MovieChat Forums > The Sessions (2012) Discussion > why no full frontal for Charlie?

why no full frontal for Charlie?


This is one issue (of many) I had with the film: Helen Hunt's naked body is shown in every angle short of spread-eagled, but for John Hawkes the camera stops modestly at his waist. Why?

If an actress has to reveal every aspect of her body for a film, why not the actor? It's a double standard and I'm disgusted by the hypocrisy of it.

reply

Actually, John addressed this is an interview and he agreed with you. He said it had to do with the financiers wanting to keep the movie sellable. I mean the scene where she showed him his body in the mirror - they went out of their way to not show his penis in that scene, it was bizarre.

reply

You see his balls at one point, does that count a little? :D

They are one person, They are two alone, They are three together, They are for each other

reply

am with you anee It's a double standard but from who ??? from the rating system, because the full frontal female nudity is rated R and the full frontal male nudity is rated NC-17... !!! and you know that the NC-17 movies makes a few money in the box office... i think this is the mean reason there was no full frontal nudity for charlie.

reply

Yeah I know but they do this a lot in all films. I like to take comfort in thinking its because womens bodies are naturally more beautiful than mens and everyone wants to see them but very little people want to see a man fully naked





Ashmi any question

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Plenty of movies where there are full frontal shots of men, even those that don't include full frontal shots of women. We don't need any sort of "affirmative action of nudity".

That said, I think the primary reason why full naked shot of Hawkes would be unrealistic is because his physique, the extreme curvature of his body, would be difficult to portray with a full frontal shot.

reply