Sex and Cinema: Part I — When Sex No Longer Sells
Film — By Joe Carter on April 5, 2004 at 12:22 am When Bernardo Bertolucci’s ‘Last Tango in Paris” debuted in 1972, legendary film critic Pauline Kael called the film “a landmark in movie history,” and praised it as the most powerfully erotic and liberating film ever made. The plot — a middle-age American widower (Marlon Brando) grieving his wife’s death has brutal, anonymous sex with an enigmatic French ingenue — provides a thin gruel for Kael’s 3000-word stew of overheated superlatives. But in the early-’70s the sexual revolution was still in full swing and the X-rated film went on to gross $36 million in the U.S.
But the times have definitely changed. Early this year Bertolluci’ released ‘The Dreamers”, an NC-17 rated (the new politically correct designation for X-rated ‘art” films) movie about sexual liberation in the late ‘60s. All the elements necessary for a repeat hit were in place — full frontal nudity, sexually obsessed teens — but an essential element was missing: the audience. The Dreamers collected just over $2 million before disappearing from American theaters.
Bertolluci, like many other directors and producers, is learning that sex no longer sells. A recent study finds that films without sex scenes earned an average of $41.1 million, while films with sex have grossed 38 per cent less with an average of $16.7 million. According to analysis by the Christian Film and Television Commission:
The figures show that in 2003, for example, 78 films with no sex averaged $37.6 million; 95 films with implied sex averaged $32.1 million; 71 films with briefly depicted sex averaged $25 million and 35 films with extensive, excessive or graphic sex averaged only $17.1 million.
Films from 2003 that did not depict nudity also fared better, garnering an average of $34.6 million at the box office compared with the $11.8 million raised by films which did include nude scenes. Similar patterns also emerged for the box office returns for the previous three years.
While I don’t want to be overly simplistic, I think there are three broad audiences that affect the supply and demand equation when it comes to the amount of sex in films.
The first is comprised of those who simply refuse to see a movie that depicts acts of a sexual nature. While changes in sexual mores may increase the size of this group, there doesn’t appear to be much evidence that our country is heading in that direction. Also, the fact that this group has never been attracted to such content means that it is unlikely that they are the reason for the change over the past several years. .
A second, more influential audience, would be those who would normally be attracted to such material for the vicarious thrill that seeing such images provides. Changes in technology, though, have made film an obsolete medium for such purposes. Why pay $8.50 to sit in a theater in order to catch a glimpse of a bare breast or simulated sexual acts when, with the aid of a computer and an Internet connection, you can access an almost limitless supply of true p*rnographic material? While ‘Last Tango” may have been risqu
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itAdditional comments powered by BackType
25 Comments
Eyes Wide Shut didn’t do as well as expected either. My thought: our “porn culture” today means that those who want view sex for the titilation aspect are likely to seek it in a far different form than an “art” film, and that such content is far more accessible today than it was thirty years ago.
Joe is completely correct about the numbing effects, etc. of bludgeoning us with gratuitous sex; unfortunately, the fimmakers have not yet gotten the equivalent message with respect to violence or unimaginative foul language. Persons with true imaginative filmmaking capability- which description unfortunately matches all too few who attempt to practice the craft these days- are quite capable of creating good films that tell a story in an entertaining and absorbing way without resorting to such cheap stunts. A major problem these days is that the Hollywood Hive is fixated on making PG-13 films to appeal to 13 year old boys, the dominant demographic group in the Friday evening entertainment-buying crowd. Fine company for maximum intellectual stimulation.
It should be noted, however, that, as Joe appears to hint in passing, sex an nudity are not necessarily universally evil in an impordant fillum. Depending on the scene, story, and context, ridiculous and unrealistic treatments of sex and gratuitous non-nudity because some narcissistic actress has a fashionable contract clause (not for moral- she may strip down, and more, for every producer in Hollywood- but for power, reasons). You can tell who the real actors and actresses are by the roles they play and how they deal with them.
For example, “Something’s Gotta Give” included a nude scene by Diane Keaton, some skin revealing by Jack Nicholson, and later in the movie dealt with sex. The nude scene had a specific purpose, the actress was not a blonde bimbo selected to titillate teen-aged boys, and the sexual event was not racy (or featuring nudity). That comprises a pretty fair positive checklist to determine how to handle such things in a society of grown-ups. The opposite would be a bunch of films I haven’t seen- I’m told that “American Pie” and its endless sequels, and the Jason slasher flicks, pretty well encompass the opposite, worst ways to deal with the issue.
I remember Michael Medved noting that someone named Shannon Elizabeth had announced that she no longer would perform any movie nudity, and further commenting that she had just eliminated the only reason that someone would want to cast her in a project. You can pretty well tell who the real actresses are and who the bimbos are by how they treat this through their careers. If they start by being willing to do nudity for real roles where it is an integral part of the film, and maintain consistency throughout their careers (examples are Keaton, Nicole Kidman, and Helen Mirren, attractive, and in some cases mature, women), they may not reflect the modesty standards that we wish for our daughters, but they are not Hollywood sluts either. If they start out baring it all to get any parts they can and achieve fame, then after they have box office leverage refuse to strip down any longer, they are prostitutes, period. You can find your own examples. Of course, if they only accpet parts from the beginning that do not compromise their principles, and are willing to live with lesser careers because of it, they are also probably not sluts. Regarding guys, who cares? We are all repulsive to look at and no one would ever regard our pallid flesh as important to a fillum.
What I mean by “gratuitous non-nudity” is this. Most of the time it is not necessary to show nudity or sex in a fillum. However, there are stories where some type of exposure is part of the story; for example, in “The Man Who Wasn’t There” when the invisibility wears off, it is pretty hard to have the person suddenly appear fully-clothed. Or, in a story about a long-married couple, one good example is an long-ago Broadway play called “You Know I Can’t Hear You When the Water’s Running” about a long-married couple where they are simply living the way they do. If someone wrote an accurate movie script about my life, and it dealt with my long marriage, it would include a lot of casual nudity if it were necessary to include much of the dialogue between my sweetie and me. After years of a good relationship, you are comfortable with changing clothes, showering, and so on, and conversation happens the whole time. Intimacy may occur under covers because it is too darned cold most of the time to have none, but the streak for the bathroom afterwards, or sitting up in bed, etc., does not involve clutching a sheet to cover mammaries, etc. Real people do not behave that self-consciously, or I would say “artificially”, in real relationships, and if it is necessary to add strategic cover-ups to get a particular rating for the movie, it renders the result as immature as the teen-age boy “Porky’s” clones.
Wow, these are among the most simplistic and anecdotal arguments I have ever read about movies.
Let me get this straight — Bertolucci, on the heals of The Conformist and The Spider’s Strategem, two internationally recognized masterpieces — makes a movie in 1972 starring Marlon Brando (an English speaking megastar) which grosses $36 million in the US.
30 plus years later Bertolucci makes another movie with unknown mostly French speaking actors and actresses which grosses $2 million and the conclusion Joe Carter draws: sex doesn’t sell.
What a joke of an “analysis.” I know Christians can do better, please don’t embarass us with such drivel.
For starters, the reality is that today the biggest movie audience by far is young teens who are prevented from attending R-rated or NC-17 movies. There is, therefore, no way that R-rated or NC-17 movies, taken as a whole, can ever command the box office receipts that PG or PG-13 movies can. Why do you suppose the studios go to such great lengths to avoid such ratings (hence the increase in implied sex versus nudity).
Let me put out a PG-13 movie with a lot of *explicit* sex and nudity in it and starring Britney Spears, Asanti and Trishelle from Real World. I’ll call it High School Hymens. Do you suppose that it will do all right at the box office? Or will all those teens avoid it because, hey, they can always watch Sky Jasmine slurp it up on the internet.
Really, Joe, if you’re arguments are about ID creationism are as lame as your arguments about cinema (and they are) you run the risk of embarassing all of us Christians.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
Well, again.
And so goes another round of the bash. Sometimes I don’t even remember why I get out of bed in the morning. But I guess it’s too late to reverse the decision.
http://heaters.homeitemsplus.info/4/gas-fireplace-grate-heater-guide.htm
medical abortion
medical abortion
Naturist Videos
investing in china
map of italy
soup taco
grants
grants
Metronidazole
nags head real estate rentals
this is very good
good related article
this is very good
related source
skateboard tutorial