MovieChat Forums > Flickan som lekte med elden (2010) Discussion > So tired of female-only nudity. (sex sce...

So tired of female-only nudity. (sex scene SPOILERS)

posted 14 years ago by SpiceTea
72 replies | jump to latest

It is so old and so over-used and so much of a joke by now that I almost can't even get annoyed at it. And it's so utterly ridiculous in this particular movie as to inspire laughter.

Several people have sex in this movie:

1. random middle-aged men with young female prostitutes
2. (in video), a certain middle-aged man sexually abusing a certain female character
3. a middle-aged man and woman in the aftermath of sex
4. two young women having sex together

Take a wild guess as to which characters of the above are the ones--the only ones-- with full frontal nudity (and, not incidentally, the most explicit sex, as well).

But just in case you didn't get the message that female-only nudity is the only acceptable type worth showcasing, the filmmakers drive their point home almost absurdly by having the man in #3 above shown lying naked on the bed...BUT with his thigh crossed carefully over his genitals so that the viewer can't see them.

The contrast with the incessant female nudity throughout this film and the history of cinema in general could not be more pointed.

It's basically a flashing neon light reminding the audience that female nudity is somehow crucially instrinsic to the artistic integrity of the film
(#sarcasm) but male nudity somehow does not *equally* contribute to the film's narrative, artistic merits or characterization.

I think it was the Village Voie's review that called the female sex scenes in this film "exploitative" and the movie has given me no reason to refute that label.

This is some b.s. and I'm calling these filmmakers out on it.

[–] hellodollyllama 14 years ago

Keep in mind that they had to synch this thing up to Swedish television regulations.

[–] OneFilmLover 14 years ago

This franchise has always been flawed in it's regards to how it presents female sexuality and nudity.

Sure the themes may be about how "Evil Men" keep women down. But they're better ways to deal with this than having rapes, sex rings, and a lead male character who sleeps with EVERY female in the franchise.

The film's just kind've carry that on. It's why I view the books and films as just fun little romps. They're not really thematically intelligent (despite people saying to the contrary) and are really just good little thrillers.

You can't have your cake (explicit lesbian sex scenes shot by candlelight & long rape scenes heavily focused on the female nudity and avoiding the male nudity) and eat it too (talk about how wrong it is to treat women as sex objects).

There. It's on the Internet. Thus it's official

[–] SpiceTea 14 years ago

onefilmlover,

I agree with everything in your post.

Quite right about the cheesecakey lesbian sex...the hazy soft lighting, abounding nudity, sultry music etc. was just way over the top.I almost snickered, but I was with a group of people (men and women) who take the series very seriously and I didn't want to offend them.

But actually, just as bad was the 3- or 4-minute scene of the naked women conversing after sex, sitting upright, Miriam giving her a gift, the camera lingering on their breasts the whole time. Sure, in real life, people don't tend to throw on caftans or robes after sex, but if such artistic integrity and realism is what they're after, then how come the MALE characters' penises weren't put on similar display during their sex and sex-aftermath scenes, too? If anything, everything was done to hide their genitals (see my OP).

I know this movie was made without the author's input, so obviously I'm not taking him to task for its heavy reliance on played-out themes and Hollywood contrivances (not just those relating to nudity, BTW).

Your post makes me think the books might also have suffered the same problem, though...? I know Larsson had developed a reputation for being a "progressive," but I don't really care about titles or labels. My interest is: What type of work do you put out? What are its themes? Is it just the same old same old, dressed up in a shiny new suit and called "progressive" and "crusading?" and "new" and "different?"

[–] Malgorzata64 14 years ago

how come the MALE characters' penises weren't put on similar display during their sex and sex-aftermath scenes, too? If anything, everything was done to hide their genitals

I think you are making a logical mistake in your texts. You are ranting about female breasts and demanding that they show a penis instead of hiding male genitals. Female breasts are not genitals. In fact, even if you see a full female frontal nude, you still don't see the female genitals. In man's case, you do.

So yes, there was female nudity in the movie, but no female genitals.

[–] whipthedog 14 years ago

Agree 100%

I don't know how woman draw a parallel between their Breasts and a male Penis.
But they do it all the time.
A chest is a chest, whether it is male or female. I am sure that the ladies get just as big a kick out of seeing a well developed male chest, as a male does seeing a well developed female chest.
So if you demand to see male genitals, then it should be fine to show female genitals. But this would mean a deliberate spread, which I think everybody would fine a bit tacky.

[–] Malgorzata64 14 years ago

But this would mean a deliberate spread, which I think everybody would fine a bit tacky.

Agreed. I would just as well avoid seeing such things in movies.

There are in fact movies with full frontal male nudity (and thus genitals) but I don't remember seeing any with female genitals. And have to say seeing a penis on the screen somehow does not feel as invasive as it would be with seeing female genitals.

[–] Naldoman 14 years ago

Gotta agree with this group - I've never seen a mainstream film where a woman is bent over with her ass to the camera exposing her outer and inner lips.

Even comedy films (Scary Movie) have shown balls and erect penises, where is a comedy that shows a moist labia...???

OK, I can hear the crickets now....

[–] allisonarf 14 years ago

I guess you guys never saw Basic Instinct.

It is easier to see male genitals because they are OUTSIDE the body, while female genitals are inside. But movies have shown both full frontal male and female nudity, but there has always been much more female nudity because most screenwriters, producers, and directors are male.

I agree with the OP. While there is male nudity in the movie versions of the Millenium triology, it's much briefer than the female nudity and it seems less is shown. So it's a double standard.

[–] Mstreselena 14 years ago

It really annoys me when a man and woman are getting out of bed and the woman is clearly nude and the man jumps out of bed wearing underwear. They might barely show anything of the woman's body, but the idea that he wore boxers during sex is just stupid. It's the absurdity, not the nudity that gets to me. As far as full frontal male nudity goes, who cares! I have friends who are nudists and the male form is nothing to hide, though a few of them maybe should cover up. HBO did a special several years ago about men and their penises, a few them spoke about their genitals like they were something disgusting because to do otherwise would make them gay. I taped the special for two of my gay friends and as far as they were concerned, MORE FULL FRONTAL MALE NUDITY!

Then again, that might be the fear -- being checked out by a gay man.

[–] tallard 14 years ago

I worked at an art movie theatre for 5 yrs and my boss had a funny comment: I wonder how folks in the USA make babies? they are always wearing clothes in bed!

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] Mstreselena 14 years ago

I remember how upset my husband would get when I made him take off his socks. The rule was that if his feet were still cold in 15-20 minutes, then we could stop what we were doing so he could put them back on. Funny, in all those years he never took the time to put his socks back on.

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

watch "out of time", they have a sex scene in whihc you can clearly see both male and female wearing shorts while having sex.

----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kadajawi 13 years ago

I'm not 100% sure, but I think 9 Songs might have shown female genitals. Or Intimacy perhaps? I think Antichrist too. One of the Almodovar movies, though that one was clearly fake since there was a man climbing inside or something like that. But you are right, male genitals are pretty common, there are even quite a few movies that show penises but the women don't show skin... at all.

[–] Malgorzata64 13 years ago

I'm not 100% sure, but I think 9 Songs might have shown female genitals.

Not to my memory. But it certainly shows the male genitals.

[–] annapiela 14 years ago

I disagree that a chest is a chest regardless of gender. In summer I see men in my town walk around with bare chests and just shorts, but I have never seen a woman walk around topless.

Women's swimsuits cover the chest, whether single-piece or bikini. I have never seen a man wear a bra....

Hence, the social taboo regarding showing chest is different for both sexes, because it's differently constructed socially.

Plus, as the people below argue, a chest is a chest (i.e. it's equally socially acceptable to show chests whether male or female), but female frontal nudity is supposed not to be as 'taboo' as male frontal nudity because the penis is always out whereas labia are hidden! DOUBLE STANDARDS!

People who thus argue bend all the evidence to justify female nudity (breasts and full frontals), arguing that men's nudity should not be shown because it would be equal to female showing their labia. What utter bollocks.
Following this argument male actors will never have to reveal the bits of their bodies that are as a rule considered taboo. Whereas females will be expected to do this, with the exception of showing the bits that would qualify the film as pornographic.

If a sex- or post-sex-scene is shot and the director wants to show nudity, showing just nude women is objectification and double standards. Both people should be shown as they appear after sex, not woman showing the full frontal and man shyly concealing his jewels with a thigh.

Personally I don't care to see nudity in mainstream films and wouldn't mind if camera avoided the breasts and the genitals. Not everything has to be literal. Those who crave nudity have special films and magazines with abundance of the stuff.

[–] Malgorzata64 14 years ago

Plus, as the people below argue, a chest is a chest (i.e. it's equally socially acceptable to show chests whether male or female), but female frontal nudity is supposed not to be as 'taboo' as male frontal nudity because the penis is always out whereas labia are hidden! DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Well, the nature made it double standards in a way and then the meaning we ascribe to showing/covering different parts of the body doesn't make the situation easier. Probably the only way to solve it is not to show breasts and genitals, as you suggested, and have people fully covered in bed. But then, as somebody noticed somewhere, that seems unnatural, so one could take another step and simply do not show people in bed.

Still, it won't solve it for all cultures (in some showing arms is challenging, in other showing belly is challenging, what to speak about some cultures in Muslim countries or about orthodox Jews where showing anything - of a female body - is challenging), but it will for most of us Westerners.

[–] annapiela 14 years ago

Nature gave us differences between males and females, but it is people who implement double standards. And considering that women still have to go through the glass ceiling in producers and directors' world, unfortunately it is them falling victim of the double standard in utilisation of nudity in cinematography.

I agree that it would be hard to satisfy all cultures with regard to nudity in the films. All the same, these issues need to be seriously discussed, not dropped on the pretext that it's impossible to meet everybody's standards, therefore there's no issue at all.

One thing I do not understand at all is - assuming that the majority of society is straight and people often go to see movies as couples - why do the directors and producers are motivated to titillate the male audience (and attract them to their movies), and rarely do they do this for the female audience? Are they not interested in the money that buys my ticket and lines their pocket? Or is the assumption here that men go to see movies to see tits, ass, and a bit of action, whereas women are after cheesy-gooey stuff? Patronising for both genders.

It was actually my boyfriend who said that sexual scenes and nudity of Salander were largely superfluous in Girl no. 1. I, beaten into indifference through being forced to look at endless issues of nuts, zoo, loaded, not to mention the 'hard stuff' 'adorning' the centrally placed shelves at my local off-licences and supermarkets, simply glossed over it at first. <Sigh>

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheyWithTimmyMustBMerlin 11 years ago

A chest is a chest, whether it is male or female. I am sure that the ladies get just as big a kick out of seeing a well developed male chest, as a male does seeing a well developed female chest.

No, sorry they don't. It is nowhere near as arousing to a woman as seeing a woman's bare breasts is to a man. I too, as others are saying on here, am sick of the double standard that exists for male/female nudity in films. First of all, nudity is usually not even necessary in 99% of films. I say if you want to make a porn, make a porn, but whatever...since it is in movies, there needs to start being some equality. If I'm going to have to have some chick showing full nudity (pretty much everything but spreading her labia apart) then we women should get to see some hot guys naked too. I say full frontal on a woman is the same as showing full frontal on a man. Not that a flaccid penis is that arousing, it isn't, but I'd say it falls under the same category of seeing a woman's bare bikini parts (unspread...lol). Erect penis and spread labia = porn, otherwise it should all be equal. So tired of all of these insecure male misogynist filmmakers that make all of these jock-strap movies that only exploit the women. It's absolute bullsh!t. Usually fat ugly guys getting the beautiful girl as well (can you imagine a movie the other way around?). I'm sick of the way women so often get depicted and exploited in movies. I'm not a man-hater, but I really wish men could get a taste of their own medicine as far as the media, self esteem, etc. goes. I could go off on a whole other rant about the undercurrent of misogyny that runs rampant through our culture but I'll just stop here. Basically as far as this rant goes, I wish men were basically just depicted as sex objects the way women are, but men are just too insecure for that kind of scrutiny...

Would you like some hot coffee - in your face?!!! - Bert Macklin, FBI

[–] whipthedog 11 years ago

I do not know what country you live in, but where I live almost all of the movies,media, TV, magazines etc target a female audience. And they are using titillation to do it.

[–] Rick-34 14 years ago

Agree completely, _esp._ considering that this is a film set in Sweden.

Apparently the original poster has never been to a European beach.

Why was the most graphic sex scene between two women? Well, that's what is in the story. It involves the main character and her bisexuality is a key part of her personality.

The question here is whether the sex scenes were done in an exploitative manner. I thought the filmmakers took particular care to make sure that enough was shown to convey the mood, but also enough was left out to avoid the charge of exploitation.

I find the original comment saddening because it really obscures the central message of the entire series. Lisbeth is a woman who hates men who hate and abuse women. Viewed as a whole, the series helps women by showing explicitly the monsters out there who exploit and abuse women.

When you complain that you don't get to see a penis, you really miss the point.

[–] tallard 14 years ago

In a 131 minute movie, the lesbian sex scene, quite subdued, last all of what 2 minutes?????

You call that too much???????????????? Maybe for you zero sex on film is the only acceptable amount...

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] chilone (17278) 6 years ago

A long rape scene with male nudity would require an erection for it to be remotely realistic. I don't know what the laws are, regarding that but I don't think many respectable actors would be willing to go through whatever hoops he would have to go through to stay in an aroused state during the filming of such a scene. Men can't simulate arousal.

[–] SpiceTea 14 years ago

hellodolly, what are those regulations, though?

Just for the record, I view nudity in of itself as unproblematic, and don't have a problem with public nudity (male or female), either. I certainly don't buy into the alarmist "society's goin to hell in a handbasket!" views that often pop up when nudity is present.

But there's something very suspect (and tired, played out, and rolleye-inducing) when any one group--on the basis of their genitals, skin color, religion, what have you--- is almost exclusively linked to a certain category or representation (in this case, cinematic nudity in general).

[–] Elvine 13 years ago

Showing naked people (male or female) on Swedish television is not an issue at all. Not even in children's programs. Trust me.

[–] powerpuff_pirate-832-124918 14 years ago

Well then you have obviously not understood ANYTHING to do with this movie ... There is a reason why there is female nudity. Firstly, if you had watched the first movie, there is male nudity (in the form of Blomkvist and Bjurman). Secondly, Salander is obviously a feminist and does not CARE about the fact that nudity is exposed.

Nothing in this movie "exploits" anyone. I am so glad that a non-Hollywood movie has been talked about and hyped up so much. It's incredible how many bad movies are out there also with female nudity but it's ok because it's Hollywood.

I suggest you first read the books then you will perhaps understand that nudity in the movie is due to the fact that that's how it's described in the book.

[–] britwrit 14 years ago

Look, you're completely out of line. If a straight man sees another man's genitals, he'll immediately go insane. Or turn gay.

Do you want that on your conscience?

[–] Afroagogo 14 years ago

lmao...it seems as if films are made with this in mind.
Does anyone remember the outrage over Mr. Manhattan's flaccid penis hanging out (no pun intended) just a few years ago?
Gotta keep the willies hidden and the fully naked women exposed or the world will exploooode!

[–] harmedandderangerous 14 years ago

It must suck to spend 9 bucks on a movie and come out of the theater with this on your mind. You have my sympathy.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harmedandderangerous 14 years ago

I think you've mistaken my post as being directed at you. I was responding to the op. If you have the message board set to the 'nest' mode it should be evident. No, if you want to interpret sexism into a film's entire production, then that's fair enough. I mean, it has some substance directly relevant to the movie's plot. But to go, 'Jeez, nothing but female nudity! Where's the cock?' That's a waste of a ticket price.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harmedandderangerous 14 years ago

Hmm... Well, I'm a guy but despite my alleged inability to understand your issue I'll give you my take. (I wouldn't call it "going over my head" though. That's usually an issue to do with intelligence. What you're referring to is more of an issue to do with inherent psychological differences due to our biology.) What you see on the screen is much a reflection of the real world around us. A recent survey done by some entity (I don't pay much attention to such things so you'll have to google it for details) showed that women on dating sites across the board were searching for men in the age range of their own age to fifteen years older. That said, do either one of us need to be told that? I mean, I can see out at the movies, restaurants, the park, etc. that women regularly date older men. As well, attractive women regularly go for men that are, how should I say, less aesthetically appealing relatively speaking. A woman gets drawn in by a man's confidence, personal presence, personality, etc. and a man gets drawn in by a woman's beauty. Not to pick on someone but as an example, just look at Oprah. One of the richest and most powerful people in the world and yet all her money and power doesn't get her some eye candy on her arm. She has a guy with a 12" forehead and beady eyes. But you look at any rich and powerful man and he's got some model-hot gal at his side. You really think Tiger Woods would have been bedding 2 women for every day of the week if he were stocking the cereal shelves at Kroger for a living? I don't think so. It's the money and fame and nothing more. So some older private investigator with his intriguing and sexy job gets a younger girl in a movie. Sounds pretty plausible to me. I'm not sure if I would call the guy seedy but that's just our own difference in perception. As well, I don't really consider Noomi Rapace to be very attractive. Again, that might just be the beauty in the eye of the beholder truism coming into play. And, as far as that goes, I don't really care. I enjoyed The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and I thought she was great. It was actually refreshing to not be looking at an actress who looks like they just strolled off the runway.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joefcfd 13 years ago

who gives a sh-t?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BobStage 14 years ago

So you want to see a film where men AND women get fully naked and are shown?

Watch half of Bernardo Bertolucci's filmography (1900, Last Tango in Paris, The Dreamers, etc)

[–] tallard 14 years ago

Nudity in this film is almost equally shared, there is no complete front female nudity, and a few other angles for both sexes, we even see a hairy armpit :)

I actually thought it was quite appropriate in the context.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] CaptainCMorgan 14 years ago

If you're really itching to see penises that bad, go watch Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Or porn.

Also at no point in this movie do you see a woman's vagina or a man's penis, so I don't understand what you're ranting about. I would point out that the media has become incredibly sexual in terms of men and women in nude situations, but we are less likely to notice men being nude because they don't have protruding breasts. If you have a problem with boobs, watch some male homosexual television shows, or if you have a problem with nudity all together, watch the family channel.

[–] ttrek-1 14 years ago

Its mainly that women look better naked. Not a man or woman alive will dispute that and if they do, they are liars and should not have anything they say believed even for a second.

In all seriousness... have you ever seen naked men? We look bulgy and disgusting. Or flabby and walrus-like And the penis has to be the ugliest thing we men have. Where as women, well maybe not the really fat ones, look like flowing silk in the same situation.

This is why most hetero porn focuses on the women. Because men and women simply find a naked woman to be far more sexually stimulating. And you don't have to be bi or a dyke to know this.

Flynn 24

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]