I find European actors are much more comfortable with full frontal nudity. Having said that, these actors are very brave to show themselves with erections, having sex, even ejaculating!
Edit: Sorry I should clarify I was watching the uncut version. There are 2 versions out there!
Sex has played a major, key role in the development of most Europeans, I'd bet. Americans shun it and look at it as if it were the devil incarnate.
Yet, violence is welcomed.
“You have to question a cinematic culture which preaches artistic expression, and yet would support a decision that is clearly a product of a patriarchy-dominant society, which tries to control how women are depicted on screen. The MPAA is okay supporting scenes that portray women in scenarios of sexual torture and violence for entertainment purposes, but they are trying to force us to look away from a scene that shows a woman in a sexual scenario, which is both complicit and complex. It’s misogynistic in nature to try and control a woman’s sexual presentation of self. I consider this an issue that is bigger than this film.”
– Ryan Gosling on the MPAA giving his upcoming film, “Blue Valentine,” an NC-17 rating.
[deleted]
One wonders how there could be a country of 300 million people who shun sex. There ain't that many test tube babies out there.
Death to shakeycam directors!
"Sex has played a major, key role in the development of most Europeans, I'd bet. Americans shun it and look at it as if it were the devil incarnate."
Is that so? You mean all Americans? Or just those who think it ought to be a private matter between two lifetime-committed people?
Yeah, it's hard to believe Americans have even been able to populate the place, hating sex so much and all. I mean, if it doesn't exist in movies, explicitly, then really it doesn't exist at all.
I'll bet you even talk about how "prejudiced" Americans are about this or that, or how they paint other people with a broad brush.
You'll forgive some of us, I hope, if we skip the lecture from...you know...Ryan Gosling. It's hard to pass on such wisdom from such an obviously deep thinker and well-known philosopher on morality, ethics, and culture, but I'll make the effort.
Obvious generalizations. As a whole though and however cynical you want to be in responding to my post, it does feel that in mainstream America a certain closed off approach to sex does exist. Furthermore, I thought what Gosling said, however you think of the man was interesting given the climate of mainstream America.
shareI actually agree, more or less, re the point of violence versus nudity (not necessarily sex -- it depends on the details...if it involves, force, coercion, pleading, overpursuing, "breaking through resistance," etc., as it does so often in films, it's a different matter).
"A certain closed-off approach to sex" exists in just about every nation, actually, in some percentage of the population. I think you (and Gosling) are working off a really old model here, focusing on what amounts to a technicality (not that much nudity on American commercial TV) and missing the much larger point that casual sex, hookups, the prevailing ethic (sleep with this one, sleep with that one, one after another, maybe more than one, as long as "nobody gets hurt," then probably "settle down" with one and mostly try to forget about all those people each other "had"), the absolute assumption of noncommitted sex amongst a majority of the population, etc., all of it is absolutely pervasive in mass culture. I don't know how possible it would be to be bombarded with it any more than we are. I'm not sure exactly how much more "open" things can get except in terms of graphic depiction in relatively restricted forms of media (such as commercial television). And really, explicit depictions of nudity and sexual activity are widely available to anybody with access to the Internet or a DVD or Blu-Ray player, or money to go to the theater. I actually don't know a single person who couldn't access it in about five seconds.
So what's the complaint, exactly? Is it not about depictions in the media at all, but just the inability to tolerate the fact that some people might disagree with you (and Gosling, maybe) about what the right sexual ethic is?
In general, when speaking of the "mainstream", I just think there is more of an openness to frank sexual discussions, psychological behaviors and more or less actions in Europeans countries than in America.
shareHow would a person ever verify such an impression?
In a few minutes, I could produce evidence of very open and frank discussions about sex and the other things you mention here, but the rebuttal would be that that is anecdotal evidence, and that would be true. There just is no way to come up with any research instrument that would measure this across an entire population, nor would it be possible even to arrive at what kinds of things constituted backwardness or repression versus progressiveness and openness.
I think the problem for some people is that there is _any_ significant portion of the population that believes sex is right and good in the context of a lifetime commitment, and that the prevailing ethic is wrong. That is just intolerable for some people, as intolerable as it is for people on the other side that some people _don't_ believe that.
But outside of real sexual behavior, limiting it only to Gosling's complaint about depictions in film and media, I mean...I understand and agree with the point about relative objectionability with violence versus nudity or sex. The kind of violence that can be seen in a PG-13 film is pretty unbelievable, and the violence on commercial TV, while tending to be less graphic, is still thematically disturbing in the extreme. This is not a late development, of course. If you go back to TV cop shows in the '70s, for instance, it's kind of appalling. I think Gosling was complaining about the double standard that forced an NC-17 rating for his film and a somewhat more limited gross potential for it (because some theaters won't carry it). But that is really aside from the moral question of what kinds of things ought to be depicted in what forms of media, and how graphically. I am certainly not in favor of censorship, but it does bother me when my kids can't watch a show on commercial TV in prime time without ad spots that contain fairly explicit sexual material, innuendo, etc.
If adults choose to pay for explicitness, that's their business, and people who think doing so is morally wrong have the right to make their case to anybody who will listen. But this is a separate matter from whether the actual sexual behavior of Americans is repressed, or backward, or whatever. And much of the "Euros are so much more advanced and enlightened" trope depends on the idea that if a person believes sex ought to be a private matter between people permanently committed to each other, that this is repressive in some way, even if those people are loving it and banging their socks off on every available surface every night. I have never understood why that is supposed to be a backward or repressive environment for sex. Is there necessarily something more enlightened or evolved about sleeping with a lot of people, or talking openly about sex in any forum with anybody who will listen? Who says?
For me, I am interested in the idea merely from a standpoint of the desire in understanding the emotional core of ones-self when it comes to sex. I think Gosling while perhaps not intentionally hit on a broader picture of how sex is viewed in European countries and that is reflected upon in its cinema. Do you see some films in America that reflect it? Absolutely. I'm not arguing that or not intentionally trying to start one.
Sex can be a spiritual, enlightening experience. Do you need to sleep with a lot of people to understand that? Of course not, but there is something innately gratifying about the desire and need of understanding the emotional core of the other party. You enter their world, they enter yours, if only for a brief second. Do you need sex to experience it? Nope, but I'd argue that sex certainly adds to the experience. That much is obvious to anyone, I would think. Oh and anecdotally, I haven't entered anyone's world being that I am a twenty six year old virgin. Hypocrite.
Why does sex "certainly add to the experience" of "understanding the emotional core of the other party," in a way that somehow advances your point of sleeping with a lot of people? I mean, I don't know who would argue with that statement if you're talking about a committed relationship. But is that what people are after with a party hookup, or a one-night stand after hanging out at a bar? I'm not sure what point you're making here with regard to sleeping with many versus sleeping with one for life.
And who are you calling "hypocrite", and why?
I necessarily don't think sleeping with a lot of people is something that interest everyone, myself included, I'd much rather find a committed relationship. And no I don't think people who are just looking for a hookup aren't looking to establish an emotional connection. To each his own, but that would defeat the purpose as there only looking to get "laid".
shareeven ejaculating!
Yes there is! I just finished watching it and there is explicit sex from the outset and throughout!
shareThere are two versions of this film available, it would appear that the US version is 82 minutes or something like that, and the uncut version is 102. Not sure which one is released where. @ imdb-6728 where did you find your version?
I Sympathise with Lars Von Trier.
The original French = explicit sex scenes and nudity.
The version released in North America (and Netflix) = censored
I caught it on a DVD edition that showed up (surprisingly) at my local library in Philadelphia! Were it not for that, I would never have even heard of it. I thought it was unique. I loved it, but since I saw it on DVD, I have no idea which version I saw. It seemed pretty explicit (though tasteful) to me.
As an American I find it difficult to watch a film like this without pondering the bizzare attitude of most of my countrymen towards sex and violence. Body parts spurting across the room? OK. Penises? Watch them chase the film makers down with torches.
More penis. And cowbell!
shareYes it 's really censored on Netflix. We stay in the very soft with almost nothing to watch but it 's okay because it ' s not the purpose of the movie I think. The purpose is to depict a family without taboos.
shareThere is only one version available for sale in the US. It is 79 minutes long. The uncut version is 82 minutes long, but only available in Europe. The Netflix version reflects the retail version that is for sale in the US. You may be able to find the uncut versions online, but they do not have English subtitles.
shareyes that was real
shareAnd why, exactly, are they "brave" for doing so?
shareBrave? yes they are brave actors ? they are not .Had they been acting there would of been no .Erections,having sex, and even ejaculating .
You see things; and you say,But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
Tricky, I get what you mean, but at the same time, you're wrong...
In the United States alone, there happens to be a large porn corporation. It's legal to film porn films in California. There are a large number of porn actors that are stars among their porn industry and are known by millions of fans. Of course, porn is considered inappropriate by the delusional wanna-be saints.
Films that are released in the United States in theaters, have and still have full frontal nudity. It's mostly dominated by female breasts but there is a big pile of footage from male penis, out there. Even from famous hollywood actors. I can't remember the name of the website, but about 3 years ago I remember a friend of mine showed me this website (as a joke) of cinema male nudity and it had A LOT of male penis from well known actors.
I think the reason why a lot of films might not have the full frontal is because they're mostly meant to sell. If a whole family could go, spend money on each ticket, then they'll make it as family friendly as possible. Nudity is mostly common in films that are strictly aimed for adults such as R rated films and so me PG 13.
Actual intercourse is really not necessary if you think about it. This is why we have legal porn in this country. If we need to see actors getting penetrated on camera, then we have porn. Other than that, I really don't think that I need to see my favorite married actress which might have some kids, get penetrated by another actor which might also be married, just so that I can feel like we live in a very open minded country. I have a family member that is in the acting business and she's done her fair share of love scenes (not porn). She told me that she's okay with those scenes but wouldn't do porn because she wants us to watch her work and she knows that she couldn't look at us in the face if we had seen her getting penetrated on screen. She's right about that.
[deleted]