B
Baelor
Guest
Nor is it in the case of film and television, which has the same requirements.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
A static, two dimensional painting or three dimensional statue do not apply to the category, acting. Real persons are at stake here and it’s time to draw the line. No more exploitation of semi-nude or partly nude actresses or actors in movies, TV or magazines. A photograph is a lot closer to a real person that no painting can even come close.
It’s time to say no more. Human dignity rests on human decency, whether you’re Catholic or not. I’ve known model-beautiful women (prior to when they were replaced by stick figures) and respecting them as persons and not treating them as objects was first in importance. Politeness, respect and modesty are primary.
Peace,
Ed
It’s time to say no more. Human dignity rests on human decency, whether you’re Catholic or not. I’ve known model-beautiful women (prior to when they were replaced by stick figures) and respecting them as persons and not treating them as objects was first in importance. Politeness, respect and modesty are primary.
Peace,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
edwest2,
Exploitation is totally unacceptable and completely immoral. I am still not quite sure how one arrives at the conclusion that nudity in film or TV is inherently exploitative.
Exploitation is totally unacceptable and completely immoral. I am still not quite sure how one arrives at the conclusion that nudity in film or TV is inherently exploitative.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
I would challenge anyone who is attracted to women to find these scenes in any way “titillating”:
- The “shower” scene in Schindler’s List (full frontal, multiple women)
- The “freezer” scene in Saw 3 (full frontal, though with a merkin)
- The final party scene from Requiem for a Dream (simulated sexual activity, two women)
K
Kamaduck
Guest
I’m sure someone, somewhere does. Whether or not any straight men get aroused by a scene is probably a pretty poor way to judge whether a scene is exploitative.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Good point, but I think my general point still stands - in this thread, it has been asserted that the purpose of any nudity in film is to incite lust. In addition to the obvious examples that I noted, I think that Stanley Kubrick stood that idea on its head quite neatly in his version of The Shining with the scene in room 237. The scene starts in a purely titillating manner, taking the viewer along with Jack as a young young woman steps from the shower to embrace him, and then BAM she’s replaced with an old woman’s rotting, animated corpse. Lust used and turned into horror.I’m sure someone, somewhere does. Whether or not any straight men get aroused by a scene is probably a pretty poor way to judge whether a scene is exploitative.
J
Jupiter321
Guest
Is it ok for a Christian to go to see a play with artistic nudity in it? What about nude performance art on stage at a college or other theater?
There is an art show called Pageant of the Masters where some of the models are painted to look like nude statues or paintings. Is it ok for a Christian to go to a show like this?
If a Christian is acting or performing in one of these shows because that is their job can they still be a good Christian?
There is an art show called Pageant of the Masters where some of the models are painted to look like nude statues or paintings. Is it ok for a Christian to go to a show like this?
If a Christian is acting or performing in one of these shows because that is their job can they still be a good Christian?
E
edwest2
Guest
Nudity in a play is wrong. Art like Pageant of the Masters is wrong. A Christian should never allow themselves to be exploited by exposing their bodies. Looking for exceptions does not excuse everything.
Ed
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I’ve been very interested in the intersection of art and exploitation in film with respect to sex and violence for awhile so I’m going to just spill a bunch of thought and see what sticks.
The nude form has been a staple of art since pre-history. Even Catholic-commissioned Maestros have been painting and sculpting in the nude centuries before we were all born. If you can look at Michelangelo’s or Donatello’s David, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or the almost-nudity in the Entombment of Christ, and the Pieta without being offended or scandalized, then I don’t see how one can object to nudity in art.
Now I’ll grant that not ALL films can really call itself art. I don’t think Showgirls has much ground to stand on as an artistic piece. But the following list of films all contain nudity in one form or another:
MASH
Schindler’s List
Monster’s Ball
Requiem for a Dream
Short Cuts
Basic Instinct
Blue Velvet
The Shining
Carrie
Now please, tell me, is not one film on that list a work of art? For my money, I would take the first two on par with a Renaissance master. (though I do love Robert Altman) When Hawkeye and Trapper collapse Hot Lips’ shower tent, it wasn’t so I’d get some sort of venereal rush from seeing Sally Kellerman naked for a split second. It’s done in the service of something bigger. I think the underlying problem is how society has sexualized the body. Anything can be sexualized and made lurid. Someone with an extreme foot fetish (yes, they’re out there) will be “moved” by one of those dime-a-dozen dance-off movies without anyone taking their underwear off - in a way that full-frontal nudity doesn’t do it for them.
Nudity, when used properly, can be used to depict and transmit a wide array of emotions and tone. Vulnerability (like in Schindler’s List), innocence or naivete (like in Nell), power and/or confidence (like in Basic Instinct), or humiliation (like in MASH). Unfortunately when it’s used wrong (like in Showgirls, or other skin flicks) it becomes a crutch the filmmakers use to try and get dollars through titillation. But art, I think at its core, is about humanity. It’s about exploring what it means to be human, and the human condition. And you can’t sum up the human condition without at least nudity, if not sex itself. Nudity in film is clearly not appropriate for all audiences but I think it definitely has a place.
The nude form has been a staple of art since pre-history. Even Catholic-commissioned Maestros have been painting and sculpting in the nude centuries before we were all born. If you can look at Michelangelo’s or Donatello’s David, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or the almost-nudity in the Entombment of Christ, and the Pieta without being offended or scandalized, then I don’t see how one can object to nudity in art.
Now I’ll grant that not ALL films can really call itself art. I don’t think Showgirls has much ground to stand on as an artistic piece. But the following list of films all contain nudity in one form or another:
MASH
Schindler’s List
Monster’s Ball
Requiem for a Dream
Short Cuts
Basic Instinct
Blue Velvet
The Shining
Carrie
Now please, tell me, is not one film on that list a work of art? For my money, I would take the first two on par with a Renaissance master. (though I do love Robert Altman) When Hawkeye and Trapper collapse Hot Lips’ shower tent, it wasn’t so I’d get some sort of venereal rush from seeing Sally Kellerman naked for a split second. It’s done in the service of something bigger. I think the underlying problem is how society has sexualized the body. Anything can be sexualized and made lurid. Someone with an extreme foot fetish (yes, they’re out there) will be “moved” by one of those dime-a-dozen dance-off movies without anyone taking their underwear off - in a way that full-frontal nudity doesn’t do it for them.
Nudity, when used properly, can be used to depict and transmit a wide array of emotions and tone. Vulnerability (like in Schindler’s List), innocence or naivete (like in Nell), power and/or confidence (like in Basic Instinct), or humiliation (like in MASH). Unfortunately when it’s used wrong (like in Showgirls, or other skin flicks) it becomes a crutch the filmmakers use to try and get dollars through titillation. But art, I think at its core, is about humanity. It’s about exploring what it means to be human, and the human condition. And you can’t sum up the human condition without at least nudity, if not sex itself. Nudity in film is clearly not appropriate for all audiences but I think it definitely has a place.
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
Well, how do you explain the frescoes in the Sistine chapel?
In general, I think nudity is unnecessary. However, I can think of some situations where it might be critical to the storyline and could possibly be done in a tasteful way.
What I am thinking of as an example is the Passion of the Christ. In the final scene, Jim Kevizel was unclothed but there was a side shot that showed no private parts; the idea being that Jesus would have been nude in the shroud. In that case, there might be a nude scene from the actor’s POV but the tasteful camera work removes any unnecessary nude scenes for the viewer and it is not done in a sexual manner.
E
edwest2
Guest
I’ve heard the human condition argument before. Some nudity is not designed to make a buck but it’s like saying: in order to understand people, we need to see them nude. That doesn’t make sense. Everyday life doesn’t require it. When I go to the store, I don’t see any nudity. And sex. I don’t see that in public either. There are some things people do in private that should remain private.
Having experienced the art process in College, I saw the entire range of what people were trying to do. Most of it was unintelligible junk. One student did have nudes that were perfectly life-like on display but they were contextless - just standing there. So no, at no time was I ever told nudity or partial nudity was a required ingredient in art. One day, an art instructor provided us with a stack of art exhibition catalogs, and I still follow a real “modern” art magazine. All of the images are either unintelligible or confusing at best.
So no, it doesn’t have a place. Men and women know what they look like nude. I don’t need to see total strangers nude regardless of what they’re doing. And exceptions do not create a rule.
Regarded nudity or partial nudity in movies, there’s still a ratings board in Hollywood and producers and filmmakers will argue for a few seconds of showing this or that nude body part or this sex scene, and films are rated accordingly. Speaking as a man, and a media analyst, there is no point in doing this aside from showing an actress engaging in non-graphic or partly nude sexual situations for lurid, erotic purposes. As a storyteller, I’ve seen a lot of manuscripts and no, nudity or partial nudity adds nothing to the story. Only art critics and persons with certain worldviews might argue otherwise but the average movie-goer is not interested in historical nudity or contextual nudity - it’s all about getting a look at some attractive woman’s body part(s).
Ed
T
tomarin
Guest
It’s interesting that the only time I can recall any nudity on broadcast television was in fairly high-minded mini-series in the 1970’s: in ‘Roots’ and ‘The Holocaust’. I also recall that one could occasionally encounter it in some British drama imports on PBS (definitely not titillating).
I tend to feel we’d be better off just accepting the human form as a beautiful thing, as they did in the Renaissance. I’m probably in the minority on this one, though.
I tend to feel we’d be better off just accepting the human form as a beautiful thing, as they did in the Renaissance. I’m probably in the minority on this one, though.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I never said nudity is necessary to grasp at the human condition. I said it’s necessary to sum it up. You can’t get ALL of what it is to be human without sexuality.
All you’ve given is your opinions regarding art and filmmaker’'s intent. But I guess that’s part of what art is. It’s subjective at times. I disagree that the nudity in The Shining is just an excuse to get to look at a naked body. But if you aren’t moved by the symbolism and metaphor that nudity used right can be that’s alright. No accounting for taste, and etc.
I just am going to circle back. The questions are 1. Is film art? And 2. Does nudity have a place in art? I think 1 is a clear yes. And 2 is also yes by way of the Sistine Chapel. And the myriad examples of nudity in pre-historic, classical, renaissance, and modern art. If film is art and nudity has a place in art then nudity has a place in film.
E
edwest2
Guest
OK. How many posters of the Sistine chapel nudes does anyone have? Anything before that? No? I rest my case. “Nude descending a Staircase, No. 2” by Duchamp?
A more recent example. In the 1950s, various magazine style publications appeared that had the word artist in the title. These were advertised as being for use by artists who couldn’t afford a live nude model. Guess what? Go to any larger used bookstore today and they’re stacked next to the porn. Sure, some artists may have used them as intended but some of the models appearing within went on to do purely arousing photo shoots. There were also some name photographers of the period who tried to legitimize - or create a grey area - regarding nudes. This group of glamour photographers published various books that discussed cameras, F-stops, scenery, props, costuming and similar, as if this was a serious pursuit, much like the paintings and painters of years past. Plus photos of lots and lots of nudes and partial nudes. This began to die off in the mid to late 1960s as the more graphic porn began to trickle in.
Ed
R
Rhubarb
Guest
You can find poster prints of all the figures in the Sistine Chapel. You can find poster prints of all the classical nude figures in painting. I don’t know what case you’re resting. Art was usually too expensive for the general public at that time. Heck, things called fine art usually still are. I don’t think my brother’s naked lady holding a beer counts as art. I don’t think my poster print of Raphael’s School of Athens counts as art either, really. Not in the same way that the original fresco does.
- Status