MovieChat Forums > Spread (2009) Discussion > Kutcher and directors missed a prime opp...

Kutcher and directors missed a prime opportunity for male nudity

posted 15 years ago by holmswede
15 replies | jump to latest

Why is it that the "Nudity" in ratings is invariably a definition about the women? "Spread" had plenty of nudity with T and A, but even with all that, the scenes were only coy and trite and headed toward boring. Most European-made films are more honest when they portray sexuality, as they include some full frontal nudity, when the filmmakers bother including nudity/sex at all. The Europeans have succeeded with not lingering on it, just be honest AND artistic in how it's presented. That is, NOT just in the pole-dancing scenes or copulating scenes (that latter instance would make seeing MORE anatomy into just pornography, so creativity is called for).

More nudity for the men, beyond what we would see on a warm day in the park, is what would take a movie which is treating the subject of sex or sexuality into braver and edgier geography. That's what I was expecting in "Spread" as it moved along--it started on that path, but then just repeated some tried-and-true moving diagrams on sexual positions. Were the characters even enjoying their activity?

A guy's bare chest and even a bare ass is NOT nudity, it's just socially accepted dermatological anatomy. Ya get more appreciation from art in the Vatican, for pity's sake, than "Spread" was allowed to spread.

Come on, let's admit that guys have specific anatomy below their hip bones as well and it's OKAY to put it on film and enjoy the beauty in BEING human. That's the magic of film AND acting--SEEing the character develop is believing!

When men are treated as equally as women in intimate and sex scenes, then we can feel that both women AND men are liberated to be human.

The filmmakers SHOWED us they knew how sex happens and started a brief Kamasutra to try to prove it in "Spread," but they forgot to verify in the scenes that it was two whole persons going through those motions. Cripes, they could just as well have shot those scenes with a G.I.Joe doll and a Barbie from the way they treated it....

I'm not asking for porn here, (though this film made a point about --disguised-- penetration), just the opportunity to see the beautiful people they hired being and doing beautiful work.

The same with the narcissism scenes, in the mirror and the others when Nikki was walking around "the house" or floating or swimming in the pool--as if any young guy alone, given the slightest opportunity, would have done ANY of that wearing jeans or trunks...! (If they wanted a coy kind of foreplay to it, when they showed Nikki diving into the pool wearing the trunks and emerging shoulders-only-revealed in front of his nice poolside breakfast, he could have slapped the trunks on the pool curb before he took that first bite. Just as if guys wear pajamas to bed these days--or ever--then this scene turns into a "breakfast-in-bed" inference that the just-described scene could become IF his trunks came off.)

As long as "Spread's" Samantha brought it up and Nikki finally defends himself during her final tirade scene, why doesn't the audience get to decide whether he's six or seven? (The opportunity to "illustrate" that fact/opinion would have been there in any of Nikki's many previous only-nearly nude scenes or Nikki-and-Samantha's carnal scenes or even that coy "football game" scene. The latter scene was so pitifully shot that it further emasculated Nikki into just a G.I.Joe doll.)

The costuming choices certainly didn't allow for enough "revelation" for anyone to decide if Nikki's arguable six-or-seven package could be determined--though even I found myself copping a look in several medium shots of Nikki after that. None of those jeans or briefs Nikki wore revealed any hint of his masculinity or size.

We could see by looking at his face that Samantha was wrong about Nikki's "looks are going," so why were we left dangling about her other review of Nikki's purported male size assets? Or was that scene and dialogue supposed to be "symbolic" of Samantha only being angry and spiteful? That doesn't work as an answer, because his response was only a weak defense of his male pride, since we had nothing to go on visually to validate him and to understand Samantha as being spiteful and wanting to hurt him.

Or were they just trying to be "comic" with that bit of almost DIALOG? Well, the writers ALMOST made the grade with that. But very weak and not worth it for comic value. That would have worked better if we KNEW from previous scenes that she was right. As it was, we only saw him as vainly weak, not comic.

Well then, what is the deal with timid male nudity in American films? Why is it okay to show flaccidly impressive biceps or clean-shaven pectorals and abs but not just as okay to be explicit with genitalia (aroused or flaccid, clean or naturally hirsute, the latter being another topic brought up in Nikki's narration)? This movie earned an "R" rating through its other dialog and anatomical portrayals, so why was it so fearful about full male nudity?

Is it that the filmmakers are predominantly male and don't want either themselves or their purported male audience members feeling they can't measure up to what they might see on the big screen? Come on, boys, you can do better than that. If it's done with some artistry, why can it not be acceptable and even desirable and at least NORMAL? Has any movie ever tried?

Such artistry of the nude is enshrined in places as HOLY as the Vatican, as I mentioned, and in many other art forms through most of (preserved) human history, so why is our predominant modern art form (that is, movies) skipping the opportunity to prove itself to be equally as artistic with the human form, both female and male, rather than just exploitative?

The artistry would be in making the nude acceptable AND casually but happily human rather than threatening to someone's fragile male ego/vanity. (Aren't we past that stage of adult development yet?) It doesn't have to be porn, simply art celebrating the human form, both male and female, even being female and male together. It doesn't have to be the theme of the movie, but it can contribute as one of many well done elements that contribute visually to the themes of the story.

Filmmakers strive so hard to prove that sex is a natural act amongst people when they include sex in the movies. If movies want to portray sex as part of the human condition in their story telling, why not film it with portraying fully functional human beings rather than sexless life-sized dolls going through some motions?

Note to Filmmakers: Give us fully functioning adults in your audience something to enjoy as we view and hear the art of the screen, rather than pandering to the cheering and jeering naughty boys who are sneaking peeks (or paying to sneak peeks). Again, I'm not saying you NEED to provide a sex manual, but if you're going to include sexuality, then do it with the whole human and show some artistic creativity about it, not just going through the trite litany of well-versed scenes that make up the history of sex-in-American-film to date. For example, finally fully nude foreplay scenes can be creative on film...and rather than lying-under-the-sheets-and-smoking-after-coitus, seeing post-coital nudity could get creative as well. Just a couple of suggestions on directions to explore.

Or just skip the whole "obligatory" sex scene with some creative visual metaphor instead...and leave the "R" rating to the pitifully repeated "F" word.

Further, in "Spread" the filmmakers paid very beautiful people to be in the picture (that was in the narrative theme, said in so many words in "Spread's" introductory scene), so why did they stop at some "daring" masculine waistline while portraying a Nikki who was supposed to be "daring" while challenging the cultural norms of masculine behavior?

Beauty is more than skin deep, as the saying goes, and that cliché can be just as well paraphrased as 'beauty is lower than the navel.' To the makers of "Spread," you have brought us the beautiful people on screen and if you're gonna get them undressed and active for some worthwhile reason, then stop being foolishly coy and let us enjoy all of the beauty in the process.

Or am I being naïve? Is there some "industry" standard that prevents such human portrayals? Well, then, maybe a brave, admittedly creative filmmaker/group needs to challenge that standard, as many other brave hearts have challenged other "industry standards" that have proven to be merely cultural cowardice. Otherwise, on the historical perspective, we are just children at play.

Do better than the almost-daring full-frontal drive-by that was tried ONCE in "The Piano" and then abandoned with some tail-between-the-legs hurt feelings of the industry's decision-makers. Know what you're doing first. Then proceed with some (sensitive?) creativity in an intimate scene. Or a montage of male and/or female beauty or individuality--whether it leads to a sex act or not. That would be daring, too, eh? Would we not be much more sympathetic to characters developed as whole beings, rather than trite dolls of almost nakedness.

Or skip the sex scene altogether, etc., etc.... (You'll need MUCH BETTER dialog if you take that direction for a movie treating the major themes of "Spread"....)

[–] Indie_Mod 15 years ago

Most filmmakers would side with you on this -- it wouldn't surprise me if the director of Spread would've prefered a more honest approach to it (even though I hated this movie). The MPAA is so skiddish and ridiculous on what they censor. A movie like Spread which is meant to be a drama has a more difficult time getting the approval to show a penis in this context than a comedy. A ton of comedies in '08 and '09 seemed to jump on the dickwagon--so many of them had full-frontal nudity.

The MPAA are so weird about their rules, they often seem arbitrary. Directors and writers tend to really hate the rating system since there barely seems to be much of a system at all. There are times where movies seem to get past their rules, but I'm not sure how that happens. It would be better if they had their freedom to direct and film whatever they felt was best, but they'll 9/10 get censored.

[–] holmswede 15 years ago

Yes, about in the middle of all that, I thought I was being naïve with all my "reasoning" and hoping for better productions. If I had studied earlier about the MPAA I wouldn't have spouted off so much. Oh, well, it's how I feel about the subject, untouched by the policies of the MPAA.

Thanks for your comments, Indie Mod....

So...is it overt censoring that the MPAA does? I'm curious about how it might work.

I don't get to see as many movies as I would like, more's the pity, so I don't know about the pictures you're referring to, the comedies of '08 and '09 which jumped on "the dickwagon." Now I'm curious about what kind of job they did. To see what was "acceptable" to the MPAA and all.... Could you name a few of them?

Sorry to hear you hated "Spread." That is, I'm sorry that "Spread" was so hateable. I didn't like it much, but it had a few interesting scenes that held some promise. However the piece didn't hold together and had even more "stinker" scenes. Too bad and sad, with all those beautiful people in it, that it went along so miserably in big chunks and as a whole.

[–] Indie_Mod 15 years ago

Hate may have been too strong of a word. I don't think it was a good movie, but I didn't hate it--just didn't care much for it.

The comedies of '08 and '09 (and some '07) that showed male frontal nudity were (from what I remember):
-Forgetting Sarah Marshall
-Bruno
-Dewey Cox
-Observe and Report
-The Hangover
-Sex Drive (I think)
-Zack and Miri make a Porno

It's hard to define the MPAA's censoring methods. They just seem to random and strange. For example, in the Bad News Bears remake in '05, Billy Bob Thornton's character, who was an alcaholic, drank beer mixed with hard liquor. Originally, he would pour hard liquor into an alcaholic beer can--the MPAA said no if they wanted to keep a PG-13 rating. However, they said it was ok to pour hard liquor into a non-alcaholic beer. That's what saved it from being R.

Zack and Miri should have actually been NC-17, but Kevin Smith cited other R-rated movies that did what the MPAA wanted to kick out. Since he did that, they waved some of their rules and allowed him to keep an R rating. I think part of it was because of the thrusting in the sex scenes. The MPAA, in theory, only permits so much thrusting in a film, as weird as that sounds. I think Jody Hill also cited R rated movies to the MPAA for Observe and Report, which was originally deemed too dark for R-Rating.

They've had weird rules for a long time though. Taxi Driver was going to get an X-rating (NC-17 took X's place in the 90's) until the shoot-out scene's colors were muted--the colors were originally deemed too violent.

The MPAA is always on everyone's cases. Too many directors to name that have had to hold back on little things just to avoid NC-17s/Xs.

[–] holmswede 15 years ago

Thanks, Indie_Mod, for your reply and insights. You are very helpful and patient with those of us who are bumbling along and trying to "figure it out."

I don't suppose the MPAA's job is very easy, but then it makes its job more complicated and inconsistent as it goes along. Dare I say, it makes up rules as it goes, just so it can break those rules and make up new ones, ad infinitum, ad nauseum? Maybe that's not the intent of the MPAA, but it has grown to be the perceived effect.

Your discussion of the "thrusting rule" leads me to think about the "evolution" of how often the F-word can be used in a movie before it gets an R-rating.... What is it up to now? Twice used is the current maximum, if I recall correctly, perhaps once in combination with other "objectionable" elements, to keep a PG-13 rating. In DVD commentary, I have heard actors and directors remark on how they would PLAN out how and where to use the word for their allowed quota.

Thanks also, for your list of movies with male full frontal nudity, Indie_Mod. I have not seen any of them, which would explain how I missed those scenes. Can I assume that these comedies might also feature female full frontal nudity as well? In another discussion board for "Spread," someone was complaining about the lack of female full frontal nudity as well.... Although I thought "Spread" got much closer to that edge than it had with male full frontal nudity.

When I watched how "Spread" developed, it was so clear that the filmmakers were taking great and painful care to avoid full frontal nudity and it made the movie all the more painful to watch. Every time a scene led up to the view and then cut away, I could hear the viewers saying, "Aw, come on!" in disappointment and regret. The same with other elements of the story, to be sure. That's what made the movie disappointing and downright unlikeable: in making such compromises it fell far short of the potentials it initiated to be better. Instead, we were abused by thrusting and pole dances that just dropped in and out with token themes....

[–] Indie_Mod 15 years ago

No problem.

Some of the movies that had male frontal nudity did have female frontal also, but not all of them--actually, only a couple of them did. Most of them did not. Male frontal is sort of the new R rated joke. It used to be funny when they showed the butt shot, but this has become overdone. Since it is now a bit more shocking to show a dick on the contexts that they do, it often gets more laughs. Judd Apatow himself said (and I'm paraphrasing): "I want to help America get over its fear of the penis."

Regarding the F bomb for PG-13s, one or two times sounds right for limitations, but it's not just quantity but also context. For example, in a PG-13 rated movie, they CAN say "F4ck you!" but they CANNOT say "Let's F4ck." They CAN say "What a F4cking mess." but they CANNOT say "He F4cked her." If it is used in the literal sense, then the MPAA will say no.

There's, supposedly, a dark side to the MPAA's motives of being established by Jack Valenti. He was a lobbyist durring the LBJ administration. I don't know the story behind it and I don't know if I side with it or not since I'm not too familiar with it, but based on their rules which do in fact seem like they are just making them up as they go along, would make me inclined to believe their could be a dark side to it.

[–] holmswede 15 years ago

Thank you, again, Indie_Mod. This has been a very enlightening discussion, for me, anyway. Your insights and frankness have been helpful.

I have some personal sensitivity to the F-bomb since so many folks in my (admittedly conservative) family are very touchy about such vulgarity...so they often keep count when they hear it in movies and comment on it endlessly. And yes, I had noticed also that the literal use is not present in PG-13 movies, only the expletive and usually when uttered in anger. So I watch the R-rated flicks alone, where the "F4cking" flies freely, because I'm more used to it since I work around even rougher language on a daily basis.

Anyways, I'm curious about the "dark side to the MPAA" being connected to Jack Valenti's long reign, to which you referred. I really don't know much about Valenti's politics or character, just familiar with his name is all.

My original essay above touched on one of the reasons I see or hear comments about America's prudishness and penis fear. It seems to me that guys are great for wanting to see, and will pay to see, pussy, but get all uncomfortable about seeing dicks and balls and certainly don't like to pay for it in theaters or on any kind of screen. They seem to get over this aversion as the movie goes on, I notice, and then forget about it all together.

And men-and-boys' predilection for pussy-peaking is always in the context of sex or sexual inferences, rather than in any appreciation of human beauty. Which then accounts for the aversion to male genitalia on screen or otherwise, since guys generally don't have a sexual attraction to other guys' penises. So it seems that many in the film industry--filmmakers and censors--are satisfied to let such preferences against penis depiction stand, let human form for itself or beauty be damned, despite other parts of the audience who would be fine with seeing more.

The comments I hear sometimes reveal that guys also don't want to be in the position of measuring up to the penis they might see on the screen--which is bigger-than-life in a theater, and so can be threatening to their egos, etc. I've seen movies themselves (and even t.v. such as "Nip and Tuck") joke about this very phenomenon during locker-room shower scenes. Not necessarily that the dick on the big screen is bigger than mine, but that the man on the screen (or in the locker room) has a smaller/bigger dick than me....

Size obsession. What's up with that? It's the same obsession for the other gender, when guys prefer actresses with tits that are bigger (than what?) too.

How is it that bigger is better for them? Bigger balloons always pop because they always get bigger.... For example, the bigger muscles on competitive body builders borders on and goes over the line of hideous, which is taking "bigger" into the extreme, I admit. And somehow, the line gets drawn when bigger-size is applied to asses.... Hmmm....

This bigger-better business seems also to be an American or American-inspired obsession, from what I can tell, as more ancient cultures did not seem to record a "bigger is better" trend in their artwork that has survived. (I'll admit, some priapic art heads that direction, but it seems to be out of the normal aesthetic range for ancient artwork as a whole.) Guys: the world is such a bigger place than that!

Further on the silliness of size obsession, regarding penises in particular, there is the constant "shrinkage" factor, as a few "Seinfeld" episodes brought up and labeled, albeit as a way to snicker at particular situations. Depending on the conditions, a man's size is always in flux throughout the day and night and across all the temperature, activity, arousal and threat circumstances he encounters. Why should any of us then be ashamed or defensive if some guy on a movie screen SEEMS bigger than us at that particular moment?

Why the constant preoccupation with comparison? How did we let ourselves get talked into that? And then miss all the opportunities to celebrate the beauty of the human form--male and female--because some guys "don't want to see if he's bigger than me?"

Come on, guys, lighten up! As the attempted joke in "Spread" revealed, 6 or 7 is only a number, subject to argument even at that, and it certainly does not indicate any kind of relevant quality and seems best used as a tool against a man. (For example, when and in what condition was "Spread's" Nikki in when the purported measurement was noted? See? It just can't be relevant....)

As far as I can see it, as long as the American "dick wagon," as Indi_Mod referred to it earlier above, remains hitched soley to comedies and lightly treated sex in movies, it seems that the American film phallic fear will continue to linger on and spoil otherwise promising movies that take steps toward more honest treatment of our holistic human condition--whether in comedies or drama. Would that it were not so!

[–] Indie_Mod 15 years ago

Haha, you went on quite a rant about the guy's fear of the dick. You're probably mostly right about that--I think America is overtly homophobic. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud to be American and can get pretty patriotic, but I unfortunately, we're a bit too prudish/homophobic/immature when it comes to sexuality.

Nudity doesn't bother me very much. I don't know if it was spending a year in art school, Johns Hopkins since it's so heavily medical oriented, or the fact that my fiancee is from Spain. I don't see what the big deal is. However, that doesn't mean I don't get the humor of the penis shot in comedies--I get it. I think it's funny. Call me immature, it can be funny at times.

If you're interested in knowing more about the MPAA, check out a documentary called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." It's about the history of the MPAA and it's censoring. If you have Netflix, it's on instant play.

[–] holmswede 15 years ago

Yes, Indie_Mod, it turned into a rant...again. Sorry. Hard to slow down after I got started and I kept adding to it....

You are right about Americans being homophobic, though many of us seem to perceive that it is illogical (or perhaps just ill) and try all sorts of routes to overcome it. Others head the other direction and reinforce it with all kinds of emotion and even violence. Others just ignore it and move on, not much worried about it one way or the other and hardly realize it even when it confronts us on specific occasions. And many fall in between any of these pigeon-hole categories.

Although I do not have any formal training in art, as Indie_Mod has, I have always tried to appreciate artworks and even took a college level course (oooh!) once to upgrade my sensibilities. But, no talent. However I enjoy art and WISH I had some talent and so I keep looking and listening and watching, trying to sense the many forms. But still an admitted amateur.

My searching is perhaps why I don't fit into this American homophobia, despite being born and bred in America's West. I appreciate (I wish I knew a better word for it) the human form both male and female and expect to find beauty in those human forms whenever artwork is presented or available and treats the human as subject (not necessarily the object). I expect art and artistry in movies, which have become one of America's predominant art forms, if not the predominant form. The story element of movies add much to the other rich arts combined to make a film. Even politics.

In this search of art and movies, dishonesty in the production of movies is irritating to me. Such as when a movie starts along a subject and then chickens out: what happened in "Spread" and with so MANY other movies. That cannot be called editing. No, such dishonesty or cowardice is, as Indie_Mod has referred to it, called censorship OR maybe it's laziness--maybe both?

In the case of "Spread," as we have discussed, there was enough nudity to illustrate the thrusting and positioning of sex, but it amounted to a tease for titillation and only tiny minimum for the story telling and we only got a glamor-magazine's equivalent for the human forms that were involved. Chicken s**t, one way or the other. And so, long before it ended, "Spread" thinned out into a mockery.

If a movie is going to tell a story that includes nudity OR sexuality, it should creatively follow it, whether it's message is comic or dramatic. So far it seems, the comic is the more successful in movies where nudity is concerned and even perhaps sexuality. These are features of our humanity and so should not be censored or even confused with each other. Dramatic presentation is getting the lightest treatment in the movies while comedy is gets the heavier, and that's an unfortunate irony.

It's a big wide world out there and movies are yet young in it. We humans have a long way to go in using it as art to express our human-ness. We each have too little time in a life to be homophobic about it.

I realize there is lots of money involved in movie-making, on both sides of the ledger (that is, cost and profit). And this drives the engine of the industry as much as anything else--except that there would be no money involved either unless the audience WANTS the entertainment and the art, giving the audience the willpower to pay. The monetary value comes from the audience investing (paying) to have the presentation made. But the value must be greater than that for the audience. (Oh, I know it's more complicated than that, but in the end, that's the source of the money, eh?)

The talents and resources of the artists must be greater than the money they receive to produce what the audience wants and pays to reinvest in further production. Otherwise, the only "profit" is on one side and disappointing for the audience, which will go elsewhere, voting with their feet, so to speak.

When a movie cheapens out artistically, as happened with "Spread," the art fades and so does the audience. Manipulating the money is a political maneuver and that is where the MPAA, as the policy maker AND judge, is itself manipulated, call it what you will. The art form suffers when the policy is censorship and the audience will turn elsewhere.

I suppose this can explain the rise of amateur productions, including YouTube and most pornography, to avoid the politics and manipulation of overt censorship. But such productions suffer from not enough resources (money AND talent) and training in the particulars (lighting/photography, editing, acting, scripting, story, etc.) to do well enough to produce art. And so more resources and opportunity are frittered away.

A better way must be found. The artists themselves bear most of that responsibility, since theirs is the talent to produce in the first place. The rest is the audience, who "vote with their bucks," to paraphrase the old saying. But that's a slow and uncertain process. Better to take out the manipulative middle man (the censors) and get the show on the road. What to do? What to do?

Thanks for your suggestion about "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." I think I've seen it listed on Netflix, as you said. I'll give it a look-see and get a little more educated, right?

[–] new-spirit-jazz 15 years ago

holmswed: Thanks for this write-up! You raise a very good point.

I completely side with you on this: I'm all for male nudity in movies. (And anywhere else too, heh.)

And I say that as a man. (What's your sex if I may ask?)

> Is there some "industry" standard that prevents such human portrayals?

Well I think there is... regrettably. But that certainly doesn't mean that innovation isn't possible!

[–] holmswede 15 years ago

You're welcome, imdb-5556...although I am a little sheepish about the 'ranting' length of it all.

However, the underlying regret about the many missed opportunities in movies for artistic integrity about our human wholeness--in this case, especially the male form--is an ongoing, nagging disappointment.

In respect to this movie, "Spread," if the producers had been braver and stronger about nudity, which they had started to proceed but regrettably detoured, they could have had some integrity and a much better looking movie, other weaknesses aside, which could have saved it from consignment to below mediocrity.

"Spread's" actors are aesthtically pleasing people and as such a more genuine approach to their bodies could have been a successful volley in the squirmish for artful human-ness. As imdb-5556 says, innovation toward artistic integrity is possible, but the "Spread" producers didn't try, it seems.

In regard to the "industry standard" that we referred to, I took up Indie_Mod'recommendation and saw "This Film Not Yet Rated." It was quite a revelation about the MPAA and the ratings system and some much of the blatant politics that govern the system. It's amazing to me that we as a society which prides ourselves on our democratic practices has put up with this dictatorial censor board.

From viewing "Not Yet Rated," I got a better picture of why most movie producers opt to "chicken out" in frustration about having their marketing manipulated by these censors and the movie production syndicates that pull the puppet strings of the MPAA. It seems to be such an entrenched mire (very odd metaphors, but there you have it) that it would seem that bit-by-bit innovation might be the only way to chip away at the dikes that hold it together and at some point maybe a flood will get started to finally release the natural artistic flow.

If we in the audience get louder and more insistent about the MPAA system, it would be a great help to the movie producers to have incentive to find the motivation to be innovative and braver, at least in this one aspect. How can we get their attention?

Well, my rant got fairly well started here, again, and I almost forgot to answer imdb-5556's request: my gender is male. So, I am saying all of this about full male nudity--and all the rest of it about penis fear and art and all--as a man, like yourself. Perhaps my homophobia is less developed or overcome or whatever than most men. It's not an easy topic for me to verbalize, because of the many social inhibitions that have become part of my social persona, but these are feelings I have about art and human nature and, in this case, the potential of movies to be artful about humans and their forms, male and female.

I'm not so naïve as to believe that human nudity can be neutral from human sexuality--we are what we are. But nudity is not ALL ABOUT sex either. We have ability and desire to appreciate beauty and express the better parts of our human nature as much as we can reveal ugliness, war, violence and the baser parts of human nature--which the movies have been very honest about. Now why not also treat the more aesthically pleasing (not talking about sexual stimulation here) views of our human nature as well. Under all those clothes, we're all naked, so why so shy about it? Little enough attention has been paid to sympathetic performances, but art for each of us can be so much more complete in a medium that is as dynamic as movies.

[–] Indie_Mod 15 years ago

I think that's the problem. Unfortunately, as a whole, we Americans often have trouble distinguishing nudity from nakedness. Nudity is just exposed flesh while nakedness (at least in art terms) implies sexuality. A baby is nude. A playboy playmate is naked. However, the MPAA calls everything nudity and so we're often accepting both as one in the same. However, I think we naturally do that, MPAA or not.

[–] holmswede 15 years ago

You're right about that, Indie_Mod. In regards to the MPAA, nudity is a policy matter: politics is their agenda and art has no consideration in their deliberations or decisions. It's a good thing that the MPAA is not in charge of the National Endowment for the Arts, eh? Politics enough there, just not the SAME politics of censorship.

Sometimes Americans CAN figure out the difference, to give ourselves a little credit as a group: if it's a Renaissance painting or a Hellenistic sculpture or Roman mosaic, then it's a nude and art and acceptable. Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is often portrayed as full-on male nudity in movies (and elsewhere) without a second thought from the MPAA or other censors. Try the same kind of pose with, oh, say Ashton Kutcher acting as Adam and there would be a whole different kind of whoop-la going on. Why?

But that is the kind of art that would have suited "Spread" well. Despite all the sex in "Spread," the story was more about the personality of Nikki and came close many times to the whole character. But then the scenes shied away from seeing the whole Nikki and his whole co-characters, the women who populated his world. Maybe "Spread" is not the best movie to try to use as an example of human form as art, because the story was so involved in sexual exploitations that nudity would, of course, be confused with sexual activity. But some better ART would have made it a better movie!

[–] resetqnpd 15 years ago

You are the typical illogical person who continues on the 'full frontal male nudity' is never shown and they always show female full frontal nudity lie. You say that male rear nudity and male chest nudity is not nudity, but I suppose you consider any female exposure to be nudity.

If only male genitalia is considered nudity, then how could anything they have ever shown on a female be considered nudity? I have NEVER seen a movie or TV show that has shown female genitalia, EVER! I have seen hundreds of shows and movies that have shown a dick, never a pussy. Boobs are nothing more than what rear nudity is and little more than a bare male chest. Women get just as turned on by a well-toned male chest as men do a boob.

Why don't you have some common sense and compare apples to apples. Breasts are not the equivalent of genitals. There has been an obvious swing toward more male nudity and much less female nudity in movies and TV the last 10 years; much of the male nudity is genital nudity, which most people feel is uncomfortable and unnecessary in anything but a pornographic movie.

If you argue that male genitals should be shown, it has no merit, because it already is in many movies and shows. Why don't you argue the true taboo, which is female genitalia is never shown? I prefer neither be shown because it is degrading and exploitive to each gender, but if you and all the people who say they never show full frontal male nudity, which is completely false, why don't you argue the real injustice, and that is they never show female genitalia, and no, pubic hair doesn't count.

Movies and shows with penises that I could think of off the top of my head (and I don't even watch much tv):

King Lear, Spartacus, Alexander, Sex and the City, Lucky Louie, Weeds, Californication, Oz, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Kinsey, Sideways, Bruno, Dewey Cox Story, Zach and Miri, The Crying Game, Sacry Movie, Theres Something About Mary, Borat, all 4 of the Jackass movies, Trainspotting, Young Adam, Brokeback Mountain, Velvet Goldmine, Harold and Kumar, Boogie Nights, Bad Liutenant, Wild Things, Eastern Promises, Super Troopers, ThePillow Book, Color of Night, Porkys, American Gigolo, Room With a View, American Psycho, The Dreamers, American History X, Get Rich or Die Tryin, Eurotrip, 28 Days Later, Hostel 2, Saw 4, The Rules of Attraction, Angels in America, Sleepaway Camp, Shutter Island, One Hour Photo, The Piano, Lust/Caution, Into the Wild, The Terminator, Fight Club, Life of Brian, The Good Girl, Any Given Sunday, Waiting, The Fisher King, Transamerica, The Cooler, Angels and Insects, Watchmen, Rome, Deadwood, Quills, and there are others.

Now let's see yur list that shows female genitals!

[–] Indie_Mod 15 years ago

I don't think you read everything we've said.
FYI, there are plenty of movies that have shown female frontal nudity.

-Requiem for a Dream
-Harold and Kumar Escape Guantanamo Bay
-Last Temptation of Christ
-Zack and Miri
-Taking Woodstock
-Clockwork Orange
-Dewy Cox
-Snakes on a Plane

A lot of the movies, you're totally right, they do show dick, but not as much as you think. I'm looking at your list and I think you're thinking if it's a quick flash from the side of a guy before they shift the shot then it counts. I don't know if that's as valid. I'm sure you might be able to argue that my list contains the same content of that. It's debatable anyway.

If you're expecting full anatomy where they show the girl open her legs wide open so you can see detail, then the MPAA won't be ready for that for a very long time, just as they have to refrain from doing the same with male frontal nudity. This is, of course, excluding 100% indie films, including unsimulated sex scenes (not pornos) like Short Bus or Brown Bunny. And of course we need to exclude Foreign films since they've been doing this since the French New Wave, and before that Italian Neorealism, but the MPAA has nothing to do with them since it is strictly American.

The MPAA's definition of nudity is hit or miss. It doesn't always mean that WE are going to see it, but it means within the film, there is someone nude and we have to make due with the context--in fact, often times they're not nude so much as naked (I mentioned the differences in an earlier post), which is more of their concern.

IMO, I have no problem with nudity. None whatsoever. I'm much more offended that art gets censored.

[–] holmswede 15 years ago

I'm sorry, resetqnpd, but you seemed to have missed the gist of our discussion here. I realize that I titled the message thread headline and opening comments with a discussion aimed primarily advocating more artful male full frontal nudity in movies. However, throughout the discussion, we have been including the lack of artful full female nudity as well: most often in American films, the female nudes include gratuitous waist-up topless-ness, the same as so often with males.

Our advocacy here has been for better, artistic treatment of the human form, both female and male, in honest full-person depiction whenever the producers/directors/actors decide to include any kind of nudity in the story, whether any overt sexuality is in the action or not.

My opening argument was to point out that whenever Nudity or Brief Nudity is noted in ratings from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) that it regards female nudity. And, from the revelations of commenters here and in "This Movie Not Yet Rated," we learn that any greater exposure can earn a movie an NC-17 rating from the MPAA and so movie producers shy away from getting close to that mark in order to keep their audience share as great as possible.

If a male actor is shown shirtless, no Brief Nudity warning is included in the MPAA's rating.

A few movies have been exploring full male nudity, but it has been mostly for laughs and is so fleeting that such treatment is in itself laughable and pitiful. Any of the "full frontal male nudity" movies that restqnpd listed above that I have seen have not treated the subject seriously: the photography is from a long distance, out of focus, obscured light, an eyeblink of time and other coy treatment that barely allow a movie audience to realize they had seen a nude man or his genitals. I may not have seen all of those movies yet, but I'd be willing to say the same is true of all of them. None have treated the male nude seriously or artistically as a full human form.

And so, it is just as unfortunate for the human-form-as-art for female nudity to be gratuitous or just for giggles or shock as it is when a male's human form is treated as indifferently.

We are talking about the need for movies to stop being coy and artless when it comes to the nude human form. So often the actors are attractive individuals and that is a Hollywood standard; so there should be nothing voyeuristic or lascivious about seeing their entire nude bodies when the script/story bring that into the picture, rather than a coquettish hint that these people are fully human and worthy of artistic staging of all their features. There should be nothing voyeuristic or lascivious about seeing a full human form in a movie any more than it is regarded as such when looking at a sculpture or painting.