SEX in Cinema - Debate

[Jack Lynt]

Just to play devil’s advocate, if you take out the consideration that film is art and see it purely as a form of entertainment, where does that leave us? If we separate Movies, Art and Porn, where is the line draw between them? Is there a line? How blurred can that line get?

Really interesting thoughts and line of inquiry. Personally, I'm not sure I can see film as purely entertainment only. I can entertain the idea that film is craft, rather than art. But then I suppose you open up the perennial question about the difference between art and craft, and which is which, which is beyond the scope of what we want to get into, I'm sure. Just a personal thing, but I don't know if a piece/work of entertainment can really be devoid of art, or at least, if can be devoid of craft. Can it really? But I can certainly agree that a work of entertainment can be largely devoid of "artistic merit," or "craft merit," for that matter. =)

Anyway, I'm one who doesn't care about the supposed line between porn and everything else. Fine with me if the line is blurred or broken. Usually, I think the question is, Does it work?, and, Is it good?, or, Is it meaningful?, or, perhaps more important than the previous questions, Is it worth while? But I guess I'm in the minority there; we are few...and far between, I suppose.

I think it would be interesting to find out how many filmmakers, even on this site alone, would have sex scenes in their movies? Would they be explicit? If not, why not?

That's a really fascinating question too, and I've thought about that before. I doubt I would attempt a sex scene in a film for practical, technical, and legal issues and difficulties. I mean, if you're going to have a sex scene, you'd better dot all of your "i's" and cross all of your "t's".

I don't know if I'd attempt one without having either a substantial budget in order to have an adequate crew who can make sure all of that is done right, or a crew with the passion and commitment to do it right, or both. It would also make a difference whether you are talking about the usual simulated sex, or the rare (in American filmmaking, anyway) real sex. And, yeah, because your actors are human beings, not just things to be used, and since you ought to accept the responsibility to look out for their interests, both healthwise and for their professional careers (that is, depending upon whether you, yourself, are a decent human being, or a selfish sociopath), there may be ethical or emotional questions to ask before proceeding. But hey, John Cameron Mitchell managed it with Shortbus, and Lars Von Tier, managed it with Antichrist (in the case of employing real sex). By the way, does anyone know if that was really Dafoe and Gainsbourg having sex, or were they body doubles/stand ins?

I think that sex scenes in film are fine, but only if they are suggestive, actual sex has no place in cinema.

The comparison between violence and sex in film is so ignorant to me, its ridiculous. First of all, how are they at all comparable?

And the biggest difference: Film violence is fake, its theatrics. Actual sex is real. If you condone what is basically porn in film, does that mean that you condone actual murder in film as well?

+

I agree with this. In RAMBO or HOSTEL I never thought that anyone was actually being harmed or killed. If you do, you shouldn't watch these movies. Then again, I was raised in a conservative household, by a single mom. She was vocal about the exploitation of women in movies and that rubbed off on me.

On the other hand, one of the most tender and enjoyable sex scenes I have seen was in MEET JOE BLACK, where Death (Brad Pitt) has sex for the very first time. I thought it was incredibly well played. I'm all for tastefully intimate. I also thought the sex scene in THE TERMINATOR served the story perfectly.

+

well there are such things as porn cinemas so theres a place for everything really.

things should be kept as they are.

+

I agree with scorer.

You can fake violence 100%.

You can't fake sex all that much.

Therein lies the big difference. If you're shooting a sex scene, actors do need to get naked. If you're shooting violence scene, nobody needs to get hurt.

Just wow.

 

[Scoopicman]

By the way, does anyone know if that was really Dafoe and Gainsbourg having sex, or were they body doubles/stand ins?

In an interview, the director said they used a stand in - at least for Dafoe.

Just wow.

Well, the OP did want a debate, right?

 

[Jack Lynt]

In an interview, the director said they used a stand in - at least for Dafoe.

Thanks! Very interesting.

Well, the OP did want a debate, right?

Yes!

Good job.

 

[TheArtist]

I read your post richy and I feel like all you're trying to say is that, there is nothing more special about sex than anything else, whether violence or what-not.

Is that it ?

 

[Jack Lynt]

I read your post richy and I feel like all you're trying to say is that, there is nothing more special about sex than anything else, whether violence or what-not.

Is that it ?

Well, my gosh, yes, I think so, to a large extent. I really like the way you put it. In a way, I think that's an excellant way to put it.

On the other hand, I hasten to add that I think that sex can be very special indeed, depending, and the portrayal of a sexual encounter in a film can be very special, even transcendent...much as the experience can be in life, no?

But right, if you do not see sex or the portrayal of sex in film as morally (or otherwise) reprehensible or detestable, then what does it matter whether a film includes a love scene or does not include a love scene? Then, it's all a matter of story, aesthetics, emotions, judgement, pacing, editing, characterization, etc, you name it.

But, more importantly, what do you think, The Artist?

 

[mad_hatter]

I think there may be some confusion here (maybe on my part!).

In my mind, there’s little difference between showing simulated sex and simulated violence on screen. They both surmount to the same thing; actors pretending to do things in order to portray a story, to entertain an audience. The main issue here is showing full, penetrative sex in cinema. There’s a big difference between that and simulated sex. For example, had the sex scene in ‘The Terminator’ shown actual penetration, we’d have been looking at a completely different movie!

 

[rayw]

For example, had the sex scene in ‘The Terminator’ shown actual penetration, we’d have been looking at a completely different movie!

In Arnold's introductory scene we see full penetration of his fist through a punk's chest.
Not that I wanna see Linda Hamilton penetrated, but there's a social double standard between violence and sex.

 

[mad_hatter]

...we see full penetration of his fist through a punk's chest...

So there was both simulated sex and simulated violence in that movie and nobody was outraged.

Sure, the violence was more graphic than the sex. Obviously, un-simulated violence, like punching your fist through somebodies chest (although I’m sure Arnie could do that no problem!), would be somewhat frowned upon…. Un-simulated sex, however, can be done, no problem, it’s all legal, so why not?

Or why not have it, like the violence, graphic, but simulated? A good set of prosthetics would surely fool the audience?

I think saying there’s a double standard between sex and violence doesn’t quite sit right with me, as they’re both completely different things.

I’m up for both things, simulated, in movies, but full-on, up-close-and-personal penetration, should be left out (or at least left for the arty-farty types).

 

[rayw]

I think saying there’s a double standard between sex and violence doesn’t quite sit right with me, as they’re both completely different things.

That's very comforting to hear, otherwise it'd be a pretty scary prospect for those not really into mixing the two together! LOL!

I’m up for both things, simulated, in movies, but full-on, up-close-and-personal penetration, should be left out (or at least left for the arty-farty types).

Yeah, I just wish more directors would get their arty-farty on.

I don't understand why cinema sex, well short of full penetration, has to be so dysfunctional.

How many nude scenes have you seen in a film where you thought to yourself "D@mn. Can't believe she got naked for THAT. That was horrible. What's the point?"
I've seen plenty.
I've seen too few where my response was "That was nice. Reeeally nice. "

Too many writer/directors have reduced intimacy to just plain f#cking, which is horrible.
There's no intimacy.
There's no appreciation.
There's no love.
There's lust as a weak substitute for love, but...

I dunno.

I guess it's all a self-reinforcing slippery slope our mean-but-prudish society has totally slipped off of.

All day long this. --->

Not so much of even this. --->