Since the 1960s, when partial female nudity first appeared in mainstream movies, the trend in bedroom/sex scenes has been to go from the chaste (nudity suggested but not really shown, i.e., we see the female lead's naked shoulders but her breasts under the bedsheets) to the "full monty," with the female star (sometimes by the use of a body double) is naked and the guy is usually mostly naked.

Now, of course, I'm not talking about porn movies where everything and anything goes, but things in Hollywood and elsewhere (England, Italy, France, Spain, etc) seem to indicate that if there are more realistic effects in war movies and such, then it stands to reason that erotic scenes should also push the envelope. There was that one movie with Chloe Savigny, for instance, where the actress did perform a sex act with the actor and not faked it; bad movie but that was a much talked about scene.

So, where do you stand on the issue of sex in mainstream (not porn) films? Is there too much of it? Not enough of it? What is really steamy, and what is beyond the pale?

I have rarely found a film (probably never, but I'd have to review all the films that I have seen) where explicit depictions of sexual situations have been necessary or even valuable in promoting the story, character development, etc. While I don't doubt that such a scene may exist, I think that in general, studios push boundaries for the purpose of pushing them rather than for the benefit of the film.

For example, if a scene is shown where the actors spend 5 minutes involved in a sexual encounter that shows a tremendous amount of energy, positions, nudity, etc. but where there is no dialog and no plot driving events take place, then what really has happened is that 5 minutes of film time is spent simply on nudity and sex to no developmental purpose. Even if the film is about the results of a sexual encounter (e.g. Knocked Up, About last night, etc.) all that is important in such a scene is that sex occurred and everything else is just eye candy.

Don't get me wrong; eye candy is fun. That said, the relatively modest sexual scenes from before the age of full nudity (dim lighting, a fade to black during kissing or the removal of outer garments) still conveyed that the couple had sex, it may have even had a greater effect because one's imagination was engaged rather than just one's vision, and then the story could continue onwards.

Personally, I think if a sex or nude scene actually drives the story or character development in some way, then fine, have the scene, but pushing boundaries is what little children do when they are growing up. They push the boundaries set by their parents and it is up to the parents to determine where they should stop. The movie industry is like a little child without a parent, so the boundaries keep getting pushed.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

While I'm not sure if I wholly agree with the "why movies have to have de rigeur" nudity thesis, I do buy into it to some degree.

I don't know if you've ever seen Robert Mulligan's Summer of '42, a 1971 coming of age movie about a 15-year-old who, during World War II, falls in lust/love with a young married woman whose husband goes off to war. The movie is a comedy-drama, with most of the plot revolving around Hermie (Gary Grimes), his friends Oscy and Benjy, and the various crossing-of-paths and just-friends relationship between Hermie and Dorothy (Jennifer O'Neill).

The upshot - and this will be a spoiler but a necessary one to prove our point - is that eventually the war does give Hermie a bittersweet "in" into Dorothy's bed, and the two do make love. The clothes do come off but we never see either actor fully naked. We know they're in bed and we see some suggestive stuff but never breasts or buttocks...just shots of Dorothy kissing Hermie and little flashes of legs here and a suggestive "oooh" look there, but no sounds of orgasms or any 1970s-style chaste nudity except one shot where it's obvious the couple had sex and she has covered up her chest so we don't see her breasts. This is one of my favorite movies of all time, too, and I seriously doubt that it would have worked as well had the actress and director decided to "show all."

While I have not seen Summer of '42, it is clear from your description that nudity and explicit sex was not necessary to convey what was happening. In fact, the imagination of the viewer is far better than vision at conveying what is happening. I imagine that the sex scene (under the sheets) was indeed developmental of both the character (a 15 year old virgin) and the story (he indeed had sex), but clearly as well, the sex did not need to be explicit and I would imagine could have conveyed just as well if the bed is in shadow, no action is seen but the sounds still play.

I do have a problem with the premise of this film simply because portrayal of teenagers having sex is simply wrong to me (and potentially illegal if anyone could be consistent in enforcing laws). If a private citizen creates a film portraying teenage sex, it is considered child pornography. If Universal Studios, a private company, does it, it is art. There seems to be a horrible disconnect here. In fact, there are many cases of teenage actors/actresses appearing nude and even appearing nude in a sexual context in Hollywood movies and yet the same exact film, if produced by an individual, would be illegal. Every state in the United States has a law which makes sex illegal under a certain age. For most states, that age is 18 years. Apparently, however, films like these rarely portray the prosecution of those adults who commit statutory rape in these films. They often ignore the marital infidelity (see Bridges of Madison County). In fact, these films often portray such events in a positive light (e.g. coming of age, mutual attraction, etc.). Further, we even have films where the parents of underage actresses are authorizing nude scenes (American Beauty); if a parent, as a private citizen, authorized such a scene for his neighbor, we would be disgusted and that citizen and the neighbor would be prosecuted (rightfully so), yet when it is done by a film studio it is somehow ok. Is it any wonder why children are having sex so young and why more adults are having sex with children than ever before? We all know it is wrong, but yet entertainment companies portray it so positively and it "feels so good".

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

I agree with Jeff on the issue that these days nothing is left to imagination, now that takes the real thrill away. It is not necessary to show extreme scenes even the thought of thing going that way creates lot of sensation.This used to be in earlier movies and people used to enjoy those scenes and moments where their imagination used to wonder around.

I don't know how much I can agree with you or not on this one, Jeff. I think we both agree that Summer of '42 handled the bedroom scenes pretty nicely - suggesting what was going on without showing everything that was going on.

Whether the film's story teeters on showing illegal sexual conduct is really a matter of personal taste and interpretation. I'm definitely not a let-it-all-hang-out liberal who thinks everything humans do should be depicted on the big or even the little screen, but Summer of '42 is not a salacious older-woman-seduces-boy film or a smirking horny teens in heat sort of thing. Yes, the boys in the film (Hermie, Oscy, and Benjie) do behave like teens and pre-teens with their talk about girls and sex, but there are also little subtexts, such as first love, the cost of war (Dorothy, the woman at the heart of the story, goes to bed with the younger man mostly in a state of shock after she gets The Telegram telling her that her husband was killed in action), and there is no celebratory mood afterwards.

Most popular films have a tendency to display illegal acts, most of them involving violence. Bank caper films more often than not glorify bank robbers (see Bonnie and Clyde) and try to justify their actions even as the director and writers try to mollify the viewers by giving the characters their just deserts.

Now, I'm not saying that every movie that shows sex between an older person and someone who's not of the age of consent (which varies from state to state) is acceptable, especially if the actors involved are really underaged. In fact, Summer of '42 is perhaps the only one of this genre which I'd recommend. But if we were to release movies based solely on what's legal in the U.S., we'd have such a tiny amount of movies.....

Are you suggesting that having a small number of good movies with a wholly positive message would be somehow worse than having the huge number of movies that we have now which range from really awful to a small few that are fairly good?

That aside, I'm not suggesting that we don't display human realities. I'm saying that we shouldn't be positively spinning them. I look at what you wrote about summer of 42 and it makes my point completely. You say that there are subtexts such as "first love, the cost of war..." and that "there is no celebratory mood afterwards." Then clearly the movie has put a positive spin on statutory rape (the age of consent in MA, where this film takes place, is 16).

So it was a tender moment. Would it have been less tender if Hermie had been 16? If the filmmakers had chosen to make Hermie 16, it would have been completely legal and this part of our discussion wouldn't be happening, but somehow the filmmakers decided on 15 knowing full well that nowhere in the United States is the age of consent under 16 (there are "close in age" exceptions where the age difference is less than a set number of rules, but MA doesn't have such an exception). In other words, they chose to create a scenario where Dorothy broke the law, but it was done so in such a way so that the audience would be sympathetic towards her. They could have instead created the exact same scenario with the exact same sympathies and no laws being broken, but instead they chose their little protest against statutory rape laws.

Certainly, many films portray illegal acts. Most of them don't attempt to make those illegal acts look like positive things, but even when they do (such as in Bonnie and Clyde), there is no doubt that the acts are illegal. Nobody leaves a film thinking that robbing banks, killing people, assault, etc. are anything other than bad things to do. Even in the most sympathetic portrayals of bad guys, we still know that they are bad guys. The other people may be just as bad, but that doesn't justify the criminal. With sexual activity (especially with teenagers), however, people don't have that same feeling. The message presented by the film industry is that underage teens having sex is positive and beautiful and nobody leaves thinking about the laws that are broken, or the damage done to these children. I'm sure you didn't miss my mention of the Bridges of Madison county in my prior post. I'm not limiting my contents to simply teen sex, but in films, sexual content is often portrayed as this fantasy where nobody gets hurt, where there is no lasting damage, where everything is acceptable and yet that isn't even close to the reality.

One final thought. Rewrite summer of '42, only assume that Hermie is actually Hermione, a 15 year old girl, and that Dorothy is actually Donnie, a 30 year old man whose wife is a WAC, stationed in Europe during the war (he's at home because he isn't fit for service due to his flat feet). He gets the same telegraph and then he and a virginal girl half his age have sex. Not quite the same moment and not likely as well received.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

sexy scenes are part of movies. yes, this can not be too steamy as long as the story is still there. sexy scenes are just made to give thrill to a movie and to make it more realistic.

I don't really have a limit, but I hate it when the woman just shags some guy she met less than a week ago. I mean, that doesn't make you the female lead, it makes you a total whore.

I'm not sure I find those types of situations totally fascinating myself; I'm not a prude by any stretch of the imagination, but I prefer romance and more "getting to know you" time than that "quick shag" stuff.