my previous topic got rubbed off, but all i was basically asking was whether anyone had any points of view on the director and his female muse. Stanley Kubrick is of interest for me ... for example, all the explicit content in his films. does anyone have an opinion on the role of the director with the female? apparently john cleese said, the only reason he got into the business was to get women, but he still hasn't succeeded. Tarantino also said on the Johnathan Ross show in England that old directors fizzle out because they start to make limp d*ck movies. - i duuno if I agree with him, but there we go... it came from his mouth! oh well, he worships peckinpah after all, and we all know what he's like.
filmmakers
- Thread starter Gavin
- Start date
A director's muse should come from the universal energy of the cosmic dust...
A man's dong has a lot to do with filmmaking, yes, but there are limits to what a dong can do- you have to find the other part INSIDE you, because that's how the universe gets you- it gets you from the INSIDE - out.
How it gets in there, I don't know.
A man's dong has a lot to do with filmmaking, yes, but there are limits to what a dong can do- you have to find the other part INSIDE you, because that's how the universe gets you- it gets you from the INSIDE - out.
How it gets in there, I don't know.
i understand what ur saying, but i'm doing my dissertation at the moment and i'm thinking about focusing on this relationship between the male director and women. So far it is obvious to say that women are attracted to directors... many actresses have fallen for their director... is it a power thing? and in turn many male directors seem to importalise, an almost lustful dipiction of women in many of their films, especially art house directors such as Lynch, Kubrick, Allen, the list goes on... the relationship is very interesting and obsessive, and it appears vital to some directors(...REFER TO MY 1ST MESSAGE). A successful screen writer once told me that a director enjoys 3 main things.... 1) projecting his vision onto the screen 2) the financial benefits (if obtained) 3) and the power... these are obviously very attractive qualities that no woman would refuse.
I have no idea what you're asking here. You want to know whether its wrong to use full frontal nudity or sex scenes in film?
IMO no of course not. Certain audiences want certain things out of the movies they view. There are many films that have done very well without sex scenes or nudity. If it is necessary to the film to tell the story then by all means use it (be careful not to cut yourself out of your desired rating though), but if it is for superficial appeal, then it is nothing more than a Hollywood gimmick. Throw some more T&A in there they say. Well I believe if you fell compelled to get sex scenes or full frontal nudity into your film BEFORE you even write the script your storytelling skills are not quite there. That said, having a love interest that heats up in a typical romance comedy, drama or other can make your story more interesting than a guy who happens to have a girlfriend but his main focus is on the cars he sells at work... or something else like that.
Getting into showbiz for fame and glamour and becoming rich is unrealistic and dangerous. Filmmaking is the same as choosing professional gambler as a career but with slightly better odds. Many more filmmakers go broke and are forced to work for minimum wage than those that make it in the industry. And simply becoming a success doesnt guarantee you social success, that comes from who you are and whats in your heart. Ask yourself, how many truly successful filmmakers can I name off the top of my head? How many filmmakers submit to Sundance in ONE year? Kind of scary when you put it in that perspective.
But is it possible? Yes, and thats all part of the allure of filmmaking. Ask yourself whether deepdown you have what it takes to become a filmmaker. Whether you have the commitment to hang in there for 10-15 years before you'll have success. Whether you can tell stories with motion pictures and understand the technicalities involved in doing so. Then pick up a pen and write a script. Plan it, cast it, crew it, shoot it, edit it and watch. Do you have what it takes to do that for the rest of your career? Does what you made show as much promise as you think it should? Can you make it better? If what you made looks good, yopur next one can be better and thus you are on the road to success in filmmaking. But again dont confuse this with success in personal life, the two are so radically exclusive that to misconceive such a thing would be devastating.
IMO no of course not. Certain audiences want certain things out of the movies they view. There are many films that have done very well without sex scenes or nudity. If it is necessary to the film to tell the story then by all means use it (be careful not to cut yourself out of your desired rating though), but if it is for superficial appeal, then it is nothing more than a Hollywood gimmick. Throw some more T&A in there they say. Well I believe if you fell compelled to get sex scenes or full frontal nudity into your film BEFORE you even write the script your storytelling skills are not quite there. That said, having a love interest that heats up in a typical romance comedy, drama or other can make your story more interesting than a guy who happens to have a girlfriend but his main focus is on the cars he sells at work... or something else like that.
Getting into showbiz for fame and glamour and becoming rich is unrealistic and dangerous. Filmmaking is the same as choosing professional gambler as a career but with slightly better odds. Many more filmmakers go broke and are forced to work for minimum wage than those that make it in the industry. And simply becoming a success doesnt guarantee you social success, that comes from who you are and whats in your heart. Ask yourself, how many truly successful filmmakers can I name off the top of my head? How many filmmakers submit to Sundance in ONE year? Kind of scary when you put it in that perspective.
But is it possible? Yes, and thats all part of the allure of filmmaking. Ask yourself whether deepdown you have what it takes to become a filmmaker. Whether you have the commitment to hang in there for 10-15 years before you'll have success. Whether you can tell stories with motion pictures and understand the technicalities involved in doing so. Then pick up a pen and write a script. Plan it, cast it, crew it, shoot it, edit it and watch. Do you have what it takes to do that for the rest of your career? Does what you made show as much promise as you think it should? Can you make it better? If what you made looks good, yopur next one can be better and thus you are on the road to success in filmmaking. But again dont confuse this with success in personal life, the two are so radically exclusive that to misconceive such a thing would be devastating.
Gavin said:
My problem with this line of thought is the assumptions.
1) All Male Directors are basically horny men with the power to control women.
Where does the women's power to control herself come into it? You act like the director commands an actress to remove her clothing, and so it is. But it doesn't work like that at all. A serious nude scene by an actress is usually a major decision for said actress. Look at Natalie Portman in Closer. After shooting a nude scene, she requested that it not be in the final cut, and Mike Nichols honored that request. Did he exert power over her? No, he allowed her to have the power over her own appearance in the film.
Do some male directors control their actresses? Sure. But I don't think it's the norm.
2) All Female's are only attracted to power.
Yes, many actresses have fallen for directors; but is that about power; or is it simply about two people meeting, spending time together, and falling in love?
Poke
Last edited:
im not really asking anything, just trying to understand.... from the evidence i have given and films i have watched there is ine thing that is common between most directors and that is this exploration of sexual tension... this therefore must play a role in the directors mind and why they first become directors. Peckinpah for example only cast beautiful girls, and had prostitutes hanging round set. The book easy riders, raging bull's says it all. It is almost like an obsession, and Tarantino's comment about old directors make rubbish when they start making limp d*ck movies intrigues me even more. I dont know what I am trying to find out, but there is definitely something here.... no?
I agree with both of those points Poke.
I believe Ive seen far more males that are working at fast food joints that attract far prettier girls than random directors that have some supposed power. Its all in the personality (and looks) much more so than perceived social class.
Do girls sleep their way up the ladder sometimes? Absolutely, but that isnt what Id term social success. Actors fall in love and marry actors or directors or whatever... love knows no boundries.
And yes, I think a major portion of it must fall from how most actors and/or directors never really spend much quality time with other people because of their hectic schedules, so when they find themselves getting along with and chatting with someone they are even the slightest bit attracted to for weeks at a time all day long... that goes a long ways towards them potentially becoming a couple in the future or even on set!
I believe Ive seen far more males that are working at fast food joints that attract far prettier girls than random directors that have some supposed power. Its all in the personality (and looks) much more so than perceived social class.
Do girls sleep their way up the ladder sometimes? Absolutely, but that isnt what Id term social success. Actors fall in love and marry actors or directors or whatever... love knows no boundries.
And yes, I think a major portion of it must fall from how most actors and/or directors never really spend much quality time with other people because of their hectic schedules, so when they find themselves getting along with and chatting with someone they are even the slightest bit attracted to for weeks at a time all day long... that goes a long ways towards them potentially becoming a couple in the future or even on set!
For the rest of this discussion:
Let us be mindful that women are not play things. They are humans. We have many fine members that are female, and I'd be interested to hear their ideas on this subject. But let's not talk about the fairer sex as if they are objects and not equals.
Poke
Let us be mindful that women are not play things. They are humans. We have many fine members that are female, and I'd be interested to hear their ideas on this subject. But let's not talk about the fairer sex as if they are objects and not equals.
Poke
VERY well said.
Gavin said:
Not in my case. I am married and have no desire to ever display power in order to win the heart of an actress (or any other on set female, for that matter).
Some people are attracted to the power, yes. But I think the filmmakers we all respect and admire find so much more to it than having power. I personally feel that if you try to achieve anything solely for the purpose of gaining power, you will either fail or your achievement will pale in comparison to what it should have been.
Poke
Would an actress not see the brilliance in said director and realize the beauty inside his universal?
Horn dog directors end up making "meatball" movies. Brilliant directors make beauty.
I happen to find the female body to be one of the most beautiful things in the universe, but my girlfriend has flat out told me that nudity would not be an option for her. I have to respect that, because that is her choice... it really depends on the reasons for having nudity. It's a differnce between a breast being a horizon with a sunrise, and a flopping bountiful close-up during a sex-scene.
Sex IS a mysterious exploration, but too often it is misused. I admit... I am a "nympho". I'm a sex-crazed maniac, but that stems partly from my phallus, and partly from my desire to partake in the myserious act. If I were to put it on film, it would be from the part of me that desires to explore the mystery, not the phallus.
You have to keep your pecker under control!!! Use your mind; that's what women want... minds... they want minds...
Oh my god... women are here to steal minds... they are here to eat our brains... that's the secret!! They eat brains!
Of course, I am joking. You have to respect the ladies, because they are more than equals... they control our minds, and phalluses.
Horn dog directors end up making "meatball" movies. Brilliant directors make beauty.
I happen to find the female body to be one of the most beautiful things in the universe, but my girlfriend has flat out told me that nudity would not be an option for her. I have to respect that, because that is her choice... it really depends on the reasons for having nudity. It's a differnce between a breast being a horizon with a sunrise, and a flopping bountiful close-up during a sex-scene.
Sex IS a mysterious exploration, but too often it is misused. I admit... I am a "nympho". I'm a sex-crazed maniac, but that stems partly from my phallus, and partly from my desire to partake in the myserious act. If I were to put it on film, it would be from the part of me that desires to explore the mystery, not the phallus.
You have to keep your pecker under control!!! Use your mind; that's what women want... minds... they want minds...
Oh my god... women are here to steal minds... they are here to eat our brains... that's the secret!! They eat brains!
Of course, I am joking. You have to respect the ladies, because they are more than equals... they control our minds, and phalluses.
In the end, women and men want the same thing - LOVE. Sex is the happy side effect.
An actor or actress's decision to appear nude in a film (if the film is not Skinemax night fare, or porn) ultimately has little to do with sex. It's usually about the character and the story.
Of course, I am speaking about the serious actors and actresses.
Poke
An actor or actress's decision to appear nude in a film (if the film is not Skinemax night fare, or porn) ultimately has little to do with sex. It's usually about the character and the story.
Of course, I am speaking about the serious actors and actresses.
Poke
Cameron Crowe wrote and directed an entire movie about his muse (Almost Famous). A muse is the unattainable that drives an artist to push himself in the effort to gain what he ultimately can't have. It's the elusiveness of inspiration.
Many artists/people have a person that serves as a muse -- the one that got away/the one that never was -- that helps drive them to prove themselves, to succeed.
Many artists/people have a person that serves as a muse -- the one that got away/the one that never was -- that helps drive them to prove themselves, to succeed.
T Shipley said:
I am assuming you mean that rarely does power over another have anything to do with the term "muse."
Poke
Also, sex doesn't really have anything to do with the relationship between an artist and his muse -- it infact oftentimes does not include it and may be ruined by it.
The artist probably will screw everything in sight while still being smitten by his muse -- kind of like Love in the Time of Cholera.
The artist probably will screw everything in sight while still being smitten by his muse -- kind of like Love in the Time of Cholera.