Movies and Nudity

[Lost_Wanderer]

If I had the Authority, I would immediatly condemn that painting, as would any true Savonarolian.

You do know Savonarola was excommunicated… and executed… brutally… right? :ehh:

In any case, I’ve skimmed the thread and people do present a good case for nudity. I’ve seen my fair share of both lewd and non-sexual and there’s definitely a difference.

For example, I’ve seen some laboratory scenes in science fiction where they show some naked girl floating in a creepy, experiment tank (transparent no less). I find it rather difficult to have lustful thoughts when the story tells me that that’s not really a naked girl but actually some biological weapon that could tear me apart, limb from limb with her bare hands. >_>;;

Speaking of such things though, I actually prefer violence over nudity. That is of course, if we’re speaking of violence such as fight scenes, explosions, characters exchanging all manner of flashy/magical super attacks, and giant robots blowing each other to pieces. I actually prefer to watch that kind of stuff than nudity any day for some reason.

 

[Wilhelm_Stoever]

You do know Savonarola was excommunicated… and executed… brutally… right? :ehh:

In any case, I’ve skimmed the thread and people do present a good case for nudity. I’ve seen my fair share of both lewd and non-sexual and there’s definitely a difference.

For example, I’ve seen some laboratory scenes in science fiction where they show some naked girl floating in a creepy, experiment tank (transparent no less). I find it rather difficult to have lustful thoughts when the story tells me that that’s not really a naked girl but actually some biological weapon that could tear me apart, limb from limb with her bare hands. >_>;;

Speaking of such things though, I actually prefer violence over nudity. That is of course, if we’re speaking of violence such as fight scenes, explosions, characters exchanging all manner of flashy/magical super attacks, and giant robots blowing each other to pieces. I actually prefer to watch that kind of stuff than nudity any day for some reason.

His excommunication was unjust and likely invalid, because it was part of a personal vendetta. Like St. Joan of Arc’s.
St. Catherine de Ricci credited thee intercession of Savonarola with her miraculous cure.
St. Philip Neri and St. John Fisher also admired his cause.

Back to topic:
From the moment we are born, we are on our deathbed. There would be much less sin in the world if people realized this. How many sins would a Christian on their deathbed be willing to commit?
Not many!

So, why tempt yourself with these images?
Your life may end any second , so, why take the chance?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

His excommunication was unjust and likely invalid, because it was part of a personal vendetta. Like St. Joan of Arc’s.
St. Catherine de Ricci credited thee intercession of Savonarola with her miraculous cure.
St. Philip Neri and St. John Fisher also admired his cause.

Unlike St. Joan, no Pope has ever called for his retrial and the movement for his canonization has only begun in the 20th century. That’s quite a stretch for them to be compared. Besides, Joan of Arc is considered a war heroine and when I think of the legends and cultural depictions about her, I actually think of a somewhat tomboyish lass in knight’s armor (and trust me, I’ve seen some depictions that make her look quite cute XD).

What legacy has that man left us? Honestly when I looked the guy up, I thought I was looking at the Catholic medieval version of Jack Chick (and the last person I’d want sitting next to me on the bus while I’m reading my manga ).

Back to topic:
From the moment we are born, we are on our deathbed. There would be much less sin in the world if people realized this. How many sins would a Christian on their deathbed be willing to commit?
Not many!

So, why tempt yourself with these images?
Your life may end any second , so, why take the chance?

You want proof that nudity doesn’t necessarily lead to temptation? My friends are more likely to be turned on by a picture of a moe-girl in a skimpy maid outfit than any nude Renaissance painting.

P.S.

Seriously guys, you won’t go to the beach because of some skin? And why are you looking at teenagers? You go to the beach to swim, surf, relax, have fun, etc. not to perve.

You forgot to add ‘search for buried treasure’…
At least that’s what I’m planning to do the next time I head to a beach.

 

[sauce]

Kind of like reading a menu. You don’t like the ingredients, so you don’t order.
You can’t afford the price, so you don’t order.

Life will always hand you the menu.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that if any individual has personal problems with seeing nudity, they should avoid it. They shouldn’t assume that others are always affected the same way.

Also, when we watch a movie, we are in a way participating in it - we are giving of our self to what went on to film it. So if something really inappropriate went on with filming the nudity, the persons sexuality was somehow compromised, we shouldn’t watch either. I don’t think filming a sex scene is actually sexy for the people involved in most cases though, or a nude scene, so I don’t tend to worry about that in most instances.

I don’t necessarily have a problem watching movies with a message I disagree with. But if they are shallow, or manipulative, then that is a problem, whether there is nudity or not.

Having worked with nude artists models a fair bit, it isn’t really a sexy situation. Even when creating something beautiful, it tends to be rather abstract.

 

[DLClark]

Hey everybody,

This is my first post here but I wanted to pose this question to all of you. Ive been dating someone for about four months now and Ive been noticing of late that shes been watching movies that in my mind would be inappropriate and sinful. Some of the movies she has watched have some nudity in them, which seems to be a more and more reocurring thing in movies nowadays which is very sad.

Am I being to hypocritical for this or should I just let it slide? What is the right thing to do in this situation. We’ve both talked about this before but just recently its come more to me that its an issue for me because I don’t want someone who could be my potential wife to be ok with some of these movies that show the human body in ways i feel is appropriate.

Thanks!

Why mot just be pleasing to God and not watch these types of movies at all. There are many other movies out there that have no sexual sins in them in this way. Try the “Big Country” with Gregory Peck for one. Let’s be pleasing to God with our eyes.

 

[Wilhelm_Stoever]

Why mot just be pleasing to God and not watch these types of movies at all. There are many other movies out there that have no sexual sins in them in this way. Try the “Big Country” with Gregory Peck for one. Let’s be pleasing to God with our eyes.

Finally!!

Some Sanity on this thread!
Thank you!

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think giving personal views really resolves anything. The average person wants to hear something definite. The doctor sees nudity when it is necessary. The artist to learn. But it should be made clear, on a Catholic forum, that there are rules. Holiness is not optional.

A small group of people advertise every time you watch a TV show or see a movie. What the characters wear and what they say can influence people. In the outside world, if a small group in the fashion industry says it’s OK to show 90% of your body, and you’re a woman, you need to think about that. I remember when the miniskirt was introduced - it was immodest. The bikini was worse because it is underwear. People might say - standards change. Ask yourself why.

For years, all I heard from the media was that they were “pushing the envelope,” “breaking down barriers,” and “no limits.” The pattern has always been the same: what starts as something artistic or appealing to the intellect degenerates into porn.

Playboy magazine was filled with articles and interviews and intelligent writing, but what were they really selling?

Just be honest with yourself.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Other_Eric]

If you believe in human decency and this is a friend, say so. Nudity is never an integral part of a movie or TV show. Too many Catholics have become insensitive to portrayals of nudity. I’m a professional writer and everything I do must take my beliefs into account. In a relationship with God, who calls me friend, I want to remain in His friendship. I will have to give an account for all of my actions at the last judgement.

Too many people think that if something is common, then it must be alright. Believe me, there was a time when nudity and vulgar language did not appear in movies or TV programs.

Peace,
Ed

What is it about the medium of television or the movies that renders nudity, in and of itself, inappropriate regardless of context? Do you mean to say that Michelangelo's David is acceptable up until the point someone records that work on video? Is there something about the context of paintings, sculpture, photography or writing which renders nudity potentially acceptable or is it still an utterly depraved representation of the human person? Do you subscribe to the Manichean heresy whereby the body is ultimately an evil thing covered because it can only lead man into sin? And, if the body is such an evil, doesn't that render the doctrine of the Incarnation the most damnable blasphemy yet conceived by man?

 

[edwest2]

There is nothing intrinsically evil or wicked about the human body. The Catholic Church has been concerned and involves itself with the mass communications mediums. When movies, in the early days, turned toward the vulgar, the Church tried to engage Hollywood by reminding them of the affect they can have on public morals.

I do not consider the Michaelangelo argument valid. What I have witnessed over the last 40 years, both on TV and at the movies, was them showing a little skin, then a little more and then a little more. A little profanity, then a little more and then a little more. In the 1990s, I was shocked to see a warning on TV for NYPD Blue mentioning partial nudity. What was the necessity of seeing bare bottoms for the story? There was none.

An actor from NYPD Blue was asked about this trend. His answer: “Hey. It’s the '90s.”

Hollywood expects people to become desensitized to sin. To join comedians who mock God with laughter.

For a short time, I accepted the argument that any hint of nudity was for some high-minded artistic reason. A little later, Adult Bookstores everywhere.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sauce]

There is nothing intrinsically evil or wicked about the human body.
For a short time, I accepted the argument that any hint of nudity was for some high-minded artistic reason. A little later, Adult Bookstores everywhere.

Peace,
Ed

You make a very excellent point. The stuff you are pointing out is all about the profane.
If we drag art into this, then it gets a little complicated. Not everything we “see” is “art.”
As you must know. The real “artist” is an “ein Ruttler.” An upsetter.

And it’s a lonely job. If the real artist uses nudity, then I can only hope he or she digs deep and uses it well. We know the difference between the seductive and the presentation of the human condition. I’m interested in the human condition, not a cheap fabrication of it.

Peace to you, too

 

[Other_Eric]

There is nothing intrinsically evil or wicked about the human body. The Catholic Church has been concerned and involves itself with the mass communications mediums. When movies, in the early days, turned toward the vulgar, the Church tried to engage Hollywood by reminding them of the affect they can have on public morals.

I do not consider the Michaelangelo argument valid. What I have witnessed over the last 40 years, both on TV and at the movies, was them showing a little skin, then a little more and then a little more. A little profanity, then a little more and then a little more. In the 1990s, I was shocked to see a warning on TV for NYPD Blue mentioning partial nudity. What was the necessity of seeing bare bottoms for the story? There was none.

An actor from NYPD Blue was asked about this trend. His answer: “Hey. It’s the '90s.”

Hollywood expects people to become desensitized to sin. To join comedians who mock God with laughter.

For a short time, I accepted the argument that any hint of nudity was for some high-minded artistic reason. A little later, Adult Bookstores everywhere.

Peace,
Ed

Yet, you've avoided the question. The issue is not whether the partial nudity in NYPD Blue or any other specific television or movie offering is appropriate. The question is whether nudity is intrinsically incapable of conveying something good. You reject the Michelangelo argument, but you do not say why. Drawing from your oft-expressed theme here in this thread, when television and the movies has more restricted content, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel had many of the nudes covered by later artists. A cast of Michelangelo's *David* in the Victoria and Albert Museum has plaster fig leaf ready to cover the genitals. Why isn't the uncovering of these artistic nudes synonymous with the degradation of the art of cinema?

The question remains: is nudity in the movies and on television inherently evil? If it is, how is it different from nudity in other media? If it isn’t different, doesn’t this ultimately mean that the human form is itself an evil?

 

[Other_Eric]

For a short time, I accepted the argument that any hint of nudity was for some high-minded artistic reason. A little later, Adult Bookstores everywhere.

Peace,
Ed

Forgive me, but are you saying that any type of artistic nudity inevitably leads to pornography? If that is the case, how do you reconcile this with your position that there is nothing intrinsically evil or wicked about the human body? If the exposure of the human body can only lead man away from God, then the inescapable conclusion must be that it is a thing of evil.

 

[edwest2]

Forgive me, but are you saying that any type of artistic nudity inevitably leads to pornography? If that is the case, how do you reconcile this with your position that there is nothing intrinsically evil or wicked about the human body? If the exposure of the human body can only lead man away from God, then the inescapable conclusion must be that it is a thing of evil.

The title of the thread is Movies and Nudity. I included TV because many movies eventually get on TV.

I thought I was specific. In the late 1940s, TV began in America. In the 1950s and 1960s, it really proliferated. In the 1960s, I watched a man tell viewers that he was from the Standards and Practices Department. He assured viewers that they watched every TV program to make sure it was suitable for the entire family. TV networks had departments for the express purpose of making certain that all programing met certain standards and it would be the practice of the network to reject programming that did not. You could not say certain words, which some people recognize today from George Carlin’s routine that mentioned those words you can’t say on TV. You could not say the word pregnant. You could not show a married couple in the same bed together. I did not make these rules.

As I wrote before, the doctor sees nudity when it’s necessary. The artist sees nudity to learn. Movies and TV programs have become more coarse and more sexual over the last 40 years. This is what I want everyone to recognize. Instead of giving people what might be called art, they have cheapened the dignity of the human person by exposing the body in degrading and purient ways. This has been the consistent intent - to desensitize the viewer to the vulgar use of the human body. A recent article at cnn.com was titled Are Women more comfortable with viewing porn?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Yet, you’ve avoided the question. The issue is not whether the partial nudity in NYPD Blue or any other specific television or movie offering is appropriate. The question is whether nudity is intrinsically incapable of conveying something good. You reject the Michelangelo argument, but you do not say why. Drawing from your oft-expressed theme here in this thread, when television and the movies has more restricted content, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel had many of the nudes covered by later artists. A cast of Michelangelo’s David in the Victoria and Albert Museum has plaster fig leaf ready to cover the genitals. Why isn’t the uncovering of these artistic nudes synonymous with the degradation of the art of cinema?

The question remains: is nudity in the movies and on television inherently evil? If it is, how is it different from nudity in other media? If it isn’t different, doesn’t this ultimately mean that the human form is itself an evil?

Please read this encyclical:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11VIGIL.HTM

In order to answer your question, can you give me a contemporary example of nudity conveying something good?

Thank you,
Ed

 

[Other_Eric]

Please read this encyclical:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11VIGIL.HTM

In order to answer your question, can you give me a contemporary example of nudity conveying something good?

Thank you,
Ed

Again, you've avoided the question. The papal encyclical you refer to has nothing to say specifically about nudity. The question isn't whether contemporary nudity has conveyed anything good, it is whether nudity in art, in and of itself is capable of conveying anything good. Restricting your answer to only contemporary examples clouds the issue. Either nudity in film is inherently immoral or it is not. Which is it?

 

[Other_Eric]

The title of the thread is Movies and Nudity. I included TV because many movies eventually get on TV.

I thought I was specific. In the late 1940s, TV began in America. In the 1950s and 1960s, it really proliferated. In the 1960s, I watched a man tell viewers that he was from the Standards and Practices Department. He assured viewers that they watched every TV program to make sure it was suitable for the entire family. TV networks had departments for the express purpose of making certain that all programing met certain standards and it would be the practice of the network to reject programming that did not. You could not say certain words, which some people recognize today from George Carlin’s routine that mentioned those words you can’t say on TV. You could not say the word pregnant. You could not show a married couple in the same bed together. I did not make these rules.

As I wrote before, the doctor sees nudity when it’s necessary. The artist sees nudity to learn. Movies and TV programs have become more coarse and more sexual over the last 40 years. This is what I want everyone to recognize. Instead of giving people what might be called art, they have cheapened the dignity of the human person by exposing the body in degrading and purient ways. This has been the consistent intent - to desensitize the viewer to the vulgar use of the human body. A recent article at cnn.com was titled Are Women more comfortable with viewing porn?

Peace,
Ed

Only a fool would argue that entertainment hasn't become more permissive in the sort of things they allow to be broadcast. We agree on that much. Since nudity existed in artistic media before, can it be said that its depiction alone is what brought us to our current state of affairs? If this is what you are saying, then obviously it is the body itself that leads men to error and must be, in itself, a thing of evil.

If, however, the manner in which nudity is portrayed in current cinema is a symptom of an underlying problem, we are allowed to come to the far more tolerable conclusion that the body is a sacred thing that man has undertaken to defile through a variety of means. This would mean that it is possible to include nudity in a film to good effect.

Again we come back to the question you’ve avoided. Is nudity in film inherently immoral? I find it odd that one who characterizes oneself as a writer is unable to answer a question as simple as this. Therefore, I will make it easier for you. The possible answers available to you by way of response are “yes” and “no.”

 

[edwest2]

You are presenting a “what if” scenario, as in “what if nudity were shown in this manner? Would it then be OK?”

You did not look at the encyclical as an all-encompassing document, which it is. All art, if it can be determined to be art, must be judged individually. Your attempts to bring up classical works of art and compare them to the motion picture - a static image versus a moving one - avoids the issue. No one would consider a painting or statue as alive, however moving photographic images, especially on a large screen, present actual living persons.

In order to safeguard the dignity of actual people, models and actors sign documents consenting to certain things. Sometimes an actress is asked to show a part of her body in public, on film. Something she would normally cover in public. She has the choice of a double or stand-in or she can be dropped from consideration.

There was a time when feminine beauty was called glamour but virtue was tied into it. A beautiful woman could be glamouous but virtue meant that her dignity, her sense of virtue, and the virtue and dignity of the person looking at her, was safeguarded. Today, that is so uncommon as to virtually no longer exist in movies.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

A small group of people advertise every time you watch a TV show or see a movie. What the characters wear and what they say can influence people. In the outside world, if a small group in the fashion industry says it’s OK to show 90% of your body, and you’re a woman, you need to think about that. I remember when the miniskirt was introduced - it was immodest. The bikini was worse because it is underwear. People might say - standards change. Ask yourself why.

I’ve seen more than my fair share of kinky outfits but I tell you there are at least a few which are worn for more practical reasons. Gymnasts wear tights and/or leotards, female kick boxers wear tight-fitting shorts, sports-wrestlers wear really tight suits etc.

Your attempts to bring up classical works of art and compare them to the motion picture - a static image versus a moving one - avoids the issue. No one would consider a painting or statue as alive, however moving photographic images, especially on a large screen, present actual living persons.

Following your logic, wouldn’t that make cartoons real living persons? :ehh:

 

[Wilhelm_Stoever]

Following your logic, wouldn’t that make cartoons real living persons? :ehh:

No, because he said " Photographic images".