Ok, so the "Dennis" personality had an obsession with having attractive girls dance for him. And in fact when the girls are first abducted he attempts to start that process immediately.
But then nothing else happens? Huh?
Thats right but then "Patricia" the strong female alter had a talk with him (Dennis) and made it clear that he was not allowed to touch them and that they (the girls) were there for the beast, not for Dennis. If Dennis were in charge he probably would have done much worse.
shareYes thank you, my friend had referenced that to me also when we had first seen the movie. But I see that explanation as a way to conveniently make the movie more socially correct. By not allowing viewers to see that nudity.
First off, Patricia has no authority over Dennis, so why would Dennis even consider her point? Second off, unless the girls were to be presented immediately to "the beast", what is the difference if they dance for Dennis until that eventually happens? There is no difference.
Well, first off, you may be right but I am not so sure who among the alters has control over who. If "Barry" can decide who gets to be in the light then its possible there is some sort of hierarchy. Even if as you say Patricia has no control over Dennis, I would guess all it would take is for her remind Dennis of the beast and the girls purpose and thats enough to put Dennis back in line.
Second off, "what is the difference if they dance for Dennis until that eventually happens? There is no difference." Well here man I think you are simply wrong. The girls are described as "sacred food" and that makes them some sort of ritual sacrifice to the beast. Often in ancient cultures a human sacrifice must have specific qualities, most common example being the woman must be a virgin. To you or me making the girls dance does not change them in any way physically but subjecting the girls to any form of abuse might spoil the girls for the beast. After all, the beast seems to relate to and accept any individual who it deems as "broken". I think forcing a teen girl to strip and dance for you (and who knows quite possibly Dennis would have raped them after) is a pretty good way to "break" someone.
Lastly, I don't think keeping nudity out of the movie was a "socially correct" choice. It would have been acceptable according to the plot but it really wasn't necessary. It seems to me every other movie they make nowadays has some nudity in it and it was nice to see a movie that didn't need to rely on a nice set of tits to be entertaining. Its not like their wasn't any eye candy in the movie, dat ass right?
You really think every other movie nowadays has nudity? I see the complete opposite trend, with the vast majority of movies now having zero or in the cases that do, very briefly. I grew up mainly in the 1970s (my salad days) and in those days nudity in movies was much more rampant - most of the drive-in movies at that time always had a 2nd "B" movie showing with explicit nudity and even soft core type sex. Then in the 80s we moved more to a glut of teenage sex romp comedies with plenty of gratuitous nudity. And in the 90s, we were deluged with those sexual erotic thrillers (Shannon Whirry was my favorite star in those). Nowadays, it hardly exists by comparison. Hence my comment and belief that how convenient that Beast comment fits into the current moral and social themes towards the display of nudity.
As you might know movies made in Europe and the USA are completely opposite with what they stress and what they suppress. In Europe, rampant and open nudity in films is commonplace, but violence is still pretty taboo. While in the USA, violence and gore are very common occurrences, while sex and nudity is still very tame and minimal. Funny how society sees things so differently in one continent versus another.
Also, regarding the point about abusing and breaking the girls might spoil them for the beast. It seems to me that unless they are captured and pretty much fed to the beast pretty quickly (the same day), then the abuse and breaking begins regardless. In this movie the father's daugher (light haired girl) was very aggressive when she was caught, but seemed broken as she remained in captivity. Further, the girls were all together at first and able to emotionally support each other until they were systematically isolated and mentally worn down/broken.
So again, not having them dance to me seems like a complete copout. I understand people can make the argument about not spoling the goods for the beast, but it seems very weak to me, especially given the other circumstances I just presented. And to my mind, just a very convenient excuse to avoid having the anticipated nudity with the expectation that began almost immediately with Dennis starting the removal of apparel. Copout.
I do yes think movies lately have alot of nudity and in my opinion its not always necessary, at least not to the extent they show. Thats probably an opinion not too many people will share but it is indeed my opinion. Movies back then may have had it too but that just means I always would have had a problem with it. Anyways we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree about Dennis not making them dance for him being a "copout." I think it makes perfect sense.
shareSounds good about disagreeing on that point.
If you have any newer movies to recommend that had significant nudity if you could list a few that would be interesting. As it seems I have trouble finding them and would like to critically contrast and compare them to the older movie genres I referenced.
The only recent one I recall is Fifty Shades of Gray.