Two words: Paul Verhoeven.
One film: Showgirls.
If a movie doesn't "explain" or "reveal" something new to you, you probably won't consider it a great movie.
Most movies can fall into the trap of pitching their movie as titillation versus explanation just to get the necessary funding to make their movie.
But can sex scenes destroy the movies ability to be "more" than mere titillation?
Does a director reduce their chance to make a great film if it's about the sex? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wonder if the chance for making a great film is reduced the more that sex is featured in the movie.
Two words: Paul Verhoeven.
One film: Showgirls.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe sometimes that's the case. But not always.If a movie doesn't "explain" or "reveal" something new to you, you probably won't consider it a great movie.
I think The West Wing is a great show. Great cast. Great acting. Great dialogue. That's why I watch it. But half the time - I have no idea what they're talking about. I'm really not fine-tuned in America's governmental politics. But the sense of humor on that show keeps me tuning in.
Okay. So it's not a "movie"...
One film that always remember for a good plot, with enough sex in is... The Last Seduction.
Linda Fiorentino's character uses sex as a weapon to get what she wants... without the sex element, there would be no reason to why the male characters would do what they do...
but does it show the sex? and if so did it need to for it to show its a weapon?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">One example of a NO in my opinion: SecretaryPosted by Alex:
But can sex scenes destroy the movies ability to be "more" than mere titillation?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, in a way I think the director does. In film if you can't justify sex being in it, [particularly if the director shows it in detail] then it is pigeonholed as a porno.Posted by Alex:
Does a director reduce their chance to make a great film if it's about the sex?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and...?Originally posted by Untamed Aggression:
Two words: Paul Verhoeven.
One film: Showgirls.
IMO - Showgirls was more about Verhoeven attempting to show excessive unnecessary nudity in a non-sexual manner (touched upon in co-ed shower scenes in both Robocop & Starship Troopers). Been awhile since I watched Showgirls, but only remember one real sex-scene; the black girls rape in the hotel. The rest of the movie was nudity for nuditys sake, non-sexual to the viewing audience.
Fatal Attraction and Flesh&Blood were two Verhoeven films which successfully used sex and nudity as weapons which carried along well in the script.
I don't get all these endless debates about why sex is not shown in mainstream films. Debating why driving a car and eating are shown in films but not sex - duh!!! Those are things that you see for yourself while going about your life every day. Sex is not something you happen to casually see other people doing as you cross the street - it takes place in privacy (mostly anyway). Therefore if it IS shown in a film then that is what becomes the most talked about aspect of the film - it's obvious - either that or as Kev says it's a porno film. At present anyway sex is still fairly taboo and even amongst the most liberal minded a full-on sex scene will get a bit of a reaction.
Seems like a few people here need to just get a bit of leg-over action for themselves (or just have a good wank) - and stop debating about why they can't get to see it in mainstream cinema.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 05, 2003 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Justin M. ]</font>
What about all those teen movies? Porky's, American Pie, etc?
Those were mainly about sex. Although they didn't show any. But I think it can.
I have found my calling.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks