Acting - nudity

[Midwest88]

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?

I can see that interpretation. But in movies? Nudity is used as the exact opposite unless it’s a nude baby.

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

This has crossed my mind, too, when thinking about this subject. It goes back the one actress who said “It’s life/natural.” Why stop at taking off your top if the screenwriter writes in a toilet scene that’s critical to the story - with you actually taking a #2 or a #1 with a tiny camera in the toilet.

 

[Baelor]

I can see that interpretation. But in movies? Nudity is used as the exact opposite unless it’s a nude baby.

It does not have to be used in a bad way, and unless you have seen every movie, I would be interested in how you can claim that it always is.

 

[Kamaduck]

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.

Something like this is what comes to mind for me. And if I were a professional actor, I’d have no problems being a part of it.

Now, I think nudity in movies is usually done for the wrong reasons, and adds little to the plot. But sometimes it’s needed- whether for tone, for purposes of the plot, or for accuracy to classic source material or actual events. In those cases, I’d be fine with it. I believe there are situations, though rare, where nudity adds to the story.

In general, though, unnecessary male-oriented fanservice is a good way to get me to stop watching your movie or show, and I certainly wouldn’t be a part of it myself.

 

[The_Bucket]

Something like this is what comes to mind for me. And if I were a professional actor, I’d have no problems being a part of it.

Now, I think nudity in movies is usually done for the wrong reasons, and adds little to the plot. But sometimes it’s needed- whether for tone, for purposes of the plot, or for accuracy to classic source material or actual events. In those cases, I’d be fine with it. I believe there are situations, though rare, where nudity adds to the story.

In general, though, unnecessary male-oriented fanservice is a good way to get me to stop watching your movie or show, and I certainly wouldn’t be a part of it myself.

I’d heartily concur. When nudity is used for purposes other than titillation, there’s nothing wrong with it whatsoever. It could be used to accurately portray inhuman conditions like those in concentration camps… or accurately portray innocence of the young such as when children used to run around naked at play in years past. Or even just showing the beauty of the human form in a way that is not sexual.

That’s the key here. Not all nudity is sexual. In fact, I daresay that most nudity is not sexual in real life; bathing is not sexual. Changing clothes is not sexual. Exercising in the nude (for ancient Greeks who do that kind of thing) is not sexual. The problem is that usually nudity in film is aimed at either portraying blatantly sexual scenes… or taking non-sexual situations and making them sexual in order to pique the interest of viewers.

Bottom line: There are plenty of ways in which nudity can be not only acceptable in film but bring additional value to it. The problem is that the application of such tasteful/value-added nudity is rare and it’s far more likely that the director/writers/producers are looking for a “cheap thrill” for the audience.

 

[on_the_hill]

If God wanted us to be naked, we would have been born that way.

(sorry–I saw that quote somewhere and it was just too good to pass up. ).

 

[Midwest88]

It does not have to be used in a bad way, and unless you have seen every movie, I would be interested in how you can claim that it always is.

Did I say it was always used in a bad way? No.

 

[Rolltide]

Actually, now that I’m thinking of it, there’s a ton of native nudity in “The Mission” with Jeremy Irons and Robert DiNero, and that is one of the great Catholic movies of all time.

 

[edwest2]

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.

We’re talking about today - now. And the Bible, Sistine Chapel, Shakespeare, Greek tragedies, etc. - TM - have no standing in this conversation. We’re talking about actors showing off actual body parts that should remain clothed to the public. It’s wrong - unless you think the soft porn that passes for waaaaaay too much “entertainment” these days is the height of taste and culture. Those actors and actresses are product and are treated like product. At the end of the day, they are nothing but a commodity - to be exploited for their body parts. Including bragging about doing things they shouldn’t be bragging about.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kamaduck]

We’re talking about today - now. And the Bible, Sistine Chapel, Shakespeare, Greek tragedies, etc. - TM - have no standing in this conversation. We’re talking about actors showing off actual body parts that should remain clothed to the public. It’s wrong - unless you think the soft porn that passes for waaaaaay too much “entertainment” these days is the height of taste and culture. Those actors and actresses are product and are treated like product. At the end of the day, they are nothing but a commodity - to be exploited for their body parts. Including bragging about doing things they shouldn’t be bragging about.

What about non-sexual nudity? Much of the discussion on this thread has centered around that.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Art? What are you talking about? In my advanced painting class, there were people who were literally throwing paint against the canvas. We were encouraged to produce unrecognizable messes. And Art Indoctrination Class, falsely labeled Art Appreciation. I’m certain much was lifted straight from Communist Reeducation Camp manuals. Imagine theater seating, a stage and a large screen. The instructor would put up various slides on the screen and sometimes ask the students if they had any questions. A typical example was a clear block of lucite with metal rods sticking out of it. My instructor exclaimed, in a loud voice: “This is a man’s life!” Right. Uh huh. Anybody seeing that would come to the same conclusion. Not.

Or my Life Drawing instructor taking our class to the local art museum. We were free to wander about. In one area, I came across a spiral of duct tape about ten feet across. But soon, the truth was revealed to me when I spotted a small, white card on the floor nearby. It read: “Please do not remove. This is art.” So, those who were not thoroughly brainwashed cultists would have reacted the same way as the cleaning lady, who might scrape this off the floor. Obviously, art so important to be displayed in an art museum needed to be protected from the unbrainwashed masses, and so the card was necessary.

Later, I asked my instructor about the spiral. He grabbed my lapels in mock anger and said, “That’s a man’s life!” followed by a sob story that would have made a fine little booklet.

Or my basic drawing class where, one day, we had a guest. Here was a man who specialized in making ‘interesting marks’ with a charcoal pencil on illustration board. And, he had found a new trick to his trade. He found that if a little solvent called Bestine was allowed to trickle onto the board in spots, it would cause the marks to run like paint. He was beaming as the class eyed his 10x15 inch creation. No one said anything for some minutes until one young man in the back said, "Isn’t that the letter K in the lower right corner? The artist’s eyes bulged out and he looked. This was quickly followed by a combination of embarrassment and mild anger on his face. How could he have allowed something people could actually recognize to appear on his work? He quickly left the class.

And I quickly quit college.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kamaduck]

Art? What are you talking about? In my advanced painting class, there were people who were literally throwing paint against the canvas. We were encouraged to produce unrecognizable messes. And Art Indoctrination Class, falsely labeled Art Appreciation. I’m certain much was lifted straight from Communist Reeducation Camp manuals. Imagine theater seating, a stage and a large screen. The instructor would put up various slides on the screen and sometimes ask the students if they had any questions. A typical example was a clear block of lucite with metal rods sticking out of it. My instructor exclaimed, in a loud voice: “This is a man’s life!” Right. Uh huh. Anybody seeing that would come to the same conclusion. Not.

Or my Life Drawing instructor taking our class to the local art museum. We were free to wander about. In one area, I came across a spiral of duct tape about ten feet across. But soon, the truth was revealed to me when I spotted a small, white card on the floor nearby. It read: “Please do not remove. This is art.” So, those who were not thoroughly brainwashed cultists would have reacted the same way as the cleaning lady, who might scrape this off the floor. Obviously, art so important to be displayed in an art museum needed to be protected from the unbrainwashed masses, and so the card was necessary.

Later, I asked my instructor about the spiral. He grabbed my lapels in mock anger and said, “That’s a man’s life!” followed by a sob story that would have made a fine little booklet.

Or my basic drawing class where, one day, we had a guest. Here was a man who specialized in making ‘interesting marks’ with a charcoal pencil on illustration board. And, he had found a new trick to his trade. He found that if a little solvent called Bestine was allowed to trickle onto the board in spots, it would cause the marks to run like paint. He was beaming as the class eyed his 10x15 inch creation. No one said anything for some minutes until one young man in the back said, "Isn’t that the letter K in the lower right corner? The artist’s eyes bulged out and he looked. This was quickly followed by a combination of embarrassment and mild anger on his face. How could he have allowed something people could actually recognize to appear on his work? He quickly left the class.

And I quickly quit college.

I have no idea how this is relevant, unless you’re saying that all art is devoid of meaning, and therefore all nudity in art is, by extension, devoid of meaning.

 

[edwest2]

Non-sexual nudity? That’s how it started in NYPD Blue. Especially that one scene where a young actress was completely nude except for her arms covering her breasts. Now why we needed to see a nude woman folding laundry as a crucial story element is beyond me. No, it always starts under cover of “art” and then it always - 100% of the time - is exploited in porn in various ways which I’d rather not identify.

It always occurs in incremental steps. Take any large used bookstore. Next to the stack of other porn magazines are copies of “art instruction” magazines from the 1950s. Maybe a few even used them for that purpose, but it was just a cover. Just like Playboy was labeled tasteful because it used some of the finest artists or conducted interviews with important people like Fidel Castro. So, you and your boys are buying the latest - at the time - issue to catch the interview with Fidel? To borrow from a TV judge: “Don’t pour water on my leg and tell me it’s raining.” Like the “Gentlemen’s Clubs” that still exist today. What’s inside? Nothing more than your typical gangster fare, circa 1950s burlesque, “Yeah. We only got tha classiest broads here.”

So don’t fall for the “I can find an exception to that,” which DOES NOTHING to explain the other 99.8% of the other so-called art out there.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Kamaduck]

Non-sexual nudity? That’s how it started in NYPD Blue. Especially that one scene where a young actress was completely nude except for her arms covering her breasts. Now why we needed to see a nude woman folding laundry as a crucial story element is beyond me. No, it always starts under cover of “art” and then it always - 100% of the time - is exploited in porn in various ways which I’d rather not identify.

It always occurs in incremental steps. Take any large used bookstore. Next to the stack of other porn magazines are copies of “art instruction” magazines from the 1950s. Maybe a few even used them for that purpose, but it was just a cover. Just like Playboy was labeled tasteful because it used some of the finest artists or conducted interviews with important people like Fidel Castro. So, you and your boys are buying the latest - at the time - issue to catch the interview with Fidel? To borrow from a TV judge: “Don’t pour water on my leg and tell me it’s raining.” Like the “Gentlemen’s Clubs” that still exist today. What’s inside? Nothing more than your typical gangster fare, circa 1950s burlesque, “Yeah. We only got tha classiest broads here.”

So don’t fall for the “I can find an exception to that,” which DOES NOTHING to explain the other 99.8% of the other so-called art out there.

I agree with you that most is not useful or appropriate. I just don’t believe that we should condemn the few stories that do use it responsibly. Evidently, the Church agrees.

 

[edwest2]

I have no idea how this is relevant, unless you’re saying that all art is devoid of meaning, and therefore all nudity in art is, by extension, devoid of meaning.

Lengthy diatribes are meaningless when talking about art. Really. As an assistant art director, I have to know everything: composition, lighting, perspective, color balance, color psychology, emphasis, deemphasis, and a whole lot more, and render a decision in just under 5 minutes. It doesn’t take a genius to come with the formula: young man sees bare butt or female boobs on TV or in a movie to gauge the response. Hmmm, could it be that that scene will impress him because it’s some meaningless to the average person concept called art? Heck no. In fact, he’s gonna be back next episode or start tracking down other images of her in various states of undress. Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To my brothers and sisters in Christ:

"The Influence of the Motion Picture

"In August 1934, addressing Ourselves to a delegation of the International Federation of the Motion Picture Press, We pointed out the very great importance which the motion picture has acquired in our days and its vast influence alike in the promotion of good and in the insinuation of evil, and We called to mind that it is necessary to apply to the cinema the supreme rule which must direct and regulate the great gift of art in order that it may not find itself in continual conflict with Christian morality or even with simple human morality based upon the natural law. The essential purpose of art, its raison d’être, is to assist in the perfection of the moral personality, which is man, and for this reason it must itself be moral. And We concluded amidst the manifest approval of that elect body - the memory is still dear to Us - by recommending to them the necessity of making the motion picture “moral, an influence for good morals, an educator”.

"And even recently, in April of this year, when We had the happiness of receiving in audience a group of delegates to the International Congress of the Motion Picture Press, held at Rome, We again drew attention to the gravity of the problem and We warmly exhorted all men of goodwill, in the name not only of religion but also of the true moral and civil welfare of the people, to use every means in their power, such as the Press, to make of the cinema a valuable auxiliary of instruction and education rather than of destruction and ruin of souls.

"The Needs of the Entire Catholic World

"The subject, however, is of such paramount importance in itself and because of the present condition of society that We deem it necessary to return to it again, not alone for the purpose of making particular recommendations as on past occasions but rather with a universal outlook which, while embracing the needs of your own dioceses, Venerable Brethren, takes into consideration those of the entire Catholic world.

"It is, in fact, urgently necessary to make provision that in this field also the progress of the arts, of the sciences, and of human technique and industry, since they are all true gifts of God, may be ordained to His glory and to the salvation of souls and may be made to serve in a practical way to promote the extension of the Kingdom of God upon earth. Thus, as the Church bids us pray, we may all profit by them but in such a manner as not to lose the goods eternal: “sic transeamus per bona temporalia ut non admittamus aeterna”. 2

"Now then, it is a certainty which can readily be verified that the more marvellous the progress of the motion picture art and industry,the more pernicious and deadly has it shown itself to morality and to religion and even to the very decencies of human society.

“The directors of the industry in the United States recognised this fact themselves when they confessed that the responsibility before the people and the world was their very own. In an agreement entered into by common accord in March, 1930, and solemnly sealed, signed, and published in the Press, they formally pledged themselves to safeguard for the future the moral welfare of the patrons of the cinema.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html

Ed

 

[Baelor]

Did I say it was always used in a bad way? No.

Actually, you did:

You:

I can see that interpretation. But in movies? Nudity is used as the exact opposite unless it’s a nude baby.

Unless you are also saying that sexual titillation is not bad, my post stands.

 

[Baelor]

Edwest2, at this point your rants have become unbearable because they are always the same and always vacuous and always incompatible with Church teaching. This is a Catholic forum; please remember that.

We’re talking about today - now. And the Bible, Sistine Chapel, Shakespeare, Greek tragedies, etc. - TM - have no standing in this conversation.

Church teaching is not temporal unless explicitly based on cultural norms. Unless you have some argument for why something that was previously permissible is no longer permissible, then all of the rest are admissible as evidence. Second, all of those things are still read and viewed today, so they are relevant in that way also.

We’re talking about actors showing off actual body parts that should remain clothed to the public. It’s wrong - unless you think the soft porn that passes for waaaaaay too much “entertainment” these days is the height of taste and culture.

Nudity is not the same thing as softcore porn.

Those actors and actresses are product and are treated like product.

Anyone who works in any industry under a contract is in some way treated like a product.

Art? What are you talking about? In my advanced painting class, there were people who were literally throwing paint against the canvas. We were encouraged to produce unrecognizable messes. And Art Indoctrination Class, falsely labeled Art Appreciation. I’m certain much was lifted straight from Communist Reeducation Camp manuals. Imagine theater seating, a stage and a large screen. The instructor would put up various slides on the screen and sometimes ask the students if they had any questions. A typical example was a clear block of lucite with metal rods sticking out of it. My instructor exclaimed, in a loud voice: “This is a man’s life!” Right. Uh huh. Anybody seeing that would come to the same conclusion. Not.

Or my Life Drawing instructor taking our class to the local art museum. We were free to wander about. In one area, I came across a spiral of duct tape about ten feet across. But soon, the truth was revealed to me when I spotted a small, white card on the floor nearby. It read: “Please do not remove. This is art.” So, those who were not thoroughly brainwashed cultists would have reacted the same way as the cleaning lady, who might scrape this off the floor. Obviously, art so important to be displayed in an art museum needed to be protected from the unbrainwashed masses, and so the card was necessary.

Later, I asked my instructor about the spiral. He grabbed my lapels in mock anger and said, “That’s a man’s life!” followed by a sob story that would have made a fine little booklet.

Or my basic drawing class where, one day, we had a guest. Here was a man who specialized in making ‘interesting marks’ with a charcoal pencil on illustration board. And, he had found a new trick to his trade. He found that if a little solvent called Bestine was allowed to trickle onto the board in spots, it would cause the marks to run like paint. He was beaming as the class eyed his 10x15 inch creation. No one said anything for some minutes until one young man in the back said, "Isn’t that the letter K in the lower right corner? The artist’s eyes bulged out and he looked. This was quickly followed by a combination of embarrassment and mild anger on his face. How could he have allowed something people could actually recognize to appear on his work? He quickly left the class.

And I quickly quit college.

Peace,
Ed

yawn Your lengthy anecdotes can be posted in another thread wherein they are actually relevant. In the meantime, read some Nathan Harden and pretend that he cares.

Non-sexual nudity? That’s how it started in NYPD Blue. Especially that one scene where a young actress was completely nude except for her arms covering her breasts. Now why we needed to see a nude woman folding laundry as a crucial story element is beyond me. No, it always starts under cover of “art” and then it always - 100% of the time - is exploited in porn in various ways which I’d rather not identify.

The fact that things are exploited in porn does not make them bad. Jesus and Mary are – unconscionably – exploited in pornography as well.

It always occurs in incremental steps. Take any large used bookstore. Next to the stack of other porn magazines are copies of “art instruction” magazines from the 1950s. Maybe a few even used them for that purpose, but it was just a cover. Just like Playboy was labeled tasteful because it used some of the finest artists or conducted interviews with important people like Fidel Castro. So, you and your boys are buying the latest - at the time - issue to catch the interview with Fidel? To borrow from a TV judge: “Don’t pour water on my leg and tell me it’s raining.” Like the “Gentlemen’s Clubs” that still exist today. What’s inside? Nothing more than your typical gangster fare, circa 1950s burlesque, “Yeah. We only got tha classiest broads here.”

Escalation is irrelevant. The fact that it turned into something bad does not mean it was not good in the first place.

So don’t fall for the “I can find an exception to that,” which DOES NOTHING to explain the other 99.8% of the other so-called art out there.

The point is that there are cases where it is permissible.

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html

As expected, nowhere is it stated that nudity is intrinsically impermissible.

Edwest2, please. Everyone can read these forums, and everyone can see that you have literally no argument at all.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Non-sexual nudity? That’s how it started in NYPD Blue. Especially that one scene where a young actress was completely nude except for her arms covering her breasts.
Ed

I didn’t watch the whole series, and the only nudity I saw in it was Detective Andy Sipowicz’s rear end while he was showering. I almost puked up some pizza. That right there is reason enough to ban nudity from TV!

 

[Midwest88]

Originally Posted by Midwest88 View Post
Did I say it was always used in a bad way? No.

Actually, you did:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I can see that interpretation. But in movies? Nudity is used as the exact opposite unless it’s a nude baby.

---

Unless you are also saying that sexual titillation is not bad, my post stands.

That response is connected to this poster:

eamonnroma View Post
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?

I’m not arguing that all nudity is immoral. I never said that; and don’t you dare say I did, because that is simply false. I’m arguing that most arguments for nudity are intellectually lazy - weak justifications - and that there are rare cases were nudity is of actual service to the story.

 

[Baelor]

That response is connected to this poster:

And even that is not accurate, q.v. Daenerys in Season 1 of Game of Thrones.

I’m arguing that most arguments for nudity are intellectually lazy - weak justifications - and that there are rare cases were nudity is of actual service to the story.

Okay. So nudity is permissible. So what were you wondering in your first post? Why a director who has employed nudity permissibly chose to do so?