My pet peeve: Actresses who won't do nudity.

[cginok]

Originally Posted by mitch345

Just sat through a pathetic 2 hour borefest in the hope of finally seeing some quality nudity from the lead actress (Emma Rigby). There are a number of supposed sex scenes, and topless photoshoot scene, and an extended outdoor scene where her character is supposedly naked. Yet she delivers nothing. The defining moment was probably when the man she loves returns, after she thinks she'd lost him forever, and they start kissing (I'm sure it was supposed to be passionate but they failed miserably). He pushed her against the wall of the shower where the have sex and she is clearly using one hand to hold her towel up over her breasts. Suspension of disbelief just dies in that moment. Her character is meant to be making mad, passionate love, and she's too concerned about a nip slip to even use both hands. I blame the director for the poor framing, but it sums up how completely wrong this actress was for the role.

But see, that is the beauty of the internet. I can Google her name, or come on VEF, and look at pics of her nude without having to waste 2 hours.

[Gordon3]

Originally Posted by vintage87654

Never saw this movie, but as to the question, who to blame for lame nude/love scenes? Is it the director's fault, or the fault of the actress for making them look so phony?

The absolute worst is when you have a beautiful actress, supposedly alone in her apartment or wherever, and she's in the shower, and she's getting out of the shower, covering herself all the while, and making a mad dash for the nearest towel to get it around her as quickly as possible, I guess before the cat sees her naked.

Most directors, I think, are not going to insist that she slowly step out of the shower and parade around a bit before slipping something on, especially in this day and age. If that actress has the right assets, then it's going to be up to her to insist on displaying those assets.

Well, go back to the 70's & 80's, nudity was no problem, but only after the "Sexual Revolution" (quotes intentional), but before the mainstream-ization of Playboy, other softcore content, and even hardcore, during the 90's. It was almost a political statement, to be nude in a film, during that prior era.

Then, outside of "prestige TV dramas" (again, quotes intentional) worldwide, actresses got real shy, because, I presume, they didn't want to get lumped in with "porn stars". The prestige dramas were strictly for the performers who wanted to shed their clothes to get attention, but to do so in a way that they can claim is "respectable". As they say, "It's not porn, it's HBO."

However, it must be said that nudity on Netflix, HBO, etc., has diminished significantly over the past couple of years. It has become transparent to viewers that a nude scene in the first episode is just a tease to suck them in, after which, no more boobies.

I think there's also a problem with the whole "Mr. Skin" thing. It was one thing when he published a nudity index in 90's. But now that's metastasized into a paid blog where you view pirated clips , all while other clips have voice-overs from this dude who has the creepiest voice ever. A number of softcore actresses have complained about this guy on social media & radio talk shows over the years, so I'm sure that mainstream actresses know about this clown. I think what bugs the actresses is that their body parts have been paused, zoomed in upon, and dissected (figuratively), when the idea was to create a temporary glimpse in the minds of the viewer to draw them in emotionally, and to create a character with a fully realized sexuality.

But go back to the "good old days", even on American broadcast TV, when there was so much sideboob and partially covered and implied nudity. Compare that to now, and you realize that that's something that's been completely gone for years. Attitudes have changed, and not for the better.

It's no longer an "artistic" or a "freedom" thing to be nude on film, it's just a hook for a show or a movie, and the Internet commentariat hasn't helped.

In an ideal world, actresses would allow themselves to reveal themselves naturally, as they once did, and allow the viewer to maintain suspension of disbelief. Even on TV, I rather see an actress' implied nudity, but maintain the sexuality of a scene, rather than use awkward movements in order to stay covered up from a skeleton crew.

But given that softcore is dead, hardcore is dead-end, "prestige" TV is diminishing in style, scope, and volume, Playboy is some weird $25 fashion magazine, and Penthouse is slowly getting rid of crotch shots, it's not hard to imagine a worldwide culture of not just zero female nudity, but zero female sexuality.

[Gordon3]

Originally Posted by imtrying

What bugs me is actresses who won't do nudity in their 20s or 30s but then decide it's brave or empowering or liberating to do it in their 40s and 50s. You just sit there saying to yourself "Man, why didn't she do this ten years ago"?

Better late, than never.

But, while I don't mind the middle-aged actresses taking it off, I have to say it does reek of a once uppity individual hearing the biological clock ticking like a bomb.

[Viklas]

Originally Posted by DTravel

No, they just turned all the lights out. The only way to see anything in that scene is to turn the brightness up so high you get a sunburn from your monitor.

Which reminds me, what did they do to Laura Harring's nethers here?

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Caps From "Mullholland Drive"

No amount of brightness twiddling seems to reveal any detail.

[cginok]

Originally Posted by Gordon3

Better late, than never.

But, while I don't mind the middle-aged actresses taking it off, I have to say it does reek of a once uppity individual hearing the biological clock ticking like a bomb.

It is much like the former child actresses, or ageing actresses, who appeared in Playboy. Nothing more than a desperate attempt to keep their flagging careers going.

[vintage87654]

Originally Posted by Gordon3

It's no longer an "artistic" or a "freedom" thing to be nude on film, it's just a hook for a show or a movie, and the Internet commentariat hasn't helped.

In an ideal world, actresses would allow themselves to reveal themselves naturally, as they once did, and allow the viewer to maintain suspension of disbelief. Even on TV, I rather see an actress' implied nudity, but maintain the sexuality of a scene, rather than use awkward movements in order to stay covered up from a skeleton crew.

But given that softcore is dead, hardcore is dead-end, "prestige" TV is diminishing in style, scope, and volume, Playboy is some weird $25 fashion magazine, and Penthouse is slowly getting rid of crotch shots, it's not hard to imagine a worldwide culture of not just zero female nudity, but zero female sexuality.

Overdone. Overexploited. Over-sensationalized. And just plain badly done. Just like everything else Hollywood. The obligatory nude scene where you have a naked girl suddenly appear on the scene, just to have a naked girl in your movie, but otherwise having nothing to do with the storyline. The obligatory sex scene. It becomes a joke, and what professional actress wants to take her clothes off just to be the "butt" of a joke?

I always say, if you got it, flaunt it, and I mean really flaunt it. Otherwise, you're just making a joke of it. Jane Fonda. The opening scene in Barbarella. My God, does that woman got it, and man does she flaunt it. Brilliant nude scene. No guy who is watching this is laughing; he's too busy drooling. Unfortunately, the vast majority of nude scenes in mainstream cinema are of the cheap, obligatory nude scene variety. It's quite understandable why most professional actresses shrink at the suggestion of appearing nude.

[Gordon3]

Originally Posted by vintage87654

Overdone. Overexploited. Over-sensationalized. And just plain badly done. Just like everything else Hollywood. The obligatory nude scene where you have a naked girl suddenly appear on the scene, just to have a naked girl in your movie, but otherwise having nothing to do with the storyline. The obligatory sex scene. It becomes a joke, and what professional actress wants to take her clothes off just to be the "butt" of a joke?

I always say, if you got it, flaunt it, and I mean really flaunt it. Otherwise, you're just making a joke of it. Jane Fonda. The opening scene in Barbarella. My God, does that woman got it, and man does she flaunt it. Brilliant nude scene. No guy who is watching this is laughing; he's too busy drooling. Unfortunately, the vast majority of nude scenes in mainstream cinema are of the cheap, obligatory nude scene variety. It's quite understandable why most professional actresses shrink at the suggestion of appearing nude.

Thank you for this follow-up, which brings up an interesting point. I have never understood the far too common reaction to random nudity of laughter. Is it a nervous reaction to cognitive dissonance?

But, it's not funny. As previously stated, the nude performer is not a joke.The natural reaction should be happiness or arousal, not nervous laughter, at least if you're even the least bit comfortable with the naked human body.

This reminds me of the cheapness of nudity on TV nowadays and people's strange reaction to it. I find the people gathering in bars, in large crowds, to watch Game of Thrones confusing. Now, I get why people don't want to pay $15/month for HBO, but to voluntarily sit in a large group of people to watch horrifically explicit entertainment, not only pornographic in terms of violence, but pornographic in terms of sexual subject matter (no penetration, but in the past, plenty of exploitative nudity, incest, etc.)???

Not only do I not blame actresses for not getting nude nowadays, but I don't think younger women even understand the concept of being seductive anymore (hence my previous comment), none of whom could even comprehend a performance such as the one given by Fonda, mentioned above.

[vintage87654]

Originally Posted by Gordon3

Thank you for this follow-up, which brings up an interesting point. I have never understood the far too common reaction to random nudity of laughter. Is it a nervous reaction to cognitive dissonance?

But, it's not funny. As previously stated, the nude performer is not a joke.The natural reaction should be happiness or arousal, not nervous laughter, at least if you're even the least bit comfortable with the naked human body.

This reminds me of the cheapness of nudity on TV nowadays and people's strange reaction to it. I find the people gathering in bars, in large crowds, to watch Game of Thrones confusing. Now, I get why people don't want to pay $15/month for HBO, but to voluntarily sit in a large group of people to watch horrifically explicit entertainment, not only pornographic in terms of violence, but pornographic in terms of sexual subject matter (no penetration, but in the past, plenty of exploitative nudity, incest, etc.)???
Not only do I not blame actresses for not getting nude nowadays, but I don't think younger women even understand the concept of being seductive anymore (hence my previous comment), none of whom could even comprehend a performance such as the one given by Fonda, mentioned above.

The whole sex comedy thing, I don't get it either. Hollywood, with its teen sex comedy, or college sex comedy, which is what I grew up with, seemed like a perverse attempt to mock one of our most basic drives. It's emasculating. When your attitude is shaped, or misshapen I should say, by these kinds of art travesties, one can end up like the characters in these awful films: The awkward adolescent male, who just wants to get with a girl, and when he finally gets alone with a girl, he has no idea how to respond. The younger me can relate to these guys crowding into bars to see this kind of pornographic sex and violence, believing that it must be quality entertainment, if so many people are rushing to see it.

Go back to the 50s or 60s, to the days of censorship, when directors had to titillate their audiences, without relying on nudity and explicit sex, and you can see that a lot of it is much more erotic than later films that were filled with nudity and explicit sex. I already mentioned Barbarella. Black Sabbath (1963) is a great erotic film that doesn't rely on nudity or explicit sex. It's actually three short films, with the best one being about a couple of prostitutes who are being stalked by an ex-pimp. They're also involved in a lesbian relationship. An Italian production, but when it got released in America, they had to remove any references to lesbianism and prostitution. Instead, it turned into a story about two women haunted by the ghost of a lover they had double-crossed. But even in the American version, with its toned down sexual innuendos, Michele Mercier, who plays the lead prostitute, just oozes sexuality for the whole length of the short. That kind of seductiveness, like you say, it's a lost art form; an art form that developed when directors couldn't just toss a random nude into the scene.

[Sirch]

Originally Posted by Viklas

Which reminds me, what did they do to Laura Harring's nethers here?



No amount of brightness twiddling seems to reveal any detail.

Clearly blurred in post production.

[Viklas]

I read a story somewhere that when they were casting for "Boogie Nights" they couldn't find anyone who would make a good Rollergirl. One of the producers was having lunch with Heather Graham's agent and expressed this dilemma.

The agent said, "Well, why haven't you asked Heather to audition?"

"Because she doesn't do nude scenes."

"Who said she doesn't do nude scenes??"