Live Nude Women
I ran across this item while doing my daily scan of websites this morning. I don't follow swimming, so I don't even know who Amanda Beard is. So the fact that she's decided to get nekkid for the camera doesn't do much for me. It did start me thinking, though.
Has anybody else noticed that it seems to have become a rite of passage for famous young women to take their clothes off on film?
I realize, of course, that attractive young women have been taking their clothes off for as long as men have been willing to pay to see them, but this seems different. It used to be that the women who got nekkid in the movies (or magazines or wherever) were the ones who couldn't get a role any other way. Talented actresses had the option of not doing nudity, and generally took it. When I was a younger moviegoer, the talented young actresses were people like Meryl Streep, Holly Hunter, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Debra Winger. Of those, Winger was the only one to do a nude scene (IIRC), and even that was in a good role in a highly regarded film, An Officer and a Gentleman. Generally, the ones who got nekkid were the ones who couldn't act -- the Brooke Shields's and Phoebe Cates's -- and therefore weren't in a position to say no and still be movie stars.
Now, however, even talented young actresses seem to get nekkid on film almost as soon as they legally can: Claire Danes (probably the most blindingly talented actress of her generation), Kate Winslet, Keira Knightley, Gwyneth Paltrow, Reese Witherspoon, even Thora Birch and Disney princess Anne Hathaway. And that's just off the top of my head. The only notable exception I can think of is Natalie Portman, who was only a few threads from the full Monty in Closer.
There have always been exceptions, one way or the other -- good actresses who did nudity when most didn't, good actresses who haven't now that seemingly most do, bad actresses who didn't or haven't, etc. But it seems to me the "default setting," so to speak, has flipped.
Anybody else getting that sense? Any opinions on why it is?
I can't tell if it's because there's more pressure to do nudity now, or because good actresses are simply choosing to do more of it. Maybe it's an expression of second-wave feminist sexual assertion (see also, "Sex and the City"). Maybe, since many of them were well known child actors, they want to announce they aren't kids anymore.
Or maybe nudity just isn't that big a deal anymore.
Has anybody else noticed that it seems to have become a rite of passage for famous young women to take their clothes off on film?
I realize, of course, that attractive young women have been taking their clothes off for as long as men have been willing to pay to see them, but this seems different. It used to be that the women who got nekkid in the movies (or magazines or wherever) were the ones who couldn't get a role any other way. Talented actresses had the option of not doing nudity, and generally took it. When I was a younger moviegoer, the talented young actresses were people like Meryl Streep, Holly Hunter, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Debra Winger. Of those, Winger was the only one to do a nude scene (IIRC), and even that was in a good role in a highly regarded film, An Officer and a Gentleman. Generally, the ones who got nekkid were the ones who couldn't act -- the Brooke Shields's and Phoebe Cates's -- and therefore weren't in a position to say no and still be movie stars.
Now, however, even talented young actresses seem to get nekkid on film almost as soon as they legally can: Claire Danes (probably the most blindingly talented actress of her generation), Kate Winslet, Keira Knightley, Gwyneth Paltrow, Reese Witherspoon, even Thora Birch and Disney princess Anne Hathaway. And that's just off the top of my head. The only notable exception I can think of is Natalie Portman, who was only a few threads from the full Monty in Closer.
There have always been exceptions, one way or the other -- good actresses who did nudity when most didn't, good actresses who haven't now that seemingly most do, bad actresses who didn't or haven't, etc. But it seems to me the "default setting," so to speak, has flipped.
Anybody else getting that sense? Any opinions on why it is?
I can't tell if it's because there's more pressure to do nudity now, or because good actresses are simply choosing to do more of it. Maybe it's an expression of second-wave feminist sexual assertion (see also, "Sex and the City"). Maybe, since many of them were well known child actors, they want to announce they aren't kids anymore.
Or maybe nudity just isn't that big a deal anymore.
posted by juvenal_urbino | 10:39 AM
23 Comments:
Good questions. I have no answers.
So I'll go on about it for a bit. As for athletes -- I think it's odd that the only female atheletes men can name are the really attractive ones. They pretty much only get press coverage for their looks. That's not always the case, but would as many people follow women's softball if the faces of the sport weren't Jennie Fench or Kat Osterman? I kind of doubt it. They were two of the most dominate pitchers in softball history, but I they are more remembered for being pretty. So, yes, I think Amanda Beard is kind of making a statement here. She's kind of saying, hey, if the only reason you're going to pay attention to me is because I'm pretty, here, let me show you everything that way that's out of the way. Now, you can watch me swim, which, by the way, I'm the BEST at.
But that's an off the top of my head response. I'd think a lot of that goes for actresses as well.
I think there's a big difference between nudity as part of a film and posing for the magazine that shall not be named. The former can be integrated into a respectable career, the latter is just trashy, I don't care who does it and whether Herb Ritts or Annie Liebowitz is the photographer.
The only problem with film nudity is that not enough men do it. Harvey Keitel tried to be the pioneer in the 1990s, but it didn't take off.
I have no idea who this woman is, since I don't follow swimming, but I did read about the controversy on Salon today. I would not agree that nudity is not a big deal anymore. If it wasn't a big deal, then the GGW videos would not have become a multi-million dollar industry. Unfortunately, nudity is just as big a deal as it ever was. I don't get it, but then again there are a lot of things about American culture that I don't get.
I also don't agree with Mikey's take on Ms. Beard's thinking. I think there are two reasons that an athlete would do this -- money and fame/notoriety. I can't imagine that anyone could delude themselves into thinking that it will cause men to become interested in them as an athlete. Not that that's the way it should be, but I think that's the way it is.
Serious question, Sandi. What's the difference in the nudity in photographic form and in the form of a film? Why can one be respectable and one not? And what's the line between resepctability and trashy?
And I was just guessing at her thinking. Not saying I agree with it, necessarily. Apparently, she was a big deal (mostly because of her looks) before the magazine shoot. She, along with other women athletes, appear in other men's magazines -- like Maxim or GQ or whatever -- in their underwear. Which gets them a lot of attention anyway.
I think the difference is that if nudity is part of the story line in a film, its purpose goes beyond mere titillation. Maybe it's hair-splitting, and maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way, but there are actresses that I think of as having integrity (Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow) who have done some nudity in films but have not debased themselves as human beings in the process. Posing for magazines such as the one that shall not be named, as well as Maxim and the five other magazines that are essentially the same thing, is inherently degrading in my book. Something about the target audience, the purpose for which such photo spreads are used ... I'm not as good at articulating it as I wish I was. I'm more like Potter Stewart saying "I know it when I see it." But, you know, how many horny frat boys looking to jerk off are going to rent "Little Children" in order to do so? (the most recent film I know of in which Kate Winslet did a nude scene). Of course, I come from an "older" generation that probably did use the Hefner vehicle for such purposes, things might be to the point now where that publication is far too tame ... now that would be some interesting research. But probably far too disturbing for me. Pamela Paul's book "Pornified" made me fear for the future, that's for sure.
Thanks, Sandi. I see your point. Although I'm not sure I see the difference between nudity as part of a story line and nudity for the sake of nudity. And, like you said, this is largely a matter of taste. Personally, I can't think of a movie where nudity made the difference in a story-line.
The problem that JU pointed out in his post is when women feel they *have* to do a nude scene in order to get a job. Which isn't much different than sexual harassment, no?
And I'm really not (or wasn't) trying to split hairs. I'm actually interested in the debate of whether nude photographs are exploiting or empowering. Because both arguments seem kinda compelling. I guess that changes with the situation.
Hope you're feeling okay these days, Sandi.
I think you're right about female athletes, Mikey. The well known ones aren't the best athletes, they're the best-looking ones. (Although, it does seem like they have to at least be good at their sport.) OTOH, that's generally the case with male athletes, too. People who don't follow football know who Tom Brady is, or Deion Sanders; they've never heard of Willie Roaf. I don't follow soccer, but I know who David Beckham is.
I would not agree that nudity is not a big deal anymore. If it wasn't a big deal, then the GGW videos would not have become a multi-million dollar industry.
Sorry. I didn't make myself as clear as I could have, Sandi. I meant that maybe doing nudity isn't that big a deal to the actresses themselves, anymore.
I'm not sure I exactly agree with you about nudity being integrated into a respectable movie career. At least, that hasn't always -- or even pretty recently -- been the case. There was a real stigma against actresses who did nude scenes. In the Streep/Winger/etc. era I referenced, there were 2 very distinct classes of actresses: the ones who had talent and didn't do nudity; and everybody else. If you did nudity, it was presumed you did it because you couldn't act and therefore couldn't get work any other way (and, generally speaking, that was correct). It was not respectable. For a serious actress, appearing nude was very risky, even in service to a role and story wherein it wasn't gratuitous.
I agree with you about the gender difference, though. Well, not necessarily that there's not enough male nudity (I could happily live my entire life without seeing Harvey Keitel nekkid), but that it's at least odd that the amount of male nudity is so dramatically less than female. (BTW, Geoffrey Rush also got nekkid on film around that same time: in Quills. Something else I could've lived without.)
One can think of several possible explanations, any or all of which might have nothing to do with the actual reason.
1. By and large, men run the movie studios.
2. There's more nudity to be had on a woman. Naked breasts are "real" nudity and decidedly eye-catching, and one can expose them without going near any of those other regions -- the ones that can lead to a box-office-killing NC-17 rating. That's more difficult with a man.
3. According to prevailing theory, women aren't as interested in seeing men naked as men are in seeing women naked. Ergo, there's less reward (box office) and more risk.
4. The MPAA -- and people in general -- seem to be much more squeamish about male nudity.
There are others. OTOH, we do seem to see much more male nudity (hindparts) than female nudity on tv, which is odd.
I agree with Sandi about the distinction between nudity in a movie and the pictures in Playboy or Maxim or FHM. Although, there are magazines, like Esquire, which have a scantily clad woman in nearly every issue, but (usually) without dehumanizing the woman.
The problem that JU pointed out in his post is when women feel they *have* to do a nude scene in order to get a job.
Actually, I wasn't saying that was a problem. If a woman is hell-bent on being in the movies but is so lacking in actual talent that nobody will give her a role where she's required to do anything more than take her clothes off, taking those roles is her free choice. It might be dehumanizing, but it's her choice; and, as a job, it's probably no more dehumanizing than most factory work, and pays a heckuva lot better.
The problematic cases are the ones where an actress does have real talent, but is also so drop-dead gorgeous that every role she gets offered requires her to get nekkid. (People like Salma Hayek and Jennifer Connelly come to mind.)
I'd disagree that it'd always be her free choice. That's giving too much credit to movie studios and producers being honest. Yes, she has a choice. But I would guess that a lot of times she isn't being told she has no talent. She's being told, you're great, this is just a way to get noticed, to get some attention to your yet unappreciated skills of acting.
Doesn't take away the agency of the woman. But I don't think it's always as simple as doing it because she wants to.
Could you explain the difference between film verses photographic nudity. I'm not being dense. Honest.
I tried this morning to explain what I think the difference is, but didn't do a great job ... um, so what I would say is that when it comes to nudity, context matters. That's why there is a difference that everyone can perceive between an artistic photograph in which the subject is nude, and a photograph whose sole purpose is to titillate. In my (admittedly limited) experience, context is things like where the photograph is published, how the subject is posed, what his or her facial expression is, whether the photo is in color or black and white, etc. Now, none of these contextual issues have any inherent moral content, but within our society they have taken on certain meanings and thus send signals to the viewer. For example, there's no inherent meaning in a picture of a woman studying wearing only knee socks and a bow in her hair; but, since this is the kind of cliche image associated with B-grade soft porn, it does have a cultural meaning (trashy, lowbrow) that people acquainted with our culture are aware of. I'm not saying that the message is right or wrong, but just that a subject acquainted with our culture who gives permission to have (almost always) her nude photograph published is more or less aware of the message that will be communicated by her doing so.
So, with respect to film, context still matters. I would not argue that there is no difference between, let's say, "The End of the Affair" (which I saw years ago but recall having several sex scenes in it) and something like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" (same). There absolutely is a difference, and the difference is the message that is communicated by the artistry and relative sophistication of the film.
When I was 13, I remember having an argument with my dad about curse words. I said, why is saying "s**t" any different from saying "feces" since they mean the same thing? At the time I thought I was serious at the time, but I realize now that I was also being cute because I was asking an abstract question on a topic that isn't at all abstract, but rather is culturally grounded. There is a whole history and cultural context to the usage of certain words as expletives despite the fact that different words can be used that has the same literal meaning. I think that the question of how "artistic" nudity differs from trashiness is the same type of thing -- yes, both are nudity, BUT you simply cannot untether the nudity aspect from the context in which it occurs and the context in which it is viewed.
I'll go along with that, mostly. I wonder, though, how many occasions there are where the nudity isn't just in service to a story that's worth telling, but necessary to that story. IOW, how many of those stories couldn't be told just as well without showing any actual nudity? Probably not many. Most of the nudity you or I might find unobjectionable is still, in that sense, gratuitous.
Another thing that I think is relevant to the distinction between meaningful nudity and the tittilating kind is how the woman (or, rarely, man) is presented. I'm not a regular reader or even browser of FHM and Maxim, etc., but from what I've seen, the women in their photographs don't even look like themselves; they don't even look like real women. The photographs aren't photos of women. They're photos that take a real woman (who has a real, complete identity of her own) as a starting point and then reconstruct her as something else. A toy. A plaything with no agency or identity of its own.
She's being told, you're great, this is just a way to get noticed, to get some attention to your yet unappreciated skills of acting.
I agree that that's a problem, but it's a problem that doesn't really have much, if anything, to do with gender or nudity, per se, but with generic, garden-variety manipulation: the wily and experienced beguiling and profiting from the credulous and inexperienced, at the latter's expense.
Someone is being taken advantage of -- even dehumanized, in the sense that they're being used as a means to other ends -- but it doesn't strike me as morally or ethically distinct from (or, therefore, more blameworthy than) the same kind of manipulation that happens in workplaces of every description every day.
So it seems my first true comment is going to be on the subject of nudity. What have I gotten myself into here?
I have a degree in art, so I probably have a higher tolerance for nudity than the average girl. I had one college teacher in particular who ranted constantly about the difference between "nude" and "nekkid." For him, it was a matter of beauty and artistry versus one of sexuality and seduction.
That being said, most of the nudity I usually see in movies or in photographs falls into the sexual category. And, regardless of the circumstance, I usually find myself disappointed when I hear of another actress doing a nude scene.
Welcome, c-love. I was wondering when you'd start jumping into the conversations 'round here.
a matter of beauty and artistry versus one of sexuality and seduction
I'm not sure I see a real distinction there. Sexuality and seduction can be beautiful and artistic. Or they can be crass and vapid. It's a question of presentation and context, is it not?
I think that the sexual relationship between two characters in a film can be an integral part of a story that has a larger meaning. Of course, sexuality can be depicted without a lot of nudity to a certain extent, but it does make it a little more real. Going back to The End of the Affair and Little Children, I didn't find the nudity in those films objectionable because the relationships depicted in those scenes were an important part of the story that would not have come across as vibrantly if everyone had kept a sheet strategically draped over them -- that's not the way sex usually happens, in my experience, and takes a lot of the realism out of it. (You can tell I don't see too many movies since I can't think of many examples off the top of my head).
Now, I'm mostly thinking of the more critically acclaimed and artistic type of films when I talk about nudity in movies because I don't watch the kind of movies in which the nudity is trashy. As I noted above, I don't watch many movies at all, and the lowbrow aspect of most movies, with or without nudity, is the main reason why.
Thanks, Sandi. That did helped me understand your point better. I'm still thinking about the difference, so I really don't have anything to add. I guess it's one of those hard-to-define things since it has -- to some degree -- to do with individual taste.
JU -- I agree it has to do with manipulation, but when the manipulation involves gender or sexuality...well, it doesn't make it a "worse" kind of manipulation, but I wouldn't say it's a garden variety manipulation. (I'm trying to come up with another type, but I'm so tired -- summer sessions make me get up at 6 in the am -- not a pretty sight, and I wear down quickly.)
C-Love -- glad you weren't scared off by the topic. Specially since you have training in this area.
And, yes, I wrote "did helped" in my last comment. Get over it.
I'm sure you'll do more gooder next time. Six a.m.? They still have that?
I'll wait to see what you come up with re manipulation in a sexual/gender context. I'm not sure where you're headed.
Of course, sexuality can be depicted without a lot of nudity to a certain extent, but it does make it a little more real.
That's what I meant. If the story only needs to convey that 2 people are having a sexual relationship, that can be done without any on-screen nudity. The nudity isn't strictly necessary.
There are other cases, however, where the story (or filmmaker) is trying to tell us something more. I think of Shopgirl, for instance. The nude scene Claire Danes does there doesn't communicate just that she's entering into a sexual relationship; it communicates that she has just made herself completely open and vulnerable as a person at that moment -- in contrast to Steve Martin's character, who remains fully dressed, just as his character declines to open up or make himself vulnerable to her in their relationship, which is what ultimately destroys it.
I don't know that there was another way they could have done that, other than with nudity; much less a way that would've been as effective (and affecting). It was not just appropriate, but necessary.
I'm making this point about necessity largely just as a way of exploring the argument, btw, not because I actually think nudity must or should alway be avoided, even when it's appropriate, unless it's absolutely necessary. I do think, though, that even in good films, nudity is often a shortcut to get the viewer somewhere, story-wise, that better craft would've done better.
Another example just popped into my head: the old Harrison Ford movie, Witness.
There's a scene where the Amish girl (Kelly McGillis) is giving herself a sponge bath, Ford's character sees her through the cracked door, and she sees him looking at her.
In the movie, we actually see Kelly McGillis's breast (IIRC), but we really don't need to. Her reaction to seeing him looking at her naked tells us everything, and is also much more seductive than the glimpse of her breast. The scene actually would've been better without the nudity.
But, at the time, Kelly McGillis was the new young hottie. Men everywhere wanted to see her nekkid, so she and the filmmaker obliged.
Did I kill the discussion?
I don't have much to add here. I think a lot of the nudity in film is just to sell tickets. I understand the argument that nudity can be used to get a point across. But I think that sort of argument raises more questions than it answers for a couple of reasons. One being that it brings up a matter of taste -- of high art verses low art, which is a big debate in itself.
I still think the major problem is when women feel they *have* to do this in order to get their break. If an established actor wants to get nekkid, then it's really not a big deal to me. (I don't watch enough movies to really have an opinion about this, though.)
Plus, the weekend made me forget most of the discussion.
Nudity didn't feature much in your weekend?
it brings up a matter of taste -- of high art verses low art, which is a big debate in itself.
Pshaw. High art rulz. Everybody knows this.
(BTW, it looks like my post title bumped our traffic up a bit. We're getting hits from Finland and Indonesia now. Al, you can start selling ads for . . . whatever both Finns and Indonesians buy.)
~~
I don't think anybody ever addressed the question in my post, which was: does it seem like doing nudity has become more of a rite of passage for young actresses than it's been in the past? It seems to me it has, but I'm wondering if that's just me.
I'm not sure. I don't know enough about movies past or present to give a good answer. It might be the childstar thing you mentioned. Trying to break that idea. But most of them do a pretty good job of establishing that they aren't kids by their lifestylez -- all the partying and whatnot. And the home movies of them having real and actual sex -- not just getting naked.
I really think I've seen one movie since I watched Good Night and Good Luck at your house over Christmas break. No. Two. I've seen two.
I think Finnlanderz buy baseball cards, oddly enough.
I don't know enough about movies to answer that either, JU. I do know that there is a book that chronicles nudity in films -- maybe someone could do a statistical analysis? :)
Well you people are no help.
Post a Comment
<< Home