in many interviews James Marsden has said he wouldn't mind doing a nude scene
even with frontal nudity. so this is my question- don't you think it would have
been more intense if Marsden had been tied to the chair naked? all opinions
welcome.
Hey Carrot,
Strapping him to a chair naked wouldn't fit with the tone of the movie. The movie is about what happened between them and their conversation herein. Nudity of any kind would've been strange.
I have to be honest. This movie caught me by surprise. You should see it as quickly as you can Carrot. You won't regret it.
I wouldn't mind watching James' whole naked body on my tv screen *LOL* Unfortunately I don't think the story lended itself into a scene like that *maybe when Dan was washing himself in the restroom. What I do regret is not seen a little kiss between the two leads, at least a tiny little kissy ;)
[deleted]
...not sure what you mean with the *they were making out between takes* part, but I do have to say that the end fell somewhat flat . IMO for a film that relied heavily on the explosive interaction of the two men , the ending was so one-sided. I guess what I am saying is that it would have been nice if they had added a few more minutes to that ending, I don't know, one final conversation. The whole situation is very sad. I just couldn't help feeling like there was some unfinished bussines(instead of a new beginning like you said ) just my opinion of course.
shareJames Marsden and Scott Speedman were making out between takes?
shareAre you serious?!! If someone was responsible for the death of your spouse and most likely your own, would you want to see them naked?!!! It would have been ludicrous to have such staging in this movie. Only a vapid, gay man would think of such a thing. Would you want to see a Nazi naked if you knew he was responsible for killing your family? Would that be an erotic scenerio for you? I hope not.
sharemettled, you are so right.there was the thought of showing marsden showering but it was deceided that it would have been a cheap shot to include any male nudity in this story.
shareAh, nice to see that the movie's homophobia and demonization of HIV victims (unknowing ones, at that) found its target audience based on your post above. Unless Marsden's character had known he was infected and made SURE that he passed the death sentence on to Speedman's, the Nazi parallel is uncalled for.
shareWhat a bizarre response. Tom contracted HIV, ostensibly by having a one night stand with another man. I choose to believe Tom didn't lie and Dan was his only homosexual contact (although I find that rather hard to believe considering the fact that he had no problem having anal intercourse with a drunk guy he had known for all of two hours). Still, unless I missed a major plotpoint or something, it was never shown (and could never be shown) that Tom's wife didn't have HIV and was, in fact, the reason Tom contracted it. As for Tom's wife, you need to rewatch the movie. She killed herself. She ran through a red light, whether knowingly or not, and she died as a result. So your outraged response is misinformed at best. Dan didn't kill anyone.
And "only a vapid, gay man" would think of wanting to see Dan naked? First of all, the actual question raised by carrotcake was regarding whether or not it would have been more "intense" if Dan had been naked. In some ways, nudity would be extremely intense - by stripping the character of clothes, it would have been the first step toward stripping his emotional defenses and barriers as well. In this particular movie, it wouldn't have worked at all. Tom didn't want to touch Dan, let alone strip him. And Tom was (at least in my opinion) a decent guy whose major flaw was that he refused to take any responsibility for his own actions, so I couldn't imagine him wanting to humiliate Dan by stripping him.
That doesn't mean the question was invalid, though. What's disturbing is your erotic response to the idea of James Marsten being naked (and I am using your words) and your decision to classify that reaction as vapid and gay. That says a lot about your post and your personality (as if your assertion that Dan was somehow responsible for everything horrible that's ever happened in the world - including the Holocaust, for some reason - didn't already speak volumes).
You stated that the staging would have been ludicrous. I completely agree with you - I couldn't think of one possible situation where that scenario would have worked. But instead of expressing yourself like a normal person (it wouldn't fit in the context of the situation), you chose instead to lash out at the original poster, fully knowing that Carrotcake didn't deserve such a rude response. If it came to a choice between being a vapid gay man or being someone who has major personality disorders that can only be expressed in an anonymous forum, I think I'll chose the vapid thing.
As for your closing question regarding Nazis, if my family had been one of the millions killed by the Nazis, darn right I'd like to see them naked. It seems like a major waste of money and fabric to burn perfectly good clothes with that kind of trash. With any luck, before you destroyed the creatures, you could scrounge up enough clothes, jewelry, and such to make a sizable donation to something worthwhile (like the Holocaust museum, for instance).
And no, I wouldn't find it erotic. I think it's sick that you evidently would.
Next time, aim your hatred at someone that deserves it. Your response was uncalled for and unnecessary. And think about getting help, if not for yourself, then for the world's sake.
Tommy Marx
Actually for me it doesn`t matter who is in charge of safe sex. More important is the question of lie. As for me i understand Dan perfectly. I`m afraid to check AIDS too and i always prefer to lie to myself and to close this part of my life from everybody even from myself. That`s the sense. Maybe the film is full of some wrong details but it`s psychological and that means that more important is to examine the existing situation and ways out of it not the preceding facts. The past had gone already – 24 days ago by the way. Actually i agree that Tom is a weak personage. For the director certainly Dan was more intresting and Tom is sometimes just a supportive character to open for audience Dan`s inside.
p.s. sorry for bad english. i`m not native speaker at all :)
no, choose not to hate ppl at all :)
Tom wouldn't lie, he was so firmed on his action/decision
His questions repeated and with determination
I asked this on a diff thread, i do wonder why did Tom engage himself with another man years ago. he said he was keeping what he love most, his wife. was the wife sick/busy then? and Tom was lonely and in need of sex? and doing it w a man may seem not a cheat? lol
it is clear that Dan didnt lie simply because he doesn't know, didn't want to know
what he lied about (there were many) was he never did take any test. if he honestly said he never take any test, Tom perhaps would try a different approach (but then thats not the story)
onto the topic, it was 'proper' rather 'wise' choice not to have any graphic scenes involved. Tom had one intention, and it was clear. he needs to know if Dan was the reason why he was positive
and furthermore, it will spare the straights lol (just kidding)
taj
bump
My two cents:
Definitely interesting. Personally I think naked in the chair would have been over the top.
As a member of the crew and an investor in the film, I was hoping for something though... I hate to pander to the least common denominator, but a little skin from either one of these guys may have been a "good" thing for the movie.
While I never personally mentioned this to the director... (i.e. I had absolutely no creative input in the film) I would be surprised if someone else did not mention it.
Simply put, his movie, his vision, his call.
Sincerely,
-fb.
Wow that's great Bellafante!
Is there any info you might share about the production and filming of this wonderful movie? *not I don't mean gossip* working atmosphere, how the casting was done, anything for us who liked the film. ;) I ask this cuz' the DVD has no extras(because of the low budget probably) It would be greatly appreciated. I can only hope some day there is a sequel cuz' my crazy self wants to know what follow after Dan read the HIV test.
I'm a gay man about as "vapid" as the next horny guy. Let's face it, horniness makes you stupid. That said, I was totally satisfied with this film as an excitingly produced intellectual examination of the ethical/emotional issues surrounding sexually active people and HIV. I didn't need the titillation of exposed skin to take the movie into a personally "successful" realm. So in this case, there is a good argument for eschewing gratuitous beefcake. It can leave the film open to charges of pandering or triviality, thus diminishing it's perceived "legitimacy." But I think we succumb to the most mind- and soul-numbing kind of puritanism when we accept an absolute separation between the intellectual and the erotic.
There was a contextual opportunity for inserting some fleshy moments when Tom asks Dan to throw his clothes in a bag, take a shower, and then lay on the floor with his hands behind his back. Dan certainly had to have taken a shower, and I don't recall whether Tom was shown providing any clean clothes for him. But when Tom opened the door, it could be a perfectly reasonable choice to have Dan naked in the requested position before attempting to overpower his captor. A naked struggle could be handled "modestly", if you will, by careful editing, and the very notion of such a scene being included is in no way inherently salacious. After Tom regains control, the next shot could show Dan clothed in some manner and re-tied in the chair. And the fact that Tom would reclothe him would almost totally mitigate any ambivalently erotic motivations for his character.
I quite willingly confess to a barefoot fetish, and the scene where Tom drags the unconscious Dan out of the frame with his bare feet trailing behind gave me a little passing frisson of erotic pleasure. It didn't feel in any way out of place to me; it just happened to occur. It might not for someone else. So, assuming that virtually everything seen on screen in a carefully made film is intentional (an argument for another day), should the director have made sure Dan had his shoes back on in order to avoid accusations of smuttiness or whatever -- or even lack of seriousness?
Americans and especially gay people far too easily accept the social suppression of our libido. The erotic and the sexual can and often do enhance a serious dramatic moment, giving it verisimilitude. For despite all the morbidly moralistic thinking which attempts to isolate and condemn experience, our sexuality has a pretty insistent way of speaking for itself. As a friend of mine often crudely puts it, "Your dick doesn't lie."
when did James say he would do full frontal nudity? i heard he doesn't like nude scenes so that's why he doesn't do them.
shareYour question made me laugh and nearly puke, when I imagined the scene when Dan had sh** all under him plus the condition suggested. OH! that would have been weird!
share