Acting - nudity

[Midwest88]

I’m reading different opinions when it comes to nudity, from an actor’s viewpoint, and this one of the reasons why an actor would be okay to do nudity (whether it’s for a love/sex scene, or just because the scene calls for it).

As actors we bear our souls and emotions on screen and stage in our art to enlighten, nourish, and yes, even entertain our fellow human beings. Through the tools of drama, pathos, and humor we explore what it means to be human, warts and all. And once you’ve shown your heart and soul to the world, there’s not really that much you have left to hide.

I never really understood this type of thinking. I mean, I ‘get it’, but it rings a bit shallow. A bit contrived and bit intellectually lazy.

the actor goes on to say (basically a “safe” zone)

. But if you feel comfortable with the script, the professionalism of your director, and especially the professionalism of your scene partner, by all means go for it. Hop on in, the water’s fine.

I just find it bizarre what people do for “art.”

What do you think? Any Catholic/Christian actors out there care to share your opinion? Of course opinions will vary; some will have no problem with doing nudity; some it will depend if the nudity and scene is critical to the story and so they will consider doing it; some won’t do nudity for other reasons - may it be religious or breach of integrity and personal space.

But something just doesn’t feel right with the above quotes; it just doesn’t sit well. I find this puzzling because even when I shared this “whatever” attitude in art, I kinda felt this was some relatively new “religion” … this “bearing your soul.”

 

[elizaveta01]

Personally just about every explanation I’ve heard about this from actors/directors etc seem rather hollow.

My experience of watching movies for many years is that it is extremely rare for nudity to add anything positive to a movie. Usually it’s more of a distraction than anything.

Sometime I think nudity is used by directors/writers as a crutch.

 

[edwest2]

Opinions don’t matter. The truth does. That which should remained covered should not be uncovered. Simple.

Art does not produce an impenetrable exception to this rule. “Oh, it’s art.” Yeah? So? That doesn’t mean anything.

As a professional editor and published writer who is currently mentoring a young screenwriter, I’ve seen a lot of book manuscripts. First, the manuscript is printed out. There is a red pen for corrections and a yellow highlighter for profanity and graphic/disturbing violence. My instructions are simple: If you see any profanity, highlight it and put in a suggested change. No sex scenes either. And there was one section in one manuscript that was so disturbing, I just put a block around it and wrote “OUT” above it.

Writers do not get a pass just by having the label “writer” or “artist.” It does not elevate them to a realm beyond human - above the non-artistic masses - and beyond criticism.

I remember the first warning in the 1990s before an episode of NYPD Blue. “Warning: The following program contains scenes of partial nudity.” What? It was important to the story that I get to see a bunch of bare female butts? It wasn’t - at all. I felt sorry for one young lady who was shown from the side and appeared completely nude but the position of her arms hid her breasts. When asked why, she replied: “We’re just play-acting.” An actor was asked about it and his highly reasonable and sensible reply was: “Hey. It’s the 90’s.” Again. Yeah? So?

The trend was to get almost any halfway attractive actress and play the formula: OK, in this one, she’ll be a hooker, but a nice hooker. In this one, she’ll be a brainy call girl. And in this one… Same old, same old, same old.

Important to the story? No, Not important. And currently, I feel a little sad about a TV show that I liked but then they upped the sex factor. That’s all they’ve been doing in movies and on TV over the last 30 years, just gradually turning up the volume on sex and profanity.

I pray for the actors and actresses that allow themselves to be exploited in this way. The sad truth is Hollywood is mostly about money and power/ego. I know this firsthand. And if a little sex gets you curious, after a relatively short time, you’re wallowing in the mud with the rest of them. Soft porn on TV now? Check. And why do I need to see simulated sex or bare boobs or simulated rape?

Downhill, and still falling. I personally had two meetings with a Hollywood script editor from a name company, not to mention the interactions we’ve had with a larger producer.

Don’t lose hope my fellow Catholics, God is in this if we take the time to remember Him.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ophelia23]

Sometime I think nudity is used by directors/writers as a crutch.

Certainly, I agree with this statement!

However, I will put up the opposing argument also… Nudity in art is not something that is just in film. Look through art throughout history. Nudity is involved. Would you look at the roof of the Sistine Chapel and think it was a crutch, or an abuse of the human body, or something shameful or disgraceful? Certainly not.

I am not arguing for excessive nudity in film. I’m not even necessarily arguing for nudity in film whatsoever. However, I would argue that it is potentially dangerous to view all nudity in art as merely trashy. Doing so implies that our bodies are trashy, which is certainly not the case.

EDIT: Well, let me take my foot and delicately insert it into my mouth… I didn’t see that the OP was asking specifically about nudity in acting. So, it would certainly behoove me to read a post thoroughly prior to forming an opinion and tossing it out there.

 

[DaveBj]

Personally just about every explanation I’ve heard about this from actors/directors etc seem rather hollow.

My experience of watching movies for many years is that it is extremely rare for nudity to add anything positive to a movie. Usually it’s more of a distraction than anything.

Sometime I think nudity is used by directors/writers as a crutch.

Agreed. I’ve done some amateur stage work, and I can’t think of ANYTHING, from an artistic perspective, that would motivate me to take my clothes off on stage or in front of a camera.

 

[Midwest88]

Agreed. I’ve done some amateur stage work, and I can’t think of ANYTHING, from an artistic perspective, that would motivate me to take my clothes off on stage or in front of a camera.

An actress said that “It’s life and it’s natural.” (nudity that is)

I understand what she’s saying, that nudity, when one has sex happens (cause having sex with all your clothes is just plain weird), but to use the “it’s natural/life” card is kinda cop out. I don’t know. I may be reading into it too much.

Art does not produce an impenetrable exception to this rule. “Oh, it’s art.” Yeah? So? That doesn’t mean anything.

Ed

That’s the other thing that makes me scratch my head. When people use “It’s art” as an excuse or justification. I’m like “So what?” I watch many movies, more indie and art house than blockbuster, and it’s rare to see a sex/love scene with nudity that moves the story forward and makes me think, afterwards, that that scene was vital - the way it was shot - to the story.

Now, I wonder, if actors who are okay with nudity would do nudity, with it “tastefully” written in, on a film with a mini budget (like mumble core budget) with a Super 8 camera, without much hope for it to be picked up by a distributor. They still get paid - say 1/10th of their usual scale - but the “professionalism” of the set will be that of a back room, but everyone’s really nice. I would say most will say no.

Roger Kimball said

What is it about the word “art”? Pronounce it, and the IQ of susceptible folk is instantly halved.

This is him talking about paintings. Now apply that to the entertainment world and actors, in general. Not a pretty picture.

 

[Baelor]

I never really understood this type of thinking. I mean, I ‘get it’, but it rings a bit shallow. A bit contrived and bit intellectually lazy.

I have not seen an argument against all nudity that is not intellectually lazy. That does not mean that one does not exist! Of course, no argument against all nudity exists, but that is a different issue.

The point is that although that argument may not hold water, that does not mean that no argument with the same conclusion holds no water.

What do you think? Any Catholic/Christian actors out there care to share your opinion? Of course opinions will vary; some will have no problem with doing nudity; some it will depend if the nudity and scene is critical to the story and so they will consider doing it; some won’t do nudity for other reasons - may it be religious or breach of integrity and personal space.

I am Catholic and not an actor. I would theoretically be willing to do nudity, but only if I felt it added something substantial to the work.

 

[Baelor]

Opinions don’t matter. The truth does. That which should remained covered should not be uncovered. Simple.

Not so in art; the Church does not condemn nudity in art.

Art does not produce an impenetrable exception to this rule. “Oh, it’s art.” Yeah? So? That doesn’t mean anything.

Actually, it means very much. The Church recognizes the role of art and fiction. Fiction can elevate us and bring us closer to God. It should do so. Nudity is not antithetical to that mission. This should be obvious to anyone who has been to the Vatican Museum.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Going #2 in the bathroom is natural too but I don’t want to watch people do that on television.
A script that “needs” nudity lacks creative talent and settles for vulgar titillation.

 

[Midwest88]

I have not seen an argument against all nudity that is not intellectually lazy. That does not mean that one does not exist! Of course, no argument against all nudity exists, but that is a different issue.

The point is that although that argument may not hold water, that does not mean that no argument with the same conclusion holds no water.

But that wasn’t my point. I was saying I have found arguments for nudity in film intellectually lazy.

I am Catholic and not an actor. I would theoretically be willing to do nudity, but only if I felt it added something substantial to the work.

That’s my other point. I have found it rare that such nudity in film was critical to the story telling.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

My wife and kids do some professional acts (mainly television), and I act as their agent. The long and short of it is that you don’t have to do nudity if you don’t want.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Opinions don’t matter. The truth does. That which should remained covered should not be uncovered. Simple.

Art does not produce an impenetrable exception to this rule. “Oh, it’s art.” Yeah? So? That doesn’t mean anything.

As a professional editor and published writer who is currently mentoring a young screenwriter, I’ve seen a lot of book manuscripts. First, the manuscript is printed out. There is a red pen for corrections and a yellow highlighter for profanity and graphic/disturbing violence. My instructions are simple: If you see any profanity, highlight it and put in a suggested change. No sex scenes either. And there was one section in one manuscript that was so disturbing, I just put a block around it and wrote “OUT” above it.

So, once again Ed, how would you handle the various books of the Bible? Or Shakespeare? Or Greek tragedies? Lots of graphic violence, sex, etc. all throughout those.

 

[Khalid]

If nudity is necessary to the story - in my experience, it rarely is - I would not object. The more objectifying and gratuitous the nudity is, the stronger my objection becomes, much the same as with violence in film. One can not have a film about war without violence; one can most definitely have a film about war with gratuitous and unrealistic violence.

Think of The Passion of the Christ: too much violence? I do not think so. Gangs of New York? I do not think so either. Many films depict less violence than either, with the violence depicted being yet more gratuitous. Now, the recent remake of Judge Dredd is likely the most gratuitously gory and violent picture ever made, or the disgustingly-meaningless, pointless full-frontal male trans-sexual nudity in The Hangover 3.

The same story could always be told without nudity or violence respectively, but, in doing so, is stripped of much of its power. Think of a continuum, here, with American Beauty at one end (art), with many sex scenes in the middle (part for the story, part for the titillation), and with pornography at the far end (regardless of Stoya’s protestations, no story or meaning, just titillation).

Now, Ed’s view strikes me as far too extreme. Especially in writing, if you gut the story of foul language, sex, violence, dirty humour, psychological weirdness, and the various other foibles of human existence, taking the same process to an extreme degree, would reduce a 400-page novel to a single-page synopsis. That’s not to say torrid romance novels are art; there is some distinction here, which we denote with the word “art”, a distinction that is not only aesthetic, but also symbolical, and even ethical.

Whether a scene of nudity or violence, imaged or written, takes place in the context devoid of meaning, or with a meaning inimical to virtue, it is not art. It makes no statements. When a scene of nudity or violence is contextualized in a certain way, it can become art. It can make a statement in a direct or symbolical way, and with great emotional force.

Think of the nude scene with the girl standing in the window in the aforementioned American Beauty; the film-maker and actress use the nudity as a window to something more, as a symbol, as a means, not an end. Now, think of the same exact scene, transposed to “sexting”, and nothing else. It is now an end in itself, devoid of symbolism or further meaning. The change of context makes it pointless, meaningless except for the purposes of titillation, and thus becomes sinful.

 

[Baelor]

Going #2 in the bathroom is natural too but I don’t want to watch people do that on television.

That does not mean that no one wants to, or that pooping in movies is immoral.

A script that “needs” nudity lacks creative talent and settles for vulgar titillation.

Only if the purpose of the nudity is to titillate.

 

[Baelor]

But that wasn’t my point. I was saying I have found arguments for nudity in film intellectually lazy.

I addressed this – my point is that a lack of exposure to a compelling argument does not mean that a compelling argument does not exist.

Honestly, the argument for the permissibility of nudity is straightforward. Is it morally prohibited? Yes. Therefore it is a matter of personal conscience, and there is no theological reason to believe that all our consciences should concur on the objective immorality of nudity in art.

As to why particular instances are justified, there are as many arguments as there are instances.

That’s my other point. I have found it rare that such nudity in film was critical to the story telling.

But you have found it.

 

[Rolltide]

I seem to recall an article (although I can’t for the life of me find it) that relayed a statement from the Vatican stating the nudity involved in the production of Schindler’s List was morally acceptable due to the fact that it was both artistic and physically necessary to accurately relay the horrors of the concentration camps. In fact, the Vatican also listed it on their list of the 45 most important films of all time.

 

[Baelor]

LOLOLOLOL.

Erravi:
Myself:

Honestly, the argument for the permissibility of nudity is straightforward. Is it morally prohibited? Yes. Therefore it is a matter of personal conscience, and there is no theological reason to believe that all our consciences should concur on the objective immorality of nudity in art.

Should of course be:

Honestly, the argument for the permissibility of nudity is straightforward. Is it morally prohibited? No. Therefore it is a matter of personal conscience, and there is no theological reason to believe that all our consciences should concur on the objective immorality of nudity in art.

 

[Midwest88]

As to why particular instances are justified, there are as many arguments as there are instances.

What are these many arguments?

 

[eamonnroma]

I am not sure about nudity in acting - is it really necessary?

Strange though, in Genesis Adam and Eve when they were innocent, they were naked. When they sinned they covered themselves up. Maybe nudity here was a symbol of innocence?

 

[Baelor]

What are these many arguments?

The same arguments that any screenwriter would have to provide for including anything in his work, i.e. case-specific, which is why I said there are as many arguments as cases.