MovieChat Forums > Fight Club (1999) Discussion > About splicing images of pornography int...

About splicing images of pornography into family films.

posted 6 years ago by TheMan18 (12511)
3 replies | jump to latest

Does Pitt/Norton's character who does that even have an awareness that it might cause him to lose the job or get into trouble with authorities etc?

Also - not this is a bit of a personal question but...

The movie showed at least some audiences being upset and offended by male nudity portrayed and spliced into family-themed films.

If the same image was that of a nude female instead, and let's say the woman looked good etc, would audiences as such have a similar or even SAME kind of upset reaction as they would with male nudity? And is it normal, and why or why not? Regardless of the gender of the audience in the cinema theatre?

Thanks.

[–] AP (5258) 6 years ago

Tyler had that job which means it likely wasn’t real. The persona of Tyler was a guy didn’t give a shit so that he wouldn’t be the sort to care even if he and the job were real.

As to the pornographic images, I’m sure people would be equally upset if it appeared in a kids’ movire regardless if gender.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Male nudity is considered offensive in a way that female nudity just isn't. Female nudity would be more considered "inappropriate" than people actually being upset and offended by it.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Interestingly, I don't think anyone would be automatically horrified or scared just at the sight of penis. It's just a harmless picture of a body part, visually not that different from a quick glance of a nose or finger in similar lighting.

Now, vagina, however.. that's a terrifying monster to suddenly have to look at!

(Just kidding, but I mean, it could just as easily go both ways (equality and all, you know) - for some reason, even 'movies that are made for men', men are ridiculed and shown as 'offensive', even the male genitalia is automatically something scary according to this movie)