I wish that America has more relax attitude on nudity in films...

[ambelamba]

I just finished watching Cashback, a great British independent film. The story and acting are decent, but the artistic (and non-sexual) depiction of female nudity is the one that makes this film stand out. The nudity in this film is...very graphic, showing genitals from time to time.

Actually, the movie is based on the short film of the same title. The difference is that the feature film version added pubic hair to hide the girlie parts, to get an R rating. Damn you MPAA.

As someone who tried to break into the film industry and being an artist, I really wanted to make films with non-sexual and very artistic, but very graphic nudity. I have been thinking about three film ideas, all involved with artist's models. (who pose for artists and art schools) I really want to deliver good, heartwarming stories with the feast of female beauty.

Unfortunately, showing female genitals in films will almost guarantee NC-17 rating in the US. Cashback is an R-rated film, and features a one prominent scene of female genitals.

Being an artist and VERY REBELLIOUS person, I just want to make dramas with cornucopia of graphic female nudity. No implants, no tattoos, no piercings. Just very natural nudity in films...

 

[Aragorn]

Running Scared (Paul Walker, not Billy Crystal) had female genitals showing on the strippers, not to mention some serious hardcore brutality, and that was R.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Subscribe to HBO. People run around with their ya-yas out all the time.

Frankly I'd rather have more effort put on good writing and acting. I don't care one way or the other if the story requires the characters to ever be naked. I know what naked people look like already.

 

[archeryguy1701]

If it's a good, interesting movie that is fun to watch, they can be as naked or as dressed as they want.

 

[T'Baio]

Wow, nudity...you're so rebellious.

Be in a band if you wanna' get laid.

 

[Christopher]

I think you folks are missing ambelamba's point. He/she specified non-erotic, artistic nudity, a celebration of beauty. Nudes have been a common theme in art for as long as there's been art. Ambelamba is talking about using it as an artistic theme in film as well.

 

[Mr. Fergy]

To answer this post: Yes, I agree, whole heartedly!

 

[stueyross]

I Agree with Chrstopher here.

Ambelamba (apologies if I got your name wrong there) is speaking from a purely artistic non exploitative point of view and wants to do what artists have done for hundreds of years - celebrate the beauty of the female form.

yet, there does still seem to be a massive divide in the American viewing public that manages to contain the *snigger giggle oh look lady-parts* attitude and the *No NO No Thou Shalt not display the lady-garden on television for it is evil I tell you. EEEvvvIIILLL* schools of thought.

Both combine to form a massive barrier to this kind of work. Look at some of the answers from very intelligent posters here. Still very negative towards nudity. As an artists and painter myself i find this quite saddening to be honest.

 

[Kegek]

I think you folks are missing ambelamba's point. He/she specified non-erotic, artistic nudity, a celebration of beauty. Nudes have been a common theme in art for as long as there's been art. Ambelamba is talking about using it as an artistic theme in film as well.

But are there any prohibitions on this in America? If not, then I think Temis' point remains valid.

 

[Christopher]

It's not a question of prohibitions, it's a question of whether creators make that artistic choice (or whether the culture tolerates them making that choice), whether the artistic subject/theme is explored sufficiently. Again, there's abundant exploration of the nude in painting, sculpture, and fine-arts photography, but American cinema usually either avoids nudity or treats it only in a sexual context. So this fundamental, universal theme of human artistic expression is disproportionately underrepresented in the medium of film compared to other visual media.

 

[Squiggy]

Dude,

Got rent some porn already instead of spamming the boards about nudity.


Geez.

Or, partake in the 5.7 trillion porn websites on teh interwebs.

Free boobs and genitals if you know where to look.

I think you folks are missing ambelamba's point. He/she specified non-erotic, artistic nudity, a celebration of beauty. Nudes have been a common theme in art for as long as there's been art. Ambelamba is talking about using it as an artistic theme in film as well.

But are there any prohibitions on this in America? If not, then I think Temis' point remains valid.

The only real prohibition is between 6pm and 10 pm on broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW, myTV) because those are the only TV outlets the FCC have any purview over. Cable can do whatever it wants but it doesn't because showing a clit (even in an artistic sense) would be considered "dirty" by a vast majority of the viewing audience. Because honestly, could you tell the story without showing said clit? I think you could...and I love me some clits!

Ah hem.

Also, the movies could show whatever they want. Many do, as pornographic movies (to an extent) aren't illegal. But movie houses can't be forced to show every and anything and it comes back down to a demand for such content. American's aren't really fans of seeing depictions of such nature with 500 other people in a dark room...we perfer nakedness in the privacy of our own home. It may go back to our Puritan roots...but there isn't a demand for it. If there was one, Hollywood would be all over it and you'd see it.

 

[T'Baio]

Nudes have been a common theme in art for as long as there's been art.

Which is why the idea of him being "rebellious" is kinda' laughable.

But, seriously; "Being an artist and VERY REBELLIOUS person, I just want to make dramas with cornucopia of graphic female nudity." That sounds like a 16 year old trying to get laid.

 

[Kegek]

It's not a question of prohibitions, it's a question of whether creators make that artistic choice (or whether the culture tolerates them making that choice), whether the artistic subject/theme is explored sufficiently.

That's not really an answer. The problem suggests there is some kind of restriction in the United States for an filmmaker who wants to make this artistic decision. If there isn't... then what is the problem? If the culture is intolerant, then how so? Is it harder to get funding? Will the film more likely preform poorly at the box office? What?

 

[Smiley]

^If it gets an NC-17, there are very few theaters in the US who would show the movie, so the box office would be drastically affected.

 

[Kegek]

^If it gets an NC-17, there are very few theaters in the US who would show the movie, so the box office would be drastically affected.

Thank you for clarifying this point. Up till here I wasn't quite clear what the problem was.

I must admit, that's certainly a little bizarre.

 

[Michael]

Dude,

Got rent some porn already instead of spamming the boards about nudity.

Geez.

Wow, what's your problem?

 

[ambelamba]

Um, one more thing.

Anybody seen movies directed by Tinto Brass? The last thing I want is to be compared with him. I wonder any of you ever heard about Tinto Brass. He directed Caligula, but mostly he made skin flicks with much smaller scales.

The real problem with his movies is that they are all tasteless, and I am being generous. I just can't understand why he presents female nudity with such tasteless way.

 

[gh4chiefs]

Dude,

Got rent some porn already instead of spamming the boards about nudity.

Geez.

Wow, what's your problem?

I don't have a problem but it was the second thread in two days where he/she is pretty much expressing the same thing. I just think it's rude to keep spamming the same thing over and over.

But your point is taken, I shouldn't have said anything, I should have just ignored the thread. I will delete said post, with apologies to the TC.

 

[stj]

The Federal Communications Commission has levied fines upon broadcasters who tranmit nude images. A notorious recent example was a fine for that woman who nipple showed during a halftime show on a football game. (Janet Jackson at the Superbowl?) In addition to official government action, there is jawboning by politicians who thereby threaten official government pressure. And there are always threats of and calls for boycotts, though most recently seem to focus on gay issues. The climate of intimidation for broadcast TV is such that networks will blur infants' genitals!

Cable TV is more lenient. Perhaps it's just my limited viewing but my impression is that sadistic violence is far more prevalent than any nudity/simulated sex. As near as I can tell, most premium cable is just as nongraphic as broadcast TV with the major exception of a handful of original series such as Californication. Even original series without an explicit sexual theme are pretty nongraphic, such as Weeds. Elizabeth McGovern may have a line about not caring if she ever had a cock in her mouth any more, but even the gay drug dealer subplot had very limited skin.

Generally speaking, objecting to nudity is sort of like objecting to pretty scenery.

 

[Christopher]

Nudes have been a common theme in art for as long as there's been art.

Which is why the idea of him being "rebellious" is kinda' laughable.

But, seriously; "Being an artist and VERY REBELLIOUS person, I just want to make dramas with cornucopia of graphic female nudity." That sounds like a 16 year old trying to get laid.

To me it sounds more like someone who wants to challenge our society's erotophobia.

And someone whose movies I'd like to see...

That's not really an answer. The problem suggests there is some kind of restriction in the United States for an filmmaker who wants to make this artistic decision. If there isn't... then what is the problem? If the culture is intolerant, then how so? Is it harder to get funding? Will the film more likely preform poorly at the box office? What?

Aren't the answers to those questions pretty obvious? Even without legal restrictions, it's self-evident that American culture reacts negatively to nudity in its mass media. Remember the absurd panic over Janet Jackson's so-called "nipple slip" (and she even had pasties on, so no nipple was actually seen). It should also be obvious that films with heavy nudity don't perform well at the box office, simply because there aren't very many of them. And yes, it isn't hard to figure out that if something isn't likely to turn a major profit at the box office, studios will be less inclined to fund it. Those are the restrictions that ambelamba is talking about.