Was the PENIS scene necessary?
I think the movie could have been more popular without the PENIS scene and references.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) Discussion > Was the PENIS scene necessary?
[deleted]
it wasn't NECESSARY, but it was HILARIOUS!
shareI see this discussion is a very full one. I have to jump to the end before reviewing all the posts.
Question: Why the hell are some people, men and women, homosexual and heterosexual [natives of the U.S.?] so repelled by the sight of a human penis? Certainly, male genitals are not something one normally sees too often but in a certain likely context (eg this one)...What's the eff'n problem!? [smiles]
Peace,
John Martin, 47
Lifelong Homosexual Man, Born in the U.S.A.
It isn't the sight of the penis but the lack of the sight of the vulva. Why the continual double standard ? And yes, male genitals are shown much more than any type of female frontal nudity. During this past year and the beginniing of this year there were 3 movies which displayed male and female frontal nudity. There was only 1 which featured the female and 7 which featured male genitals only and 2 more on the way. It has become a redundant and disgusting double standard. And in this film you can say all you want but its only purpose was to be gratuitous.
shareNudity in the movies.
The truth is that female human genitals (the vulva) are inside while male human genitals are outside. A mainstream movie can't show a woman's actual genitals in a general way. A lot of men and women still have "a situation" when male genitals are seen for a wide variety of reasons. (Eek! A penis! Eww, gross!)
A woman's breasts are beautiful and they are functional. They do not equate to "genitals," however. And everybody has a butt! [smiles]
Peace, John
[deleted]
"The truth is that female human genitals (the vulva) are inside ..."
You definitely need to look at a biology book closely (or search "vulva" on wikipedia) because the vulva is on the OUTSIDE, not inside. The vaginal canal is only inside, but the vulva consists of the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris/clitoral hood, everything on the OUTSIDE that can be seen.
Geez, I don't know why people in this day and age don't know what the female genitals look like or are called. Maybe there's just too much topless only female nudity in movies. Let's have some more full frontal female nudity in movies instead!
"A mainstream movie can't show a woman's actual genitals in a general way."
Watch "My Bloody Valentine 3D". A woman's genitals where shown in a general way during her 10 mintue full frontal nude scene, and it's a mainstream movie.
[deleted]
Is this even about the presence of the penis anymore? To get back to the point of the OP, it was necessary to Jason Segel. He wrote and starred in the movie, and the event was based off of a personal experience. That really did happen to him, so for him, yes, it was necessary to include. It's not really much deeper than that.
Of course, when you take the public reaction into consideration, it's going to turn into more than that. And there is always that nagging double standard about male/female nudity. But that's too much for this particular issue. Dude got dumped naked. Included it in the movie he wrote. Necessary for him. End of story.
Not end of story! It was put in to be gratutious and that is the only reason although he has apparently convinced many that it was. Then the fact that he did would have been fine if he took into consideration his heterosexual male audience and included some female frontal nudity as well. He purposely didn't and this leads to the discussion on the double standard bias against males in reference to frontal nudity.
shareyeah but if kristen bell or mila kunis did a full frontal scene in the movie there would be the same talk about it being unnecessary, and probably calls of exploitation of females.
the thing is is that it's a judd apatow movie, which are notorious for their crudeness and sex jokes. they wrote a scene where sarah dumps peter and probably thought to themselves, "how can we make this funnier? and shock people a little bit? i know! let's make him naked!" and i think it works great. he's cleaning the apartment coz his girlfriend's coming home, he's just got out of the shower and she's there, he's so comfortable with her that he does a stupid little dance (while naked) and then bam! DUMPED. devastating. being naked sort of adds to the vulnerability of that moment, and that hurt he experiences in that moment fuels the rest of the movie.
and i still think it was funny :)
[deleted]
What is with this country's obsession with censorship and being afraid of body parts?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree there should be an equal amount of male/female nudity - as long as it's called for and necessary. Here, it most certainly wasn't necessary. I'm sure Jason Segel wrote it in for the sole purpose of showing Kristen Bell his penis. That's the only chance he'd ever have in his life, and he took advantage of it.
I'm a straight guy, and seeing a penis in a movie doesn't bother me, make me feel uncomfortable, or insecure in any way. Just like women seeing female nudity doesn't make them question their sexuality, neither does seeng a penis in a film for me. But in this case, it was completely unnecessary. I feel sorry for Kristen Bell having to see that.
_______
"She flattened a Dear John with a John Deere." - Douglas Wambaugh
Completely unneccessary, but still pretty damn funny!
But then again, when is it ever 'neccessary' to show anyone, male or female, naked in a film?
If we can't live together, we're going to die alone.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
If one follows the story line of the movie, the scene is just natural and necessary. Obviously, Peter and Sarah, who have been in a relationship for quite a while, have been sexually intimate so Sarah seeing Pter naked is no deal at all. Peter just came of the shower when lover Sarah came from from work to tell him that he is dumping him. Naturally, he dropped the towel, so the penis scene. What do posters here who are hysterically demanding equal opportunity nudity want to have happened in that scene? That Sarah would take off all her clothes in the same scene just to satisfy the penis-phobic macho men in the audience?
Female nudity scenes in movies still outnumbers male nudity by at least 10 to 1 parity, so I can't figure out where this outcry for equal-oportunity-female nudity is coming from.
Incidentally, if people really wants to see real shots of vaginas in all their glory in movies, all they should do is rent a lot of French movies, like "Romance" and "Anatomy of Hell" by Catherine Breillat. A warning, though: there's also a lot of penis shots, some even erect. A real equal opportunity nudity in a mainstream (French)movie. Go for it.
In American mainstream films there is much more male genital exposure than female genital exposure and that is where the problem lies. This film could have found some place to put in female frontal nudity as well but again chose not to. A pathetic, redundant, and disgusting double standard which continues.
shareIt was totally unnecessary.
shareI am appalled by most of your comments! Boobs and vaginas have been shoved down women's throats in films for over 30 years! I can't believe the "double-standard" exists as much today as it did back then. I really thought we would have matured a little more in society by now. Big deal!!! Get over it, people (men)!
shareTechnically, American films haven't shown vaginas. These films have shown pubic hair in order to cover up the vagina. And as for me, I have absolutely no problem with seeing a man's penis in movies today. But the title of this thread is "Was the PENIS scene necessary?" I don't think it was. There was absolutely no reason to show it, other than Jason Segel saw the opportunity to flash Ms. Bell.
_______
"She flattened a Dear John with a John Deere." - Douglas Wambaugh
Get over it ????? There is much more male frontal nudity in mainstream movies in America, in HBO new series, and in plays. Stop using the old, worn out rhetoric from decades past. It hasn't applied for years. Your comments are nothing more than sexist and a continual ploy by females to derail the fact that there is so little female frontal nudity on display and the fact that there is a definite, disgusting double standard bias towards men. Learn the facts about what is actually happening, at least in movies in America.
shareI don't mind seeing a woman's breasts, but I hate looking at a man's penis. The fact that I'm a straight guy has nothing to do with it. It's just I don't think a penis looks good. It's a disgusting looking organ. Breasts are more smooth, round, fluffy if you will, and just nicer to look at. I know I'm not the only one because 4 of my friends (2 straight guys, a gay guy and a straight girl) and my wife all think that penises are disgusting to look at. The bottom line is I don't think a penis should be shown at all. It clearly wasn't important to the plot or storyline or anything like that. Although, that's not a strong argument because whenever breasts are shown, they're usually not important to the storyline or anything like that either, but I think I made my point.
Your registration? Hurry up, meow!
Then Harvey Keitel's face shouldn't also be shown in movies because it certainly is not good to look at either.
TheGame81 (Sun Mar 8 16:21) said: "[John Martin] definitely need(s) to look a biology book..."
_______
It's true, TheGame81, that "vulva" in Modern English refers more to the labia (cf Mod. Eng. "lips") minora and majora. In older times (Modern Eng. adopted the word from Latin) the word "vulva" refered to the female sexual organs in general without specifying each individual INNER part (eg the clitoris).
I defy anyone to present a man and a woman, standing facing a camera nude, and point out how a woman's clitoris is "outside."
The PENIS scene was OK everybody, dammit! [smiles]
Peace,
John Martin, 47, Homosexual Man
[deleted]
But Zauberer, the comparison was made between a man's penis and a woman's clitoris, not to any other part of her female organs (see earlier posts). And we are also talking in general here. We aren't talking about exceptions with larger-than-normal genitals. A woman's genitals simply aren't as visible (usually!) when she is standing nude as a man's are. Certainly, you can agree with that.
I try never to "[run] off of wrong information." [smiles]
Anyway, the original question of this discussion thread was whether the "penis scene" was necessary (a moot point, of course). An earlier poster got the discussion sidetracked to female parts.
Peace To All,
John Martin, 47, Homosexual Man
[deleted]