Nude scenes


OK this isn't serious just food for thought.

In the beginning of the film, when the girl takes off her clothes and dives in the lake, we see her naked. I automatically said to myself "If this was an english film we wouldn't watch the girl's butt but the man's buttocks ... An english director probably would have shot a half second scene with the nude girl diving and then show the man naked in the next scene...

In general, there's more nude scenes in European films than Hollywood, sometimes it serves no purpose. Now my question is this: Why do French movies have more female nude while English films have male nude instead? Is it an english thing that I can't seem to grasp? Is BBFC (british rating agency) to blame?

Your opinions please.

I like Armageddon. A lot.

reply

I can't answer the British part but in France nudity alone is not censored as long as it's not directly related to sex acts. You can show naughty bits on prime time television without trouble. And that includes male parts. I'd say you see less of it for the same reason good looking actresses are more sought after than good looking actors.

reply

Why do French movies have more female nude while English films have male nude instead?
I just don't think I agree with your contention.

There's little doubt that many of the European countries don't quite have the same hang ups about nudity that other countries have.

reply

As an English person I can't say I've noticed that we show male nudity more than female... I think in general the whole of Europe is pretty relaxed about nudity.

As for serving a purpose... well I think the style of European cinema is more inclined to be natural about things. Nudity doesn't have to serve a purpose, if two people are swimming in a lake naked together then a natural camera angle is what you'll get, nudity and all. There's no purposely zooming into the good stuff, or cutting away before a boob or bum appears. It's just as if the camera has been placed there and the characters do their thing, what you see is what naturally appears.

I think that when Americans (or anyone in fact) makes the point "Nudity doesn't serve a purpose" in a film it really shows the difference in viewpoints on the human body. For me it's not about purpose, it's just the evolution to a more natural cinema, which is a style/feel I really enjoy. Take someone like Michael Bay, he may not show bare flesh, but his style is far more gratuitous/unnecessary than simply seeing a penis flop about on screen.

reply

In general, there's more nude scenes in European films than Hollywood, sometimes it serves no purpose.


I've always been mystified by the demand for nudity to "serve a purpose" in films, as if a narrative has to literally hinge on a pair of breasts to justify them appearing on screen.

I find the kinds of clumsy cinematography used in a lot of films to hide nudity entirely distracting. If you're going to show a love scene or something as simple as someone getting out of the shower, why work so hard to obscure their bodies?

reply

As an American who mostly has to put up with Hollyweird and it's strange way of dealing with nudity I was pleasantly surprised to see the actress's butt shown. Usually over here we'll get a quick peek at some breasts followed up by man ass. Our ratings system run by the super secret and corrupt MPAA makes no sense. There are a slew of dick shots in American movies/tv shows and almost never an appearance of an actress displaying vulva. American shows are afraid of female bodies and anything involving vaginas.

I agree with some of the previous posters. When the nudity is natural and the camera angle and the scene just seem to occur in a realistic way it only adds to the authenticity of the movie, and in this movie it did that.

reply