MovieChat Forums > The Last Picture Show (1971) Discussion > crappy sex scenes

crappy sex scenes

posted 18 years ago by tallard
24 replies | jump to latest

some of the written comments mentioned crappy sex scenes and and I first thought they were written by prudes or by people looking for sex... But it turns out, the sex scenes were really really crappily done. I mean the guys just lay on the girls and play dead. Dang, that was 1971, people were doing normal sex scenes back then, even if they didn't show skin, they at least could show some passion and emotion. These scenes were just terrible. Plenty of skin, no doubt about it, but complete lack of emotion.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] texasgrrl15 18 years ago

i wonder why they did them like that like if there was a reason for it. i'm sure that they wouldnt be that bad by accident

[–] mcdonell-benj 18 years ago

my explanation to why you think the sex scenes are "crappy" is because they are so realistic. remember, many of the scenes are teenage kids having sex for the first time - the build-up is intense and exciting and the actual sex is awkward and short.

as for no emotion, you MUST be forgetting the scene between ruth and sonny, when she cries. that scene was brilliant and touching.

I guess this isn't your typical hollywood sensationalised sex, rather a more realistic portrayal of teens coming of age in a small texas town.

The realism makes these scenes not crappy but brilliant in their frankness and understanding of human life.

[–] tallard 18 years ago

Well the movie just finished now... the sex scene on the pool table was with a grown man and it was portrayed in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as with the younger men.

You mention the build up is intense and exciting, wow, it's like we watched a different movie.

As for the tear moment, that was just one moment, no emotion before, no emotion after.

You seem to think I'm comparing to "typical Hollywood" films, I'm not into those, I watch as much indie and foreign as I can find. Anyway "typical Hollywood" movies have NO SEX in them. My boss at the indie theatre I worked at 5 years used to say of Hollywood movies: "I wonder how Americans make children cuz they go to bed with their clothes on and then it's the next morning" LOL.

Certainly the single major thing that stands out in this movie is the incredible cinematography and atmosphere, those are undeniable, acting was also very good. But the script... eeeee

It just seems as though the sexuality was a counter current in the film, as if the director had real issues with the subject that should have been left in his private life. It had a very political propaganda feel of "SEX IS SIN", "stupid kid molests little girl", "fat brunette whore", "decadent bourgeois necked in pool", "she-devil lures men", "desperate old cradle robber". Truly unpleasant, and truthfully, frankly : MISOGYNIST.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

[–] mcdonell-benj 18 years ago

I disagree with your thoughts about the political propaganda stuff with 'sex is sin' and all that. The film was set in the 50's, and there WAS a vibe of sex being a sin, but i feel it reflected the attitudes of the time- frowned upon but everyone's still doing it.

I agree that the movie was VERY mysogynistic, but again i feel that it was used in a way to condemn the chauvanist ideals of the fifties, and effectively at that. Look at the vulgarity of the pool table scene when the older man treats jaycee like she's just an object and then drops her off at home without even a good-bye.

When i mentioned the 'build-up' I wasn't talking about any kind of passionate foreplay but rather the rapidity and lust and eagerness before the sex takes place.

And yeah, typical hollywood films don't have much sex in them, that was poor wording on my part.

[–] Kompressor_Fan 13 years ago

Tallard is probably just a kid.

The sex scenes, and the attitude/atmosphere, are on target for the story and the time it was set. Let me add.....being as how I read the book some time back....that the film is a very faithful rendition of the book.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paleolith 9 years ago

my explanation to why you think the sex scenes are "crappy" is because they are so realistic.

Well stated. Or even more succinctly, the sex scenes are crappy because the sex was crappy. When it involved Jacy, it was manipulative.

Edward

[–] miranda-109 16 years ago

I think the seeming coldness of the sex scenes is really about how emotionally shut down these people are, and how terrified they are of showing any genuine feelings. In that awful little town, they don't have any avenues for displaying anything creative, sensual, or passionate. Everyone is just stunted, depressed, bland, conformistic.

So when it comes to sex, the fact that they're doing it at all is the simple miracle of life. Like grass growing up through concrete. That it does at all is a testament to the plant's life force. It's amazing enough as it is, so we are not terribly surprised if the first shoots of that grass are pale and ugly.

I grew up among people a bit like this, and I well remember the social pressure to act dead. Anyone who showed anything genuine about themselves would be heartlessly ridiculed. In the 1950's, in a tiny little town like that, Dr. Ruth and Dan Savage were a long, long way away!

[–] kspilman 16 years ago

I couldn't have possibly said it better. You said what I was thinking so articulately, beautiful post.

[–] netshopper-2 16 years ago

The sex scenes matched the era, location and characters of the film. I imagine that any sex scenes between Lois and her lover would have been spicier but they were not shown.

[–] Moon_and_New_York_City 15 years ago

"Crappy sex scenes"?!? ummm... that was kinda the point of the whole film. sorry you missed it.

"the best that you can do is fall in love"

[–] dain_bramaged_926 15 years ago

I thought the sex scenes were kind of absurd. I mean, I have had some not-so-great sex in my life, but nothing ever as bleak and lifeless as that! Even my first time I was more animated than those people.

I get the feeling you're violating somebody's basic human rights here...

[–] edwardoyle 15 years ago

Um, that was the point. For example, Dwayne has problems getting excited over Jacy because deep down he knows she's a manipulating bitch and he doesn't love her half as much as he wishes he did.

[–] thegr8defender 15 years ago

Exactly - that was the entire point and if you missed it, you missed a large chunk at the heart of the film.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] longcooljolie 13 years ago

The best post on this thread was made by Miranda-109 who eloquently pointed out that the stilted, awkward sex was a reflection of the town, the people, and the time.

Sonny and Ruth's first time in that horrible squeaky bed was a brilliant scene, especially how Ruth cried. A whole lifetime of anguish came tumbling out, but there was also joy and fear about how the bed squeaks broadcast their romance to the entire town.

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

My only difficulty with the sex scenes was with the reaction of a couople of women in my movie group....Some are quite a bit older than me by 10 or even 15 years and didn't grow up seeing sex and nudity on the screen and still have trouble dealing with it.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] lightningcows 12 years ago

...I don't think that Duane had any problems getting excited over Jacy. When he was unbuttoning her clothes, the expression on his face as though he has just seen paradise was a fairly clear indication that he was excited. Rather, he wasn't able to "perform" probably because he was nervous. It may have been his "first time" as well.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

They were that way because a) they featured inexperienced school boys or b) they were supposed to be joyless, much like the entire small town life. Certainly more "normal" or realistic though than the furious humping seen in something like Basic Instinct, Showgirls or any number of more modern "erotic thrillers".

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] HSauer 10 years ago

I think the sex scenes were uninspiring because these characters were having really uninspiring sex. It fits the story that all the sex scenes you see in the film are unsatisfactory to the participants.

[–] JohnM_99 9 years ago

It was lifeless because the director wanted portray how lifeless the town and its people are.

However, I challenge anybody to maintain that blank look, while somebody's genital is touching yours. That was waaaay over the top, along with all the other portrayals in this movie about this depressing town.

The director (a NYCer who probably hates the country-side small towns), really wanted to bring his points home (by badgering audiences' head with them), but instead the movie ended up comically unrealistic and cliched, IMO.