she's the only big, famous, and star Hollywood movie actress in the '80s who never was forced to do it? how come she got off with this? that's so wrong.
shareTHAT IS ONE CREEPY,RAPEY POST LUKE.
shareSigourney Weaver
Cher
Molly Ringwald
Elizabeth Shue
Just a short list of 80s actresses who didn't show their Bitties
not true. elizabeth shue showed her tits in leaving las vegas, molly ringwald showed her tits in two movies, baha, california and another movie, both in the '90s, and sigourney weaver showed her tits in so many movies. in the year of living dangerously, and in copycat. cher is the only actress you listed whom i don't know of her showing her tits in a movie.
shareSo how did Cher possibly get away with that
shareSo how did Cher possibly get away with that
they don't. otherwise why has every single star actress since the '70s shown their tits in a movie? it can't be just coincidence?
shareThat's simply not true. Jennifer Garner, Sarah Jessica Parker or Anna Kendrick never showed their tits (that I know of, at least). I'm sure if you dig a little, you'll find more.
shareand if you dig a little you'll find out they all have shown their tits in a movie. my whole point is not that no star actress has gotten away with not showing her tits in a movie, but that there are very, extremely few who have. the biggest that i can think of is michelle pfeiffer.
shareI'd like to know to what movies you are referring about the names I have cited but other than that, I agree with you. I admit that showing at least their boobs seems to be on the bucket list of most actresses (even if sometimes it's in a small obscure productions).
shareJENNIFER TILLY DID NUDITY IN "BOUND" ...YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT SARAH JESSIC PARKER AND ANNA KENDRICK THOUGH...I WILL ALSO ADD TO THE LIST OF NO NUDITY EVER...
...ZOOEY DESCHANEL,KRISTEN BELL,EMMANUELLE CHRIQUI,BEYONCE,MILA KUNIS,JESSICA ALBA,MEGAN FOX,JULIA ROBERTS,CAMERON DIAZ,BLAKE LIVELY,CHRISTINA HENDRICKS,OLIVIA MUNN,JENNIFER GARNER,ISLA FISHER,SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR,MANDY MOORE,RACHEL BILSON,JENNA FISCHER & RACHAEL LEIGH COOK...
...PLUS,OL LUKE'S WHOLE POST IS WRONG ANYWAY,BECAUSE MICHELLE PFEIFFER HAS DONE NUDITY HERSELF IN THREE MOVIES...INTO THE NIGHT,TEQUILA SUNRISE, AND A THOUSAND ACRES...
...HE HAS ME ON BLOCK BASED ON THE TWO OF US HAVING DIFFERENT OPINIONS THOUGH,SO HE WONT SEE ANY OF THIS.
JENNIFER TILLY DID NUDITY IN "BOUND" ...YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT SARAH JESSIC PARKER AND ANNA KENDRICK THOUGH...I WILL ALSO ADD TO THE LIST OF NO NUDITY EVER...
...ZOOEY DESCHANEL,KRISTEN BELL,EMMANUELLE CHRIQUI,BEYONCE,MILA KUNIS,JESSICA ALBA,MEGAN FOX,JULIA ROBERTS,CAMERON DIAZ,BLAKE LIVELY,CHRISTINA HENDRICKS,OLIVIA MUNN,JENNIFER GARNER,ISLA FISHER,SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR,MANDY MOORE,RACHEL BILSON,JENNA FISCHER & RACHAEL LEIGH COOK...
...PLUS,OL LUKE'S WHOLE POST IS WRONG ANYWAY,BECAUSE MICHELLE PFEIFFER HAS DONE NUDITY HERSELF IN THREE MOVIES...INTO THE NIGHT,TEQUILA SUNRISE, AND A THOUSAND ACRES...
...HE HAS ME ON BLOCK BASED ON THE TWO OF US HAVING DIFFERENT OPINIONS THOUGH,SO HE WONT SEE ANY OF THIS.
i'm saying there has to be a reason for the fact that 99% of all the star actresses who have ever acted in a movie since the '70s have shown their tits in a movie. also, there has to be a reason why there is a saying, every actress sometime in their career will be asked to show nudity in a movie. go to mr. skin.com and you'll see 99% of all star actresses who were in their 20s in the '70s and have acted as an adult in movies for 10 years, to now have shown their tits in movie. yeah, the actresses you listed, that's the 1%.
sharecos men like tits?
it's cher dude. she's not exactly an actress. she was a novelty in movies, so she didn't have the same requirements that actresses have.
shareShe’s won an Oscar
shareit's still cher. you know jennifer lawrence won an oscar? and she didint' deserve it for silver lining's playbook. and anna paquin won an oscar as a little girl but as an adult no one has ever thought she's an oscar calibre actress. tatum o'neal won for paper moon, but no one has ever thought she was an oscar calibre actress.
shareWhy do you say she didn't deserve it for silver linings playbook? That was quite an entertaining movie.
shareWhen Cher started doing movies, people said "She's a singer, what's she doing in movies?" In fact I remember her in an interview talking about when the trailer for Mask came out and she snuck into the back of a local theater showing it, and when she came on the screen, everybody started laughing and she ran out in tears."
Then, she made a lot of movies and did very well. Her performance in "Moonstruck", sticks out as my favorite.
So, after making movies for years, she did an album again and people said, "What is old actress doing making albums?"
So, power to her, I say
The outfit from "if I could turn back Time" music video showed more than enough.
share>not true. elizabeth shue showed her tits in leaving las vegas, molly ringwald showed her tits in two movies, baha, california and another movie, both in the '90s,
Dude, you specified the 80's. Its in your opening statement.
Sigourney Weaver did in Death and the Maiden
shareTechnically, Sigourney Weaver does have a very brief boob shot in Ghostbusters. As she's getting dragged in the room by the terror dog and there's arms of the terror dog coming through the chair, there is a brief second where it shows that the terror dog has pulled the right side of her shirt down to reveal her boob. Of course you really can only tell if you pause it at just the right moment.
shareShe probably just refused any script that demanded that she had to show more skin than she was comfortable with. It's funny because I was watching Wolf the other night and today I watched What Lies Beneath and in both these movies she is very sexy. It's easy to imagine another actress showing her breasts. At least in Wolf.
sharei'm just saying, no actress is not obligated to show their tits at some point in their career in a movie. that's why i thought about michelle, she's the only one who didn't do it. this amazes me. i just don't have a clue how she escaped having to show her tits in a movie. as the old saying goes, every actress in their career will be asked to show nudity in a movie at some point in their career, usually when they are in their 20s or 30s.
what do you mean? do you mean in these movies, most other actresses(so actresses not uptight about showing their tits in a movie) would have shown their breasts because the movies are the way they are with her characters? the characters were very sexual?
Sort of, yeah. I'm saying (and that's just a personal point of view, I don't know the business at all) that a less notorious actress would probably have accepted the role if required to show more skin. Now, the producers maybe having the choice between either Michelle Pfeiffer and a lesser known actress, chose to stick with Michelle even if she didn't want to show her boobs. Because she's a big name. Maybe they tried to get Sharon Stone, for all we know... and it didn't work out. A young actresses probably would have done it also just to be in the movie. To get better known into the business.
In Wolf her character have sex with Jack Nicholson's character. It's not explicit though. There's a scene, the next morning, where she's looks naked under the sheets, but when she gets up on her elbows, she keeps the sheet on her to hide her boobs. The opportunity for nudity was there (and I admit I wished she didn't hold the sheet).
In What Lies Beneath her character was more shy but she is possessed at one point by the spirit of a young woman and she tries to seduce Harrison Ford's character. And I EASILY could see how she could at least show a boob. Possibly more.. She was sitting and had a sexy red dress and spread her legs to entice him to come toward her. We don't see anything but it was very sexy scene. The potential for nudity was there.
" as the old saying goes, every actress in their career will be asked to show nudity in a movie at some point in their career, usually when they are in their 20s or 30s."
LITERALLY LAUGHING OUT LOUD...^
" as the old saying goes, every actress in their career will be asked to show nudity in a movie at some point in their career, usually when they are in their 20s or 30s."
and then provides evidence when they were beyond 20-30's and beyond the 1980's.
Elizabeth Shue bared her boobs in a dramatic role in a movie not made for the masses to get off on a pair of tits.
This guy or gal is a dummy, so many contradictory statements. He should be knight by the queen of white for his valour for women kind.
A true white knight.
I just watched Wolf for the first time in YEARS a few months ago. That's an interesting, and probably underappreciated, film. She was great in her role.
shareDefinitely underappreciated. And I haven't seen all of her movies, but I found her to be excellent in all the ones I have seen. Very good actress.
shareIf you didn't see the recent adaptation of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, I would recommend that one. Michelle is in it and it's her most high-profile role in years.
And any of these you haven't seen are worth checking out: Scarface, The Russia House (but mostly just for her performance), The Age of Innocence, What Lies Beneath, and Batman Returns. Hard to think you haven't seen Batman Returns, but she is EXCELLENT as Catwoman, and in fact I think she's the only reason to watch the movie. I was disappointed in it otherwise.
Oh yes, I've seen Batman Returns at least 5 times. I happen to like it (like all Tim Burton's movies) but I agree with you that she brings additional value to the movie all by herself. I've re-watched What Lies Beneath just yesterday! Very different role (except when she's possessed). It's been a super long time I haven't seen Scarface though. And I'm putting the others on my IMDB watchlist. Thanks !
sharei've watched batman returns, what lies beneath, and the age of innocence; which is one of the most boring and bad movies ever made. she was the best Catwoman other than julie newmar.
shareActresses, for the most part, are never REQUIRED to show their breasts in film. And now with the METOO movement and other things happening, full frontal nudity is definitely up to the discretion of the actress. Besides, I have seen a LOT of movies which had very sexy scenes, without a single exposed breast.
The OP's post makes me think he is a young guy hitting puberty, or an older one who has not come out of adolescence yet.
whatever you say doesn't matter because it's on whether you like it or not. actresses are showing their tits in movies at an all time high and never as high in the history of movies level in the last 10 years. so you can take your women's rights and shove them up your you know what. i just hate when people try to restrict what we can and cannot consume in any medium. and i also think it's insulting to women to say showing their tits is disrespectful to them or degrading.
shareOkay, luke, first off I have no problem with nudity in the service of the story. So, let me get this straight. With the freedom you think should be in arts and entertainment, does that mean that you think that porn should be allowed more freedom?
sharewhat do you mean? are you talking about how in the state of Oklahoma, porn is illegal? i can't believe this. one thing i think should be allowed in porn is a porn performer should be allowed to act as an underage or 15, 16, or 17 years old character. i agree that porn performers should't be allowed to perform under the age of 18, but why do they not allow a porn performer to just pretend to be under 18 years old in a porn movie or video? oh, in this time of the corona virus do you think porn websites can't make new videos?
shareObviously, you did not understand what I said. You must be a young guy still sowing his oats. Hopefully, some day, you will realize what is important. Time to hit ignore.
shareI dont wanna come across all "Feminazi" and woke an PC an shit , but what does it say about our society when people are posting things like
"Hey! she didnt get her tits out yet! what gives?"
Luke , you arnt entitled to see any woman's tits you want, only the ones who want to show them you on pornhub.
Maybe one day , you'll get to see some in real life , without paying , but only if you change your ideas towards women
[deleted]
Jodie Foster was naked in a bunch of films, such as Neil and The Accused to name a few. She's done quite a few nude scenes, actually.
Sigourney Weaver was also naked/topless/etc., in a bunch of films. Only someone who has never watched any of her films beyond Aliens would make such a comment.
And Meryl Streep was briefly nude in the Bridges over Madison County.
No-nudity clauses in contracts. And then she was famous enough that people wanted to work with her without making her strip off.
Or maybe it's because she's sexy enough without needing to whip 'em out?
no, because no actress is exempt from this rule. ok, what does that mean? why would an actress being famous enough make people want to work with her without making her strip off? what does her stripping in a movie have to do with her having demand as an actress in Hollywood?
shareThere's no rule that says women must strip off their clothes. I'm not sure where you got that from.
shareyes there is. because if you know the history of movies since the '70s all star actresses have shown their tits in a movie, with extremely few exceptions, this is such a rule that i noticed it and brought this up.
shareSo, you're just talking about a "trend" or an unwritten rule...?
The '70s was very "free love", and cinema was being heavily influenced by European traditions. A lot of the heavy-hitter directors were being "European" with their attitudes towards sex and nudity. So a lot of the "artiest" movies would require nudity. Those are roles actors love to get, so they'd probably sign on - many of them sharing the free love attitude themselves and not seeing it as a big deal.
A lot of people wouldn't have the clout to refuse, either.
But, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of actors who haven't shown anything off.
no, it's an unwritten rule. since the '70s a lot of American movies have had nudity. star actresses will show nudity in an art movie more than they will in a mainstream, conventional movie. the first legitimate movie that i know of with more than just a glimpse of nudity is blowout from 1966. then coogan's bluff from 1967, i just found out about. by 1969 it was prevalent and pretty consistent and normal; movies having nudity.
shareYeah, the '70s was kinda the start of a more open policy in mainstream cinema regarding nudity. That's basically what I said. But my other point was that that's not to say that every actress would have done a nude scene. Many of them don't and didn't. I don't think it's an unwritten rule; it doesn't seem to be a tacit requirement. It's more that it just became more common. As it became more common, more actresses did it (social sigma being down and directors and writers were just writing the best movies that way). But it's obvious that some actresses just don't do nudity.
Michelle Pfeiffer for example.
now i would agree with you about it that it was just something that was allowable to do in movies, showing nudity for actresses to do, and that there is not an unwritten rule, except for the fact that 99% of actresses who have made 10 movies and been around for 10 years from the age of 20-30 have shown their tits in a movie. so, the reason for this goes beyond mere coincidence or the fact that it just happens because now it can happen, because it's allowable for more than just a glimpse of nudity to be in movies since about '66.
it became more common because finally the law against it was lifted thus the freedom to show whatever the director and writer wants is possible.
what's really weird is before the MPAA there was the Hayes Code in the '30s, i was watching a '20s movie and my gosh there is an ass in it, i was shocked by this because things were so conservative and prudish in movies in the '50s, so how in the world did they allow nudity in a movie in '20s? i read that the Hayes Code actually allowed nudity, this is very weird to me. they went back in terms of what was allowed in movies from the '20s and '30s to the '40s, '50s, and early '60s?
The Hays Office didn't allow nudity, but there were "pre-code" movies that had nudity and things like that in them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Code_sex_films
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheHaysCode
they had to have though right because in 1933 the first tits in a movie is in ecstacy, the tits were hedy lamarr's tits.
shareI'm not super-familiar with the exact chronology. When movies allowed/had nudity isn't really my field.
I'm a little interested in Hays Office stuff because it relates to censorship and free speech, and that topic fascinates me.
But...the Hays Office operated from '34-'68, so filming in '32, movie in 1933 - that wouldn't be Hays yet.
Maybe Hedy Lamarr "inspired" the Hays Office?
that whole thing and censorship is stupid if you think about it. i mean, art and whatever you create should have no limits, it should be free. you should be free to express whatever you want as an artist. so, the fact we had and have these agencies like the hayes code and the MPAA is wrong.
and what's really dumb is hundreds of years ago when physical art was created in the Renaissance, did they ever feel the need to cover up, or censor it? of course not because art is free. they never said, let's cover Michaelangelo's David's penis.
so, if what you are saying is true about the hayes code then what governing body did they have from the beginning of movies in the 1880s to 1934 to oversee and censor what they put in or what they took out of movies? i find it interesting then, how the hayes code allowed the copious amounts of nudity in blowout in 1966 and coogan's bluff in 1967? didn't the hayes code not allow any nudity in movies?
I'm super anti-censorship. Free speech is a drum I beat often, and it's wearying sometimes because it's actually out of vogue right now. Which is weird, because...it's super-important.
Artists should be allowed to create whatever they want and then the public can decide to buy it, view it, or ignore it. Heck, they can protest it (that's their free speech) as long as they're not physically stopping others from seeing it.
The best part is that all of that (or, most of that) Renaissance nudity was Church-funded. The big commissions were coming from the Church. Sistine Chapel, anybody?
I don't think there was a governing body at first. I mean, out of the gate, it would've been kinda like the internet. It took a long time for governments to figure out what to do with file sharing sites and stuff like that, because there were no rules. It was cyberspace wild west. So, I think the early stuff was just "there". Maybe if there were rules around public shows? Like, if you were showing nudity, maybe it was the same rules as if you were hiring dancing girls...? I don't know.
The Hays Office came about because, as is often (always?) the case, somebody is making art, somebody else doesn't like that the art isn't in line with their beliefs, thoughts, and values, and so we need to censor it! Think of the children! They got enough people on their side (lawmakers, political types, etc.) that they spooked the bigwigs in the Hollywood studios. My understanding is that they basically self-censored. It was kinda like the comics code of authority. They agreed to not do this stuff before the government really stepped in. In many ways, this is the most insidious kind of censorship. "Oh...I didn't censor anybody. They did it themselves."
HUAC did basically the same thing, in my opinion. They made everybody name names and if not, there was the blacklist. And that blacklist was something that studios were doing to avoid the Eye of McCarthy.
what is HUAC? but, movies had ratings in the Hayes Code time right? so, they didn't have to worry about children watching nudity right? also they had ratings before the Hayes Code right?
shareI'm not as clear on the history of ratings. I think the MPAA kinda came out of the Hays era, though. It was like a consolation prize to prudes.
HUAC was the House of Un-American Activities Committee. It was Senator McCarthy's witchhunting programme to weed out "the pinkos". If you've ever heard the famous "At long last, sir, have you no decency?" It's from McCarthy's own trial once he ran out of rope, so to speak.
If you haven't seen it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8llS0ZkLVGA
what's ironic is what's unamerican is them putting restrictions of what we can consume in the art and entertainment fields. and it didn't end there. because as recently as the '80s there was the video nasties thing which was a banning of movies deemed too violent or extreme in some way. it was put on usually horror movies. so even then the movie rule makers were prudes and controlled what we could watch as consumers.
and then, after then in the '00s since Hollywood is so prudish and controlling on what we can watch, they came up with horror movie festival collections called after dark horror fest and another one i can't think of the name of right now. so hopefully independent movie companies and maverick people will always overcome this censoring problem.
100%!
HUAC was bad, Hays Office was bad...it's all just people trying to tell other people how to live and what to like. It's gross and, you're right: it's the most un-American thing.
There was a group in the '80s - the PMRC - that was trying to censor music. The most prominent founder of this group was Tipper Gore, Al Gore's wife. Look up the senate hearings for that one. Frank Zappa testifies and gives the anti-1st Amendment jokers both barrels. You want to give a standing ovation watching that dude tear it all down.
I think indie companies will get more and more power as the internet opens up more and more avenues of communication and allows people to put their content out there.
Online podcast, long-form talk shows (Joe Rogan, for instance) are crushing the late night guys (Fallon) because people are sick of watching vapid celebrities gesture at conversation. So along comes this new format and wipes the floor with them.
Netflix demolished home video rentals and is now starting to put out movies like Roma and The Irishman that are major releases with big clout. So the idea of a movie house dictating what artists can and can't do is becoming less and less of a problem.
i just thought about that group for parents in the '80s when i was writing about video nasties. netflix is great then, that it's making people and movie companies more free with what they can make and show to people.
people have been blacklisted from hollywood over a scandal but this was in the '40s or '50s usually. the most unjust one that i know of anyway is the director of peeping tom. though and again i'm going to say it, there are some things you can never unsee, this film should have been able to have been made and distributed, just not to children or people intolerant of violent and disturbing things.
Yeah, that's kinda why I'm okay with things like MPAA movie ratings. It's not really censorship, but it lets you know what kind of a movie you're about to see. There's a lot of screwy stuff with the MPAA, but if a film company just said, "Look, the movie has a lot of swearing in it, and there's some violence", then it lets parents decide whether or not they want kids to see it.
And, of course, I'm on-board with movie theatres refusing to show certain films to certain ages, or to certain ages who have no adult accompaniment.
Seriously, though, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" covers a lot of this ground and is a fascinating documentary about censorship and the MPAA.
As to why movies near the end of the code squeaked through, well, I think it was basically that their power was dwindling. The studios cared less and less as they pushed the rules more and more and no crackdown happened. Social attitudes changed a lot, so prosecution and fines probably became more difficult as the politicians saw their constituencies as not being on the side of the Hays Office.
So the goblins at the Hays Office crawled back into their oozy caves and plotted and schemed, diminished, but not destroyed, and reincarnated as the MPAA, slapping the really "filthy" stuff with an X (now NC-17) which damns the film to not being shown in major movie theatres or having the DVD carried by Wal-Mart.
I think all of that will change with the streaming services. Heck, HBO basically already shattered it like a battering ram at a castle gate.
If you want to know more about the MPAA, I recommend watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated", which is a documentary about that group. Take it with a bit of a grain of salt, though. I'm not sure I 100% trust when guys like John Waters complain that the MPAA "has it in for the little guy". Maybe, John, or maybe they just think your off-the-wall, crazy stuff is something that goes waaaaay beyond shocking.
yeah, anyone who's watched pink flamingos will say, "dude you went too far." i've watched thousands of movies in my life. really violent and edgy movies. i've watched a lot of really extreme violent and disturbing movies and after all that i'd watched of these kinds of movies around 2004, i was still completely disturbed so much by this movie that i felt like crying afterwards. he took that movie way, way too far, there is something sinister, evil, and sinful about that movie.
that's one of the most select movies in this extreme cinema category that i was hoping it would end before it was over and that i really regret watching. yes, there are movies that go too far in some way, and this has nothing to do with morals or ethics and this isn't me not being strong willed enough to watch it or emotionally strong enough to watch it as i'd watched the most depraved and violent movies in my life before watching it.
why do you think this will change with streaming services? also, how did HBO shatter this? their retarded game of thrones had merkins, merkins over the girls's best area. i mean how pussy can you get? and what is this a low budget production, that's the only kind of movie that would use a merkin.
what i find amazingly ironic is how in today's socially enlightened and free country of america when it comes to free rights for gays and other weird people the us is so conservative when it comes to nudity and sexuality in every way.
so, the us is open minded and free with it comes to being gay or trans but closed minded when it comes to something as innocent as nudity in movies and fake sex in movies? really? someone has to explain this to me.
and the same thing is true about how basic cable allows using the f word, gd, and shit, but yet something as small as an ass is not allowed on some channels and tits are never allowed on any basic cable channel unless it's a movie channel that has uncut movies?
I've never actually seen a John Waters film. I have heard about them and know they aren't for me. I've heard reports like you've just said a thousand times and, yeah, I know I don't want to watch it. Maybe Hairspray.
I think streaming services will change ratings because of the amount of content being pounded out. It's too much, too fast, and the platforms are expanding. There just aren't as many gatekeepers. It's also easier for content providers to not bother with the MPAA, but just rate it themselves and allow for parental controls. That will make the population not care about stuff like that as much because what they want (little Sally not to hear cussin') is taken care of. Swearing, for instance, is off the charts compared to "regular" TV.
HBO blew holes in ratings systems because of stuff like Game of Thrones, yeah. Or, the Sopranos was the first big one, I think. Then other cable stuff like Sex and the City came along and there was swearing, sex, violence - all at movie levels now on the TV. To shock desensitized audiences, the envelope keeps getting pushed. So, yeah, I think Game of Thrones is a big part of it.
The US has a vocal minority who are prudes, I think. And then another vocal minority who are loud and aggressive about being "shocking". And the majority of them just live and let live.
But there's always been a "baseball and mom's apple pie" thing that America has - this white picket facade where they pretend to be wholesome in public and then cut loose elsewhere, but for politicians (lawmakers) that means going after stuff that will "harm the children!"
This Film Is Not Yet Rated talks a lot about the weird hypocrisy and double-standards around violence, nudity, and swearing, and how those are treated differently.
you forgot that they used merkins on game of thrones. so, no i will never respect this show because of this. you can never be called truly maverick or edgy or ground breaking or fearless or transcendent in terms of making violence and sex and nudity freer if you use merkins on your actresses.
why do you act like HBO was ahead of their time because they used swear words, sex, and violence on tv at movie levels? i thought HBO is a pay channel so they can do whatever they want like a movie can.
i heard someone say one time that in America in the '50s Americans weren't innocent and conservative and moral and Christians, even though '50s movies presented this wholesome image. Americans were just as bad as they are now, the only difference is they hid it in the '50s.
don't ever watch pink flamingos or any other '70s john waters movie. it will harm you psychologically, mentally, and emotionally. just take my advice. because like they say, and it couldn't be any more true than in this case, there are certain things you can't ever unsee.
I haven't watched Game of Thrones so I can't speak to the merkin-use or not. Either way, my understanding is that the sex on the show is pretty raunchy, I wasn't just talking about faux-pubes.
HBO is a pay channel, yes, but the presence of hard-R stuff on pay channels (not even, sometimes just envelope-pushing) made that kind of material mainstream. When the Sopranos hit the airwaves, everybody talked about it - it was the big hit show. To compete, I think other channels have relaxed their limits. There are some shows now that drop f-bombs, shows where that would have been inconceivable before HBO wedged the door open. It was just a crack, but it certainly was there. I'm not saying they were "the first", just that they contributed.
Oh, yeah, absolutely. Prude Victorians had some FILTHY sex magazines (even by modern standards) and '50s America was the same way, I think. That's why you get all these movies like American Beauty or Edward Scissorhands that critique that suburbanite veneer, the facade of nice that covers over all this gross rot underneath.
That's quite the warning. I've heard it from many people and I do not plan to watch anything by Waters. I can respect that the guy is doing what he wants as an artist, but I don't want to see it. Same with stuff like Human Centipede or whatnot. Just don't want to see it.
doesn't matter, no matter how graphic, or raunchy or real looking, sounding, and feeling the sex is on game of thrones, it doesn't count or matter because of the merkin use. so, all of the explicit sex scenes lose all their merits and legitimacy because of this and they lose all their edginess and ground breakingness because of this.
what is this a children's show or a student film type tv show, the merkin use makes this show amateur hour. i mean who does that nowadays? not softcore porn movies or even Hollywood movies nowadays.
and you don't need to. i mean the human centipede though it has it's merits is ultimately a shock for the sake of shocking, guilty pleasure, torture porn movie. i was surprised it was carried by IFC which is an independent arthouse movie company.
yeah, great John you made the grossest, filthiest, most unseemly film ever made in pink flamingos and one of the most depraved and disturbing films ever made as well. but what is that worth? the films we should be talking about instead of this film are films like the texas chainsaw massacre and the last house on the left.
wait so when you say Hard R stuff what do you mean? when i think of Hard R i think of hardcore porn. i say this because at Scarecrow Video i found out about movies rated Hard R. so, do channels like HBO have hardcore porn now? i know Playboy does now on one of their websites.
I think it matters in terms of what the public's perception is. So, most people don't care about the merkins (most wouldn't notice, would they? How close are we looking here?) and would consider the sex scene graphic enough regardless of whether the pubic hair was real or not. Nobody's watching Star Trek and thinking Kirk isn't a real hero because he's wearing a wig...
Anyways, the point I'm driving at here is that when this stuff is seen by a mass audience, it shifts that audience's perception of how graphic things are, what can be "allowed" in a TV series, or how much they'll accept from a TV channel. So, it might seem rickety to you (though, I'm not sure why?), but the broader public reacts a certain way.
Game of Thrones is but one show, too. There are loads of other shows that pushed back on what could be considered acceptable TV.
Yeah, I'm not interested in shock-horror. It's basically the gore equivalent of pornography, and I think that's where it stops being good art and just is something base and witless.
By Hard R I would mean something that really digs into its R rating. Could be Saving Private Ryan, for instance, which not only shows blood, but carnage: the effects of war and violence. It could be Sin City that has every vice in spades. I would juxtapose it against something like When Harry Met Sally. Technically an R. Not a "hard R".
Porn I would refer to as pornographic, X, or NC-17. It's past R.
but it does matter. to the people who know, the discerning audience who know and care about an actress wearing a merkin or not, merkins are deplorable and unacceptable. we want to see their pubic area how it is, we want that nudity, we want to see their bush and pussy if we can. it's all about realism and artistic and professional dignity. having respect for your art and product and your consumer.
oh, ok, your porn is different from my porn. because some NC-17 movies are tame and not pornographic like henry and june. if you watched it when it came out, especially if you watch it now, you'll notice it's tame, not that much nudity at all and little if any sex.
it doesn't even quality for a softcore porn movie made in the '90s as far as how much nudity or sex it has. i think it was the sexual dialogue, themes, and general atmosphere that got it rated NC-17.
what is an r and not a hard r, when harry met sally? really?
Okay, well, it doesn't matter to me. I'm interested in great story, characters, and a top-quality presentation (aesthetics, tone, worldbuilding, etc.), so nudity isn't important to me. Certainly not merkins. If anything, that kind of thing can often get in the way of the storytelling. The TV show Rome, for example, I felt like they were finding excuses to cram in nudity to titillate, but not necessarily for artistic reasons (some times, anyway), so I rolled my eyes a couple of times.
I'm a little off-track. My point is that I don't care about merkins. I'm going to guess most people don't care about merkins on Game of Thrones, since you're the first person I've talked to who's mentioned them at all, let alone is taking an artistic hardline against them. I really don't get this, and I can't see how it harms the integrity of the show. It's like saying they used stunt doubles to do the sword fight. Who cares? It's acting.
I'm sure some NC-17s don't belong in that category (I'll say it once more: This Film Is Not Yet Rated has great insight into stuff like this). I just meant that I considered porn to be outside of the R rating and into a whole other category.
When Harry Met Sally has an R. I'm not sure why. I recall maybe an F word or two? Maybe the orgasm scene had something to do with it? I don't know the logic (or lack thereof) that made it R, but there you go. So, that I would definitely say is not a "hard R". As opposed to something like Sin City or something like that.
because you see it. that's the problem with merkins. it's clear, it's obvious and you see it. with stunt people you don't notice it because they look enough like the actors. i'm only bringing this up because someone on disqus.com brought it up. i've never watched game of thrones.
my point is not all NC17 movies are porn movies and not all nudity is porn.
that's unbelievable, how in the world is when harry met sally and r rated movie? this might be the worse movie rating of all time. would anyone think it's an r rated movie? would anyone think you know i can't let my kids watch this movie, it's too adult and can damage their brains and violate their emotions or sensibilities? no one has ever said that.
Is it clear? I dunno...I have a feeling I wouldn't notice. I guess it's all quantum speculation unless I actually watch the show though, isn't it?
I still don't think it's a big deal or changes the fact that Game of Thrones pushed envelopes. It's like a cartoon. If a cartoon had graphic sex in it, I'd still give it an R or NC-17 rating even though the drawings aren't real. Merkin's not real - still a lot of nudity in GoT. Beyond that, GoT (as I understand it) has a tonne of violence, sex, and I've got to assume cussin' as well, so it's not just pushing boundaries based on the specific nudity of the non-wigged private parts.
I don't know why WHMS would be R. Probably F-words (I think you're only allowed 2 in a PG-13, so if they cranked it to three, it would auto-slide into R) and/or the orgasm scene (and other sex talk)...?
If I were on the MPAA, I almost certainly would not have rated that movie R.
so, do you have the names of these prude Victorian sex magazines, so i can do some ahem, research on what you talked about?
shareI do not. That kind of thing doesn't really interest me.
I read of them in an article/essay about our modern perception of older eras being wrong. Basically talking about all the ways we think that past time periods were and how we have a lot of misunderstandings or outright lies about those eras.
why did you say prude Victorians? if they were prude then why did they have these raunchy magazines?
shareCan't you be both?
Think of every senator who rails against gay marriage and winds up caught in some rest stop.
Victorian culture was prudish, there was a strong undercurrent of hypersexuality. Because of all the prudery maybe? Don't know.
It's a paradox, but a pretty common one.
I'm assuming there were plenty of prudes, too.
Consider Prohibition: during that era, business for booze runners went gangbusters (pun intended) because people were desperate for a drink. Apparently it wound up getting a lot of women to become barflies where before the era, women weren't really "pub people". Meanwhile, there's the temperance movement of teetotalers. So, there is loud enough minority of prudes/teetotalers who make enough noise to bring up some laws that mask, but don't dispel, the vice running around underneath.
Heck, probably makes people go nuttier and double-down on that vice.
There were several movies with nudity prior to the Hayes Code, the code came about because of the growing prevalence of nudity... the only reason most people are unaware of it is that the movies in the early 20th century were all black and white and silent films and they are rarely seen outside of film classes because there is really no real market for them. Remember talking movies didn't kick in until 1927 so while you could watch a woman skinny dipping you couldn't hear a damn thing.
sharewhat does hearing a woman going skinny dipping have to do with what was allowed in film? i mean what's obscene about what she says while being naked? not true, as i watched this movie on TCM, it was with lon chaney, it was called the something from 192something, and i was looking at this girl and it even looked like she might have shown a tit. by the way, talking movies started in the 1930s, not 1927.
shareyou didn't answer my questions: why would an actress being famous enough make people want to work with her without making her strip off? what does her stripping in a movie have to do with her having demand as an actress in Hollywood?
shareFame = box office dollars, and money is king in Hollywood.
My point is that she was in-demand as a talent and a box office draw and so she could put in a no-nudity clause without missing out on much work.
Elizabeth Shue didnt show her tits until she was well established.
She didnt need to show her tits. She wasnt forced into it when building her career.
Your real argument should be the writing and the censor board where women getting naked is ok and mens dicks on screen is not ok. Stories written by men from a males perspective for men where more women get naked than men.
You want to see more dick...and thats ok.