans spent the NEXT 1000 years or so trying to emulate the world that was lost when Rome expired. Everything went seriously off the rails for centuries...the Dark Ages.

Several Roman emperors personified the evil of Rome and none was more demented than Caligula, who ended up being murdered by his own guards. My preference would be Jay Robinson, who portrayed the guy in a couple sword and sandal epics. He not only chewed the scenery but chewed the marble columns as well. Nevertheless, he's also portrayed though that particular church perspective in The Robe and Demetrius and the Gladiator.




Better Living Through Movie Quotes
Did anybody mention "Monster's Ball"?



Sexuality is big part of the life of some people and a small or even absent part of the life of others. There is a spectrum of attitudes and behaviors.


The issue is how that spectrum is represented in art. For commercial film, every scene is evaluated by focus groups to evaluate the commercial impact of each image. There is pressure to exclude imagery that "prunes" the willingness of patrons to view the film. Thus, you get a generic representation of values in commercial films.


Independent film will use controversial imagery to attract a niche audience.



In terms of sexual identity, there are two basic types of people: The vast majority are Freudians. At the core of these people is that their sexual identity is linked to their destructive, animal sub-conscience and thus, sex is associated on some level with guilt and shame. This guilt and shame fuels sexual repression and the sex industries.



But there are some people who are sexually liberated where they have shed the guilt and shame and feel free to explore their sexual identity in a manner similar to the way they might do yoga, martial arts, work-out or learn to cook really good food. But this group is in a minority and they are threatening to the Freudians. Sexually liberated women are especially subject to scorn for the Freudians (especially Freudian women).



Sexually liberated people will view sexual imagery in film the same as they might in watching any other kind of human interaction. While the Freudians will experience guilt, shame and discomfort in the face of arousing imagery.



Commercial film are economically constrained by the Freudian majority. Sexuality seems to be progressively replaced with images of actors being sexually desirable without actually being sexually active. They "look" sexy but they are not sexual. Intimate relationships are replaced by expressions of power.



Another big question in this thread is whether there has been a drift in general attitude about sex in society at large in recent decades. As an older fart, this seems to be clearly yes, with Freudian attitudes dominating in the younger generations.


A film that deserves special mention here is the indie horror movie:


"It Follows."


The movie concerns a venereal curse (which is clever!) but the ceaselessly pursuing curse symbolizing the anxiety over sexual identity and of sexual acts in younger generations. Ultimately, sexual activity is viewed as dirty and dangerous. Sexual imagery is frequently linked to addictive vices like drug abuse, gangster culture, etc. Either way, intimacy is missing.



The real crux of the matter is the relationship between sexual activity and the difficulties of physical and emotional intimacy in the context of virtual realities replacing and displacing physical realities. Are real physical relationships bring replaced by virtual relationships, porn, auto-eroticism, etc.



In the end, sexual imagery in film will be met with a spectrum of responses by the audiences. Commercial film seldomly intentionally tries to make the audience feel uncomfortable. Since sex is an uncomfortable subject for such a wide swath of society, we will see less of if it in commercial film.


However, it is common for indie film to intentionally try to make the audience uncomfortable as a form of artistic expression. If we see less sexual imagery in independent film, then that trend might suggest a broad-based shrinking interest in sex in general among the film patrons, even in the art circles.


So, is sexual imagery (Sexually active characters) growing less common in current independent film?



Did anybody mention "Monster's Ball"?



Sexuality is big part of the life of some people and a small or even absent part of the life of others. There is a spectrum of attitudes and behaviors.


The issue is how that spectrum is represented in art. For commercial film, every scene is evaluated by focus groups to evaluate the commercial impact of each image. There is pressure to exclude imagery that "prunes" the willingness of patrons to view the film. Thus, you get a generic representation of values in commercial films.


Independent film will use controversial imagery to attract a niche audience.



In terms of sexual identity, there are two basic types of people: The vast majority are Freudians. At the core of these people is that their sexual identity is linked to their destructive, animal sub-conscience and thus, sex is associated on some level with guilt and shame. This guilt and shame fuels sexual repression and the sex industries.



But there are some people who are sexually liberated where they have shed the guilt and shame and feel free to explore their sexual identity in a manner similar to the way they might do yoga, martial arts, work-out or learn to cook really good food. But this group is in a minority and they are threatening to the Freudians. Sexually liberated women are especially subject to scorn for the Freudians (especially Freudian women).



Sexually liberated people will view sexual imagery in film the same as they might in watching any other kind of human interaction. While the Freudians will experience guilt, shame and discomfort in the face of arousing imagery.



Commercial film are economically constrained by the Freudian majority. Sexuality seems to be progressively replaced with images of actors being sexually desirable without actually being sexually active. They "look" sexy but they are not sexual. Intimate relationships are replaced by expressions of power.



Another big question in this thread is whether there has been a drift in general attitude about sex in society at large in recent decades. As an older fart, this seems to be clearly yes, with Freudian attitudes dominating in the younger generations.


A film that deserves special mention here is the indie horror movie:


"It Follows."


The movie concerns a venereal curse (which is clever!) but the ceaselessly pursuing curse symbolizing the anxiety over sexual identity and of sexual acts in younger generations. Ultimately, sexual activity is viewed as dirty and dangerous. Sexual imagery is frequently linked to addictive vices like drug abuse, gangster culture, etc. Either way, intimacy is missing.



The real crux of the matter is the relationship between sexual activity and the difficulties of physical and emotional intimacy in the context of virtual realities replacing and displacing physical realities. Are real physical relationships bring replaced by virtual relationships, porn, auto-eroticism, etc.



In the end, sexual imagery in film will be met with a spectrum of responses by the audiences. Commercial film seldomly intentionally tries to make the audience feel uncomfortable. Since sex is an uncomfortable subject for such a wide swath of society, we will see less of if it in commercial film.


However, it is common for indie film to intentionally try to make the audience uncomfortable as a form of artistic expression. If we see less sexual imagery in independent film, then that trend might suggest a broad-based shrinking interest in sex in general among the film patrons, even in the art circles.


So, is sexual imagery (Sexually active characters) growing less common in current independent film?
This was an interesting read, but boy, are there a lot of assumptions there…

Need to give Monster’s Ball another go.



How could i forget the amazing very emotional film that is "l'amant" or " the lover" (1992) with the very sensual Jane March, that movie has very long sex scenes and they are actually pretty good



Need to give Monster’s Ball another go.
Working through my dvd collection alphabetically. When I get to “m” I already know this will be my choice. Terrific movie.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.