To use a gender-flipped example, American Mary includes an image of a penis (to demonstrate body modifications that have been done to a person). But the shot is so strangely sterile (and framed oddly?) that it just comes off feeling like what I suspect it was: determination to put a penis on the screen. But I'm sure there are people who think that shot is important to the film and appreciate that the film didn't focus just on female bodies. I think that the line between "appropriately graphic" and "exploitative" can be drawn in very different places from one viewer to another.
Do you not think that may have been guided more or less by what we’re discussing? This is the pinnacle of feminist horror for many and a gender-flipped take on Frankenstein at that, so to me this is an example of “making a point” on screen that backfires. Look at me, I’ll put a penis in there to show I’m turning tables, I’m objectifying men, tada! That kind thing feels a bit preachy to me.
American Mary is quite original, I’ll give it that.
But speaking of necessary, I bet the sisters felt that penis is beyond necessary. That’s the irony. The whole conversation about “intent” in terms of featuring explicit sexual images mirrors that in Stu’s men & women thread, which I’ve been reading with fascination. To me the
American Mary penis is didactic, which takes away all the fun. It’s a “look at me turning the tables” thing. But if it had been a vulva, the turning of tables would have been impossible, and then we’re back at “why is that image there?”
As an aside, I’m beginning to see that many people in this conversation seem to see the imbalance between male vs female nudity as inherent to the discussion. What can I say, maybe it is. Can’t relate to that side of things.
And I think that an extension of that is that artists themselves might draw that line in different places. I remember on the commentary of Slither, James Gunn noting that he had the children get "possesed" by the aliens off screen because the aliens would go through peoples' mouths and there were obviously sexy visual implications. He said that he was not comfortable having child actors do those scenes or creating sexualized images of children.
This is very interesting in the sense that there’s no way in which that would have been deliberately sexual. He definitely has a point. But then the poor miserable notorious
Cuties only had girls wear heavy makeup and “dress up” - which as someone who knows about figure skating is as normal as tying up your hair for competitions, yet the drama that ensued? Makes me wonder what we really mean by “sexualising”, and that ties in with that article on the drive to desexualise entertainment. To me “sexualising” is more how Gordon-Levitt’s character is seen in
The Mysterious Skin. He’s, what, 15? But that’s a definite “ouch, holy ****”. Especially as speaking about the director Araki, Gordon-Levitt then said, I am grateful to him yadda yadda because “he was the first one to call me sexy”. Now that is disturbing.
And I think that this is why it's tricky. As an audience, we are not only interpreting our feelings about what we are seeing, but (whether we want to or not) also thinking about what the artist is trying to say.
One person might watch a scene and think "Ugh! Seemed like that was just the director getting off!" while another person might think "Wow! That was an intense scene and it really made its point!" (I can't speak to Stand Alone not having seen it, sorry).
Yes, I
do not recommend that. The thing is, I still agree that it is intense and even that it makes its point. It’s a good film that lingers in the mind. With my libertarian sensibilities, I wouldn’t even suggest that this stuff shouldn’t be made. It’s his business.
My point was that imo things which are unquestionably and totally gratuitous/exploitative are pretty rare and “notorious” in their own right. I think that there’s a huge gap between the
I Stand Alone level of gratuitous - it honestly makes
Irreversible seem mild, because to me rape is rape, but graphically kicking a heavily pregnant woman definitely makes a separate “meta-point” where it’s obvious he likes the idea of it - and most other graphic sexual scenes. Obviously opinions will vary, but I don’t think there are many scenes as gratuitous as that, and that’s solely because we know from the comments Noé makes how he views it.
There’s also a graphic on-screen miscarriage in
Climax which I forgot about (can you tell I’m no fan of Noé?), but to me this only proves the point that when something is gratuitous, you can’t mistake it for anything. It may still be good, which
I Stand Alone is, but it’s obvious the “getting off” was there. But we’ve kind of moved on. I agree that the idea of a director getting off on a rape scene (unless it’s the old
Straw Dogs which is deliberately ambiguous) is indeed uncomfortable. But I don’t find uncomfortable the idea that the director might have been getting off on an explicit sex scene in his film and filmed it with that in mind. I don’t think that in itself makes it “gratuitous” or “exploitative”. I was reading some interview by a female writer (!) who said she always became physically and obviously aroused when writing sex scenes. You know, it’s a bit of a by-product, maybe?
I think that talking/flirting can be sexy, though. Not every conversation has to be demonstrating some tortured "Is it okay if I put my hand here?" dialogue. The film Dogs Don't Wear Pants features some pretty graphic sex (and also violence/gore related to that sex), but it also features a lot of conversation where the characters are trying to figure out their boundaries and how they are feeling about it.
Will watch that. Talking can be sexy, sure. But I do think the talkie sex scenes often tend to be tortured. Though I agree with you on
The Big Sleep, that was good.
I mean, a lot of what I watch (horror) is all about showing things that are upsetting and horrifying and non-beautiful. I also don't think that male bodies are "non-beautiful" (though I get your point of view that you think female bodies are generally more erotic and acceptable to viewers).
Male bodies are gorgeous and deserve to be worshipped, get out of here
I do think the female body has more erotic potential and nothing can be done there. Mainly due to biology. But horror can be (and often is!) upsetting, horrifying
and beautiful - remember I had a thread on that? (That led to about 5
Hannibal virgins watching and loving
Hannibal, so thanks to Yoda). My point re beauty was less to do with male vs female bodies being beautiful and more with the idea of showing
titillating things, beautiful bodies in the shower, rather than the “realistic” matted hair, stretch marks etc. with a face mask on while they have sex.
Also, as a crazy coincidence I stumbled on a thread on a different site bemoaning the lack of erotic thrillers. (It was a comment section under an article announcing the release of the Ben Affleck/Ana de Armas erotic thriller Deep Water. Anyway, one of the posters said something I thought was interesting about a lot of 80s/90s erotic thrillers, "A lot of those thrillers both indulged in voyeuristic titillation while also having a lot of mainstream morality. You could jerk off to Sharon Stone while still condemning her as a femme fatale."
Thoughts on the idea that many 80s/90s erotic thrillers actually traded in more conventional/mainstream morality?
I agree with that, actually, for the most part. A pretty astute point. And morality may have been simplistic, but there existed within it a space to acknowledge this duality: Catherine is a bad person but she arouses us so we want to watch her do bad things. I love that. Sexy villains go in the same category. And again, in reference to the new Puritanism which I mentioned above, I think entertainment is moving away from this & doing everything it can to make things unambiguous, like a nursery rhyme. Homophobic? Bad. Woman ashamed of her body? Bad. Man objectifying woman? Bad. The nuance is entirely missing, such as internalised homophobia masking same-sex desire etc., or Catherine being somewhat absolved by the end of
Basic Instinct. I think that’s the main difference. By modern logic, if Sharon didn’t get sent to a psych ward like Michael Douglas in part 2, we’re “sending the wrong message”.
EDIT: the original kicking of pregnant wife is apparently in
Carne, which features the same character, the Butcher, as
I Stand Alone.
There’s a case to be made for even the above not being gratuitous. The only reason that I treat that differently from any other on-screen violence is that Noé has made comments which paint this, shall we say, in an uncharitable light.
“ Irreversible
The anti-Noe crowd like to claim the Butcher’s reappearance in IRREVERSIBLE is merely an example of excess self-indulgence on the part of his creator. They may be right, as outside of this four minute scene the Butcher has absolutely nothing to do with the film—which, for the record, is a stunningly bleak and brutal revenge saga headlined by France’s then golden couple Vincent Cassell and Monica Bellucci.
It seems that Noe just couldn’t let this beloved slime ball character go…or maybe Noe was anxious for the Butcher to atone for his actions. For all his love of shock and extremity, Gaspar Noe has a decidedly moralistic bent (it’s a fact that Noe featured himself among the patrons of a gay nightclub in IRREVERSIBLE so he wouldn’t be accused of homophobia). In any event, the fact that IRREVERSIBLE begins with the Butcher’s final appearance is highly significant.”
So not as gratuitous as that.
https://thebedlamfiles.com/commentary/gaspar-noe-and-the-butcher/
Reply to Topic
and you in a onesie too 
