Co-ed Naked Blogging
After a brief burst of blog posts, I found that I'm still not quite up to the sustained level of Internet use that I had become accustomed to during the school semester.
Anyhow, I've been thinking about nudity in motion pictures.
I've never written about my position at length, but most friends that I converse with in person know my thoughts on the matter, which are (very) briefly summarized in a comment here on my own blog about a year ago:
"Well, the truth is that you're not watching an actor commit a murder. No murder takes place. It's pretend.
This is not true of sexual scenes in films. Yes, that male actor is actually touching that female actor's breasts. Maybe his thoughts are somewhere else, but his actions betray him. There is no pretend."
A few days ago, I was reading an interview of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. They were interviewed by Lawrence Grobel and the interview was originally published in Playboy magazine.
Grobel: And couldn't one be curious about seeing an actor or actress without any clothes on in a love scene in a movie?
Ebert: The moment that an actor takes off his or her clothes, the movie changes from a fiction film into a documentary.
Siskel: I remember something Spielberg told me about sex scenes. He feels that it's almost impossible to do a sex scene without the audience having the reaction, "Oh, that's what they look like."
Ebert: I am not arguing against nudity in the movies. All I'm saying is that acting has traditionally consisted of putting on costumes, not taking them off. Actors have traditionally been in the business of pretending to be somebody else other than themselves. Well, the moment that the actor completely unclothes, the actor abandons character and becomes self to some degree.
I think that Ebert is absolutely right in his last comment.
The revelation of self in nakedness will almost always destroy the narrative flow of a motion picture.
It is that moment when I'm reading Spike's novel and think to myself, "Well, that sentence was very clever and extremely well-written." Yes, indeed, it may have been, but the fact that it drew attention to itself means that it drew me out of the narrative and made me focus on the mechanics of the story rather than the story itself.
The same is true in this nakedness business. The viewer watches a Scorcese film and sees Harvey Keitel nude (Harvey Keitel is always nude), and instead of becoming further engaged in the story, as one might think an intimate sex scene may do, one is driven away from the story by the sudden unspoken (perhaps half-thought) realization that we're no longer looking at a character named J.R. We're looking at Harvey Keitel.
Impromptu conclusion, Spike's most clever sentences are akin to full frontal nudity on the big screen.
That's not at all where I had intended to go with this post.
After a brief burst of blog posts, I found that I'm still not quite up to the sustained level of Internet use that I had become accustomed to during the school semester.
Anyhow, I've been thinking about nudity in motion pictures.
I've never written about my position at length, but most friends that I converse with in person know my thoughts on the matter, which are (very) briefly summarized in a comment here on my own blog about a year ago:
"Well, the truth is that you're not watching an actor commit a murder. No murder takes place. It's pretend.
This is not true of sexual scenes in films. Yes, that male actor is actually touching that female actor's breasts. Maybe his thoughts are somewhere else, but his actions betray him. There is no pretend."
A few days ago, I was reading an interview of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. They were interviewed by Lawrence Grobel and the interview was originally published in Playboy magazine.
Grobel: And couldn't one be curious about seeing an actor or actress without any clothes on in a love scene in a movie?
Ebert: The moment that an actor takes off his or her clothes, the movie changes from a fiction film into a documentary.
Siskel: I remember something Spielberg told me about sex scenes. He feels that it's almost impossible to do a sex scene without the audience having the reaction, "Oh, that's what they look like."
Ebert: I am not arguing against nudity in the movies. All I'm saying is that acting has traditionally consisted of putting on costumes, not taking them off. Actors have traditionally been in the business of pretending to be somebody else other than themselves. Well, the moment that the actor completely unclothes, the actor abandons character and becomes self to some degree.
I think that Ebert is absolutely right in his last comment.
The revelation of self in nakedness will almost always destroy the narrative flow of a motion picture.
It is that moment when I'm reading Spike's novel and think to myself, "Well, that sentence was very clever and extremely well-written." Yes, indeed, it may have been, but the fact that it drew attention to itself means that it drew me out of the narrative and made me focus on the mechanics of the story rather than the story itself.
The same is true in this nakedness business. The viewer watches a Scorcese film and sees Harvey Keitel nude (Harvey Keitel is always nude), and instead of becoming further engaged in the story, as one might think an intimate sex scene may do, one is driven away from the story by the sudden unspoken (perhaps half-thought) realization that we're no longer looking at a character named J.R. We're looking at Harvey Keitel.
Impromptu conclusion, Spike's most clever sentences are akin to full frontal nudity on the big screen.
That's not at all where I had intended to go with this post.
posted by trawlerman at 9:42 AM
7 Comments:
Maybe I missed an earlier reference. Who's Spike?
I'm glad you returned to this. The next time you were out, I was going to blind-side you.
When I was reading the part where you formulate
"The revelation of self in nakedness will almost always destroy the narrative flow of a motion picture."
I thought of how a nudity scene would work in Lord of the Rings. It would destroy any storyline up to that point.
Well, then I thought, is that why John is against nudity in film? Because it's distracting? (can you tell I'm trying to get you to write more on this?)
My previous comment isn't intended for you to defend any position. I only wonder if there are any other reasons. That is to say, a producer could say that nudity in his film is art, adding to the intent of the film.
Steve,
Spike is a friend, one of the few who live within driving distance at the moment. He has written an (as-yet-unpublished) novel, and, for a time, kept a blog at
"http://uncle-spikey.blogspot.com/">http://uncle-spikey.blogspot.com/
I've referred to him and/or his blog many times here, but not much recently.
Here's a quick overview of prominent Spike-related posts
Stolen because it deserved to be.
Referral
Spike quote:
Bathroom Readers
29th
leatherworking
"...we're no longer looking at a character named J.R. We're looking at Harvey Keitel."
Didn't the actors of Rome wear not only costumes but masks too??
Matt,
I'll respond a bit in the next few days.
-john.
Alright, Matt.
I don't have the energy to respond to this. If you wish, the next time we meet, we can spend hours discussing this.
I am not entirely against nudity captured on film.
My position, simply, is that most sexuality portrayed in a fiction film involves sexual sin for the actors involved.
Post a Comment
<< Home