I am going to say here that pornographic films like any other medium is acceptable in moderation (I hope so!) The stigma and believed pressures drive many a male insane or to go deeper into their own madness in North America. And another lie is that porn is a diry male pursuit. In fact about 50% [citation needed easy to find] of Women watch porn and then they consume it at a higher rate than men. The hole gender role slant has screwed up society in America (Women is always right in rape situation, men are dirty perverts, Women cannot orgasm without sexual intercourse, Children needed to be protected from everything) There are more examples but I can’t think of any. Its just all confusing. When I goto College in Canada, everything is simple and sexuality is openly discussed and its something to promote intimacy and enjoyed. Sigh I’m going out.
It’s OK if it’s done with taste and restraint, like Salo.
Does anyone recall the sex scene in “Late Marriage?” I remember thinking it was refreshingly realistic and added so much depth to the characters. The movie wasn’t great, but that scene really stuck out for me. I recommend it if you have not seen the movie.
I don’t think there are enough realistic portrayals of anal sex in the movies today.
@BOB FUREM: >It’s OK if it’s done with taste and restraint, like Salo.
I thought the movie was a reflectional on the sadistic nature of humanity. As a shock flick such as Saw it was quite tame. The sex in intimacy’s sense was not tasteful, but in a cinematographic sense it was.
“Enlightened foreigner”… unkind! Really!
Why a foreigner can’t say what he or she thinks?
I love America… but I understand the point of David K.
Pilgrams, at least I believe, had to justify it to themselves that they would eventually run ruffshot over the natives and they did this by dehumanizing them most often by their outward appearances. Not cool pilgrams. Not cool.
I don’t quite understand why you blame the “enlightened foreigner”. David K from the bush tells something that’s quite obvious even to American people.
There is something disturbing in the sex scenes. I remember when I was a kid, I blind folded my eyes when two people kissed each other. In the same way watching a sex scene with somebody else can be disturbing too, because it might be seen wrongly as invitation to love or sex or a good spanking. But if you watch the film alone, as we should maybe watch them (sometimes), a sex scene is not disturbing and America (USofA and Canada) can produce sex scenes in movies that are not pornographical. I think about Cronenberg’s Crash (X-citing), I think about the recent Shortbus. It’s seldom, but it happens.
But I may say that I don’t quit undersant your interest in sex when you talk about Salo. It’s not about sex actually, isnt’it. It’s about domination and sex is a tool of domination, a proof of domination, a way of domination. But in that movie sex iss not connected ot desire, except maybe the power desire. So Salo… clinical sex for a clinical pathology… Don’t think that movie was about beeing nice or beautiful. That movie is about disgusting and only disgusting (and sex is not).
Anyone unwilling to watch sex in cinema does not deserve to watch cinema, the original poster included.
I spent all of Shortbus breathing into a paper bag and lying to myself that I had been through worse. If there’s one thing worse than unpleasant sex, it’s deeply earnest unpleasant sex.
i must admit Rodney that Shortbus is a bit disturbing. But there is a light though. sex as communication. sex as community of strangers. sex as the end of an intimate prison cell. communication is disturbing. strangers are disturbing. cells are disturbing. sex is not. Shortbus is disturbing for the unsexual environment. Sex is there a bound.
Worse? I have seen worse. I have seen hypocrisy.
As long as it’s not just randomly thrown in there for no real reason at all (which is sadly the case for a lot of films), then I see no problem showing a little skin.
Shortbus is disturbing? I don’t get it. Why would anyone go see a movie obviously about sex if they knew it was going to make them hyperventilate? Did 9 Songs make anybody puke? Shortbus isn’t disturbing, Saw 12345678etc…, that’s disturbing. Tim Burton remaking everything, that’s disturbing.
I think “Sex in Movies” has really changed a lot. I remember being a young lad watching a LETHAL WEAPON movie and seeing Mel Gibson mount someone really disturbed me. (as I suppose it would still today).
More and more often sex scene kind of stem from that 80’s action movie aesthetic: lots of steam, rain, fog, smoke. Lots of silhouettes of legs, or chiaroscuro lighting of backs with sheets around them. And who could forget the joy of watching people lick each others throats.
But “Sex in Movies” wasn’t always this way. Shit, watch any Dolemite film and you can see how much fun it is for a) the characters b) the actors themselves and the absolute hilarity of it all. I think,without getting into a psycho-sexual-Cronenberg-ish conversation, the way that a person makes love (has sex, fucks, etc.) another person says a whole lot about who they are.
Think La Motta in Raging Bull or Noodles in Once Upon A Time In America. Sexual acts define who they are in the film. The express emotions that other cinematic acts can’t. But “Hollywood” has ruined all of that. Because the truth is it makes everyone uncomfortable. I turn away whenever I see people making out on the train.
So, yeah, It can be disturbing but equally hilarious (DOLEMITE), sad (CRONENBERG), beautiful (THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING)… but then again so can any other chunk of cinema.
You can only be uncomfortable about sex in the movies if you are already uncomfortable about it in your life.
Think of how much better the world would be if chubby-kids Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove, et. al., had actually gone on dates and “gotten some” as a teenager … as their admitted arch-rival, Bill Clinton, did. And that’s not even bringing in all the religious ridiculousness.
The plots of DOUBLE INDEMNITY, CHINATOWN, MIDNIGHT COWBOY, SUNSET BOULEVARD, BREATHLESS, JOHNNY GUITAR, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL and DOCTOR ZHIVAGO all use sex as a crucial ingrediant.
SHORTBUS, LOLITA, CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, LAST TANGO IN PARIS, and EYES WIDE SHUT are all pure documents of human sexuality.
Are any of these “lesser” masterpieces? Hardly.
If you don’t like it, DON’T SEE IT.
And … to BOB FUREM: I laughed out loud. :+)
Lots of people might be uncomfortable about sex in movies and have perfectly fine sex lives. What’s suitable in private isn’t always appealing in public. It depends on the presentation, the point of view, and to at least some extent whether the actors involved are worth looking at.
There are great movies about sex, like “Last Tango in Paris,” “Blue Velvet,” Cronenburg’s “Crash,” or perhaps “In the Realm of the Senses” and any number of films by Paul Schraeder, such as his remake of “Cat People” — those movies all delve into dark terrain, but they have a higher sensibility to them. “Shortbus” and “Eyes Wide Shut” are embarrassingly awful, one because it’s just tasteless, nasty to look at, and incredibly corny, and one because it’s horribly out of date.
“That’s what I don’t understand about Americans. They are the most sexual society, yet the condemn it in films (yet they love porn) and they see violence to be far more acceptable and normal. Perhaps thats why the rape statistics are higher?”
WTF is this bullshit? Do you anything about the USA (that you didn’t learn from Hollywood or read in a pap pop sociology pamphlet)? seriously? What is this “yet they love porn” nationalist over-generalization? — what school of blind f**king ignorance did you graduate from that qualifies you to make such absurd blanket statements?
I’m not disturbed at all by sex in the movies, as long as people keep their voices down and don’t interrupt the film.
5, you nailed it. That’s exactly what I was responding to. People just parrot the same old cliches they read.
I love sex scenes in movies. They are almost always exciting in the same way as an action scene is at least moderately exciting. I wish there was more sex in movies, and that it was better. Most porn is so awful, and looks nothing like the way real people experience sex, that it is always refreshing to see characters who you half believe and are invested in have emotional passionate sex on screen, as part of the story. I think this is why early porn tried for a while to have plots and acting, but they failed so badly at it that they gave up. All of us have sex, and almost none of us will ever be in a gunfight, or kill someone. Why not make movies about it? Sex is a powerful emotional component of our lives, so when we see it on screen it is impossible to watch it hypothetically (I wonder what that would be like?) Usually sex scenes in movies fail for me when the film doesn’t live up to the sex, not the other way around.
The HBO series Tell Me You Love Me had some of the most graphic and emotionally believable sex scenes put to film in years, and this was a TV show. I also love Catherine Breillat’s work, even though I don’t get her sexual politics, because it is refreshing to see someone with the courage to make movies about sex that are not exactly porn, but not exactly safe either.
I am a fan of sex, on film as in life, but when it fails it is impossible to ignore, and very few film makers, (and almost no pornographers) are up to the challenge these days.
It seems a lot of European films throw in superfluous sex scenes. I don’t mind, except when I’m watching with my mom. I’m all like, “AWK-WARD!”
Goddamn, why are you guys so pissed at the concept of Americans “loving porn”? American porn has been estimated to be a 10 billion dollar industry since the beginning of this century. I don’t know how accurate that is, but it’s been a common statistic coming from major news networks for years. That’s more money than, say, baseball makes. So, if it’s safe to say that Americans love baseball, which I think is a widely accepted generalization (I happen to not like baseball), it’s safe to say that Americans love porn (I’m not big on porn, either).
@5 “WTF is this bullshit? Do you anything about the USA (that you didn’t learn from Hollywood or read in a pap pop sociology pamphlet)? seriously? What is this “yet they love porn” nationalist over-generalization? — what school of blind f**king ignorance did you graduate from that qualifies you to make such absurd blanket statements?”
No actually, I’m not reciprocating what I’ve read, you just seem offended by the statement. Look at the censorship in your country. Sex is often considered to be far worse than pornography. And gay sex is considered to be worse than heterosexual sex. If America is so accepting of sex, then why is this war on porn going on with adult film directors being taken to court for obscenity?
War on Porn → http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/FBI_recruits_for_%22War_on_Porn%22 They are censoring adults having intercorse with adults.
“I’m really trying to understand where you’re coming from, David, but I cannot figure out why you’re so protective of the adult film industry & why you feel Americans are “attacking” it.”
Because its hypocrisy at its best. They love porn, yet in act stringent rules on sex and nudity on the television. For example and R movie in the states is 14A in Canada.
Every heard of the saying? "i hate what your saying but i will die protecting your right to say it "
Sorry, David K, but Wikinews is not exactly a reliable source. And even after reading what you attempted to link to, there are no sources nor is there any valuable information.
I don’t have a problem with people being against porn, but I don’t think porn’s lack of attempting to convey some deep message is a valid knock on the industry. I don’t really think the Date Movie, et al. franchise conveys a deep message yet it’s wildly successful, much to my dismay.
I wouldn’t miss porn if it didn’t exist (I don’t think I would, at least), but I’m not really against it for the same reason I’m not against abortion; it’s a person’s right to have sex on camera if they want. I think prostitution should be legal as well, and federally regulated and taxed. Call me crazy.
I think the U.S., considering our stature in the world, has been pretty goddamn shitty regarding gay and lesbian rights. Gay marriage is legal in the vast majority of northern Europe. It’s mostly, if not completely, legal in Canada. Argentina allows civil unions. Homosexual couples are allowed to adopt children in South Africa!!! but we just banned that possibility in Arkansas. We’re well beyond the curve as far as I’m concerned, and it’s really shitty.
“No actually, I’m not reciprocating what I’ve read, you just seem offended by the statement. Look at the censorship in your country. Sex is often considered to be far worse than pornography. And gay sex is considered to be worse than heterosexual sex. If America is so accepting of sex, then why is this war on porn going on with adult film directors being taken to court for obscenity?”
Oh dear.
David K, I’m obviously far too stupid to be able to convince you of the outright inanity of your nationalistic attack on the fabric of my adopted country (and for the record: I’m actually English, London born and bred, but I have been making films in the USA for a few years and am now a citizen —I am in no way some hard-boiled bald eagle waving the stars and stripes in your face. I am deeply critical of the USA politically, but I like those criticisms to be actually based in fact as opposed to wikinews soundbites. What next? will you be quoting Dr. Seuss at us and berating Americans for degrading the English language?)
I’m guessing that you are a Canuck. I could be wrong. You are something of an enigma. But I’m going to proceed on the basis that you are, on account of you mentioning college and that little quip about R rated US films being only 14A in Canada. If I’m wrong, then what follows is redundant, although it’s interesting.
Before you start throwing yet more self-righteous shit at the fan, I ask you to consider that propaganda is no intellectual substitute for human reality. Sex, sexuality and politics are a minefield the world over.
In May 2008, Young People Fucking, (dir. Martin Gero 2007) screened before an exclusive Ottawa viewing at the World Exchange Plaza. The film set off a controversial debate over Bill C-10, which would grant the Conservative government the “moral authority” to deny tax credits to Canadian productions that it deems “contrary to public policy,” i.e.: “offensive . . . such as anything of an explicit sexual nature, that denigrates a group, or is excessively violent without an educational value.”
To Canadian filmmakers, it’s pure censorship. David Cronenberg (Candian) believes Bill C-10 will destroy filmmakers’ creative freedom and not allow them to produce “edgy dark movies that go places other filmmakers wouldn’t venture.” This would include his film Crash (1996) that was Rated NC-17 for numerous explicit sex scenes including sex in public, sadomasochism, adultery, homosexuality, and sexual violence. Other Canadian films that wouldn’t make the cut would include The Boys of St. Vincent (1993) , John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus (2006) starring Sook, Atom Egoyan’s Exotica (1994), Kissed (1996) a film about a woman who romanticizes death and becomes a necrophiliac as well as Young People Fucking (2007).
Stephen Waddell, national executive director of the actor’s union ACTRA, accused the government of setting up a committee of “morality police” — his question? whether the standards to be applied would be representative of a modern Canadian society or what he calls a ‘fundamentalist perspective’ borrowed from the United States? Behind the charge to “police the morality of Canadian artists” is Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, who thinks it is his job to decide what films contain “dubious content” and whether or not Canadian adults have the right to view what the CFAC deems “perverted movies.” The CFAC is a right-winged “family values” coalition who oppose women’s right to abortion, same-sex marriage and other civil rights granted Canadians under the Charter of Rights. The CFAC would like to turn back the civil right movement, so it seems, and “take back their rightful place… to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored in Canada.”
Recently, George Stroumboulopoulos from the CBC television show, The Hour, interviewed McVety who repeatedly evaded the question: “who determines what is offensive?” In response to this, Mark McKay posted a video, Kill Bill C-10, on YouTube, accusing the Conservative government of trying to play Big Brother and sneak Bill C-10 through the House of Commons-hidden deep within an income tax act-without debate. The Facebook Group, Keep your censoring hands off of Canadian film and TV! No to Bill C-10!, was one of the first groups to lobby against the proposed bill, citing it is undemocratic. Many other critics of the bill agree that it “is not only a violation of our Charter Rights and Freedoms but would most assuredly signal the demise of the film and television industry in Canada.”
WHAT IS BILL C-10?
Bill C-10 is a long, omnibus Bill of technical changes to tax laws; but hidden away in there is a provision that would allow the Heritage Minister to withhold tax credits if a production was considered ‘contrary to public policy’. Many are opposed to this part of the legislation because:
- It is undemocratic: This controversial new provision to screen the content of productions in awarding tax credits was never debated in the House of Commons, because it was hidden away in a long, technical piece of legislation.
- It gives tremendous discretion to the Government of the day to shape the content of Canadian film and TV. Tax credits are a central part of the film and TV funding system in Canada, and C-10 lets the Heritage Minister write (and rewrite) guidelines to determine what gets tax credits. Some believe that the current Government has a moral/religious agenda that they’re looking forward to imposing, but even if this isn’t true, C-10 opens this door to all future Governments.
- It will badly hurt the Canadian film and TV industry: Films and TV programs apply for tax credits late in the game, after scripts have been written and principal photography completed. They use the predictability of tax credits to apply for federal subsidies, loans, and Telefilm Canada grants. With the proposed new guidelines, films and TV programs with even a whiff of controversy will become risky for funders, and artists will be under strong pressure to self-censor. Indeed, all productions will find it more difficult to secure financing due to this uncertainty.
See these discussions for details: http://facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9036150977&topic=4369 and http://ualberta.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9036150977&topic=4388
______________________________
As far as cinema, censorship and human sexuality goes, nobody here has dared to touch the nerve, to pull out the rotten tooth, and crack it open. You really want to debate sex in cinema? You want to talk about porn? OK. But first cut all this crap out where you reduce it to flag waving. Because you sound like a man spoiling for a fight in a bar, not somebody looking to find answers to a question. This is not IMDB or YouTube. You make a blanket statement here, you better be ready to justify and back it up with some serious thought/theory/citations.
“Women is always right in rape situation, men are dirty perverts, Women cannot orgasm without sexual intercourse, Children needed to be protected from everything… There are more examples but I can’t think of any. Its just all confusing.”
Can you explain this more? Are you saying that women are not always right in a “rape situation”? (the very use of the word “situation” as opposed to “assault” is worrying). And that children can emotionally and physically handle adult sexuality? You kind of need to expand on your argument, because right now it appears that you are skirting the edge of deeply ingrained chauvanism…
Is French your first language? reply in French if you want. I get the feeling that some of this ambiguity is mistranslation.
I think that the sex in Nicolas Roeg’s early films is great. Even if the sex is a major part in the story (as in Bad timing) or if it’s not, (like in Don’t look now) Roeg treats it with sensibility and respect.
I have not seen his latest films, like Full body massage, so I can’t really say anything about it.
I found the “amazing”-ness of the rape scene in Irreversible versus the “whatever”-ness of the rape scene in Monster to be slightly off putting as well, but, yeah, I think we deserve a more in-depth explanation of what “women is always right in rape situation” means. I find it hard to believe that there is an explanation for it that isn’t completely shitty. Prove me wrong, please.
Rodney Welch
The pilgrims killed Indians because they were naked and uninhibited? I must have it backwards. I always thought they killed them for their land.