That was pretty gratuitous. She defended it at the time, but I don't know how she feels now. A lot of actresses dilute themselves into thinking nudity isn't gratuitous if it's in a good project. I'm not against nudity, I'm just bein honest.
shareGratuitous:
adjective
uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.
-
It's been many years since I saw this, but I recall Belfort being nervous and unsure about Naomi's intentions after he went home with her. Showcasing herself in the buff was her way of sealing the deal.
Did we necessarily need to see her naked though? Don't get me wrong it was nice but do we need to see someone naked to know they are naked in the scene?
shareYou could infer anything in a movie rather than show it on screen, but that sort of defeats the point of a visual medium.
shareLMAO
shareThere are umpteen examples of inferring rather than outright showing. The "visual" plays on the face of the actors, who react with cosmic dread, unrestrained euphoria, or whatever the scene calls for.
shareThat is still a visual representation, so why not use the other visual instead?
shareFor the same reason you don't show what's in the Pulp Fiction briefcase. This is elementary.
shareπ€£ That is a ridiculous comparison. The mysteryof the contents was an ongoing plot point. The situations aren't remotely the same.
shareIt's a neo-classical MacGuffin -- entirely irrelevant to the story. It does not matter what's inside; all that matters is that everyone wants it. It was not "an ongoing plot point"; it was a running gag.
shareA gag most certainly can be a plot point, the two aren't antonyms. And as you said, it was "running" throughout the movie, meaning it's ambiguity was ongoing and intentional. That's nothing like the scene in WoW, which is why I called it a ridiculous comparison. A point you conveniently ignored.
shareYou're not very good at this whole discussion thing. Like so many others on these fora, it seems like you compensate with tenacity rather than logic. You're also reduced to beating sentences to make them say what you want. While a gag *could* involve a plot point, it's not what's going on here, is it? You're oozing desperation.
As for the point that was "ignored" -- the Pulp Fiction example was never intended to match this film; it was to illustrate a basic principle for why one would choose an expression. Look at the context: I was talking about how filmmakers would want viewers to infer and suggested wildly different emotions (cosmic dread and unrestrained euphoria). As Billy Wilder said, you do not give the audience four. You give them two and two. Why would one have them infer? Because it can just hit a lot harder, as in the case of the Pulp Fiction. Again, this is elementary. All of this ultimately stems from your boneheaded remark that the pussy should be shown *because* film is a "visual medium" when a reaction shot is itself visual.
Everything you said in the beginning of this diatribe could aptly be applied to you. I stopped reading after that.
shareWasn't this Margot's first big role in the USA? She probably did it because she wanted to make a splash.
shareShe probably wanted to work with Scorsese because it would be good for her career that she just did whatever he told her to without question
shareOf course... it was the same reason all the actresses were giving Harvey blow jobs. But then if they didn't get Oscar nominations or their career didn't take off they started yammering they were raped. I'm sure if Wolf of Wall Street had been a flop we would have heard Robbie bitching about being forced to go nude and how violated she felt.
shareWELL...ARENT YOU A π
sharetruth bomb
shareMartin Scorsese never told her to go full nude. This is from the movie's trivia:
Originally, Martin Scorsese offered Margot Robbie to appear wearing a bathrobe during the seduction scene between her and Leonardo DiCaprio. Robbie refused and insisted on doing the scene fully nude; her first in her career. According to Robbie: "The whole point of Naomi is that her body is her only form of currency in this world...She has to be naked. She's laying her cards on the table." Robbie said she had three shots of tequila in succession before shooting the scene to relax. After shooting was complete, Robbie initially fibbed to her family and friends about actually doing the nude scene in order to delay any personal repercussions; claiming C.G.I. was used to superimpose her head on a body-double. She eventually changed her mind and confessed when the film was released.share
The idea is she was some sort of perfect 10 - the epitome of every man's desire. She was to be what would finally break Jordan from whatever decency he held onto - his marriage, his last bit of decorum, his morals.
The best way to articulate it was to show her that way, in that light, in the doorway. She was the temptress that bought him down to hell. I thought it was perfect.
Exactly and it is not like it was a film trying to be moral family entertainment anyway.
shareA perfect 10. Bo did a great job. I think Margot might have surpassed her to 11
shareOften -- though less often nowadays -- actresses have done nude scenes to "launch" their careers...then slowly backing away as their careers become more serious.
Exhibit A: Sharon Stone.
Exhibit B: Kathleen Turner.
Exhibit C: Julianne Moore.
So it was with Margot Robbie.
To me the weird thing is that, since Robbie did this when she was fairly new and not a "household name and a household face" to go BACK and see her that way given how familiar we are with her now -- seems invasive.
Not Kate Winslet tho!
shareOn the subject of whether or not she regrets this role now: I do know she shaded Suicide Squad's male-gazey version of Harley Quinn during the promotion for Birds of Prey. TWOWS is far worse than SS in that regard. But Like I said, I'm not against this stuff, I just find the psychology fascinating.
shareShe defended it at the time, but I don't know how she feels now
I think it has to be a nude scene for it to make an impact. I don't think any other way could make the same point. Nudity might offend some people, but it reflected what fueled the excess of the wall street, the sex and drug culture.
shareI enjoy seeing nekkid wimmin just as much as the next straight guy, but it's not necessary. There was no nudity in movies for forty years, up to the late '60s, and yet every situation and emotion was conveyed very effectively. Adding nudity doesn't improve anything, in spite of the fact that it's nice to see.
shareIt's a movie about excess.
share