(SPOILER)
Big Orgy.
Eliza Dushku taking part in one on film is something you will never see.
"Sex and Breakfast," Dushku's most recently shot film, includes an orgy scene, but she remains clothed on screen on principle. She also turned down a role in "Dukes of Hazard" "because producers wanted to include a nude scene on the DVD." Let the nudity discussion continue!
ETA: Scroll down to "Dushku won't bare all for her art" for le poop.
September 11 2006
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
pat32082 | September 11, 21:39 CET
Likewise, I've always been proud of Sarah Michelle Gellar for refusing to do nude scenes. She plays sexual and sexy characters, but always presents them as full people, not as Playboy-style toys. If she took her clothes off, it would be granting permission to the audience to respond to her as an object. Yay for insisting on being regarded as a person. Someday, if she stars in a movie like The Accused, she may find nudity to be an artistic necessity. But she does not sell peeps at her boobs for $8.50 a pop.
(Yes, even I notice that my mentioning Sarah Michelle is almost, but not quite, completely gratuitious. Thank you for your indulgence.)
Pointy | September 11, 21:47 CET
RpgActioN | September 11, 21:54 CET
Haunt | September 11, 22:04 CET
pat32082 | September 11, 22:10 CET
Dolphin Tamer | September 11, 22:32 CET
Come on Eliza :D
TwisTz | September 11, 22:45 CET
Angelica | September 11, 22:54 CET
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-09-12 06:30 to avoid fires of hell.]
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-09-12 06:36 ]
Pointy | September 11, 23:16 CET
kmb99 | September 12, 01:03 CET
I just got that. Subtle, pat32082. You don't go for the cheap laugh, like that pat32087
I agree, kmb99, the question mark is oft sexier than the answer.
(But now I've got this visual image of Eliza sticking to her principals!)
Pointy | September 12, 01:18 CET
billz | September 12, 01:42 CET
;-)
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-09-12 09:18 ]
Pointy | September 12, 01:48 CET
Oh, no you don't. I'm not falling for that old line. Everytime somebody says, "let the nudity discussion continue!" I end up shooting my (metaphorical) wad, and that way lies massive & complicated verbosity -- too utterly involving for this time of night.
I'll just say that Eliza is a class act, and some of you are baaad men. Very baaad men, indeed.
(Pointy, you should talk sometime with pat32089 -- she's downright vulgar, not at all like that Superb Sister of Subtlety the pat32082. Different model altogether, and ergonomically more efficient. Runs on solar batteries, too.)
QuoterGal | September 12, 02:35 CET
We're not terribly fond of posters starting new threads for the sole purpose of carrying on a discussion that's dropped off the front page. I hope this is not the case here.
Simon | September 12, 02:41 CET
QuoterGal | September 12, 04:09 CET
Not because the film was going to be completely rubbish then? Oh and I tried to find that short film that was mentioned in the article (even tried AtomFilms) but no joy. Anyone know anything else?
Simon | September 12, 04:17 CET
That and to ooh and aah over Sarah Michelle Gellar.
Would've responded earlier, but sleep.
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-09-13 07:22 ]
Pointy | September 12, 06:16 CET
Simon | September 12, 06:23 CET
I think there are scenes in films where the atmosphere is meant to be one of intimacy and/or unbridled passion that are stymied by the sheet stapled to the collarbone, or the desperate camera moves to obscure the male member. There are also scenes where the nudity serves no purpose and the mystery would have lent much more eroticism and a sense of private joy...
It is probably better, from Miss Dushku's point of view, to err on the side of caution.
Kenton Hall | September 12, 07:04 CET
Well, if Eliza won't do it, I can hope that Amber Benson will.... ;-)
Dana5140 | September 12, 07:05 CET
Good for Eliza too. This is exactly how it should work, with the whole 'choice either way' thing.
(and, despite the article's headline, she doesn't say she'd never do it, just that she doesn't take nudity lightly and wouldn't do it for 'The Dukes of Hazzard'. So, standards then)
Also, much kudos on the whole 'Big Orgy' post title Pointy, t'was a joy to behold ;).
Saje | September 12, 07:35 CET
I've tried. They don't.
So part of me says even in sex scenes you don't *actually* need to see 'bits' to understand the plot, to sense intimacy, or sexuality, or even humiliation or degradation in the case of rape. To show a part of yourself that you normally keep hidden from public view (except that one night on holiday - oooh the regret) can say something about your character in a film, but it doesn't say anything that can't be shown in another way.
In the awful scene from The Accused, as mentioned above, what I remember is the horror of what it made me feel, the detatched camera work, the trauma and unreality. I couldn't even tell you if we saw nudity - I certainly don't remember any.
lone fashionable wolf | September 12, 08:28 CET
Sure, but is the other way necessarily a better way? That's the quesion. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it really isn't. I mean I could hammer in a nail with handle of a screwdriver or I could just use a hammer.
I'm not saying all nudity is required. There are definintely many many movies where nudity makes me go "What the hell is this scene about?" but there are a few where it makes sense. Granted with your avereage movie the case is more often the former than the latter but I don't think that means we should dismiss all nudity.
war_machine | September 12, 08:51 CET
Am I wrong, or does the pervasive smell of this thread (and the other one) reek of prude?
Willowy | September 12, 09:07 CET
Oh and also...
That was a frickin good laugh!
And pat32082...your sleeker!
nixygirl | September 12, 09:26 CET
pat32082 | September 12, 09:52 CET
D'ya need a glass of water?
;-P
nixygirl | September 12, 10:23 CET
Naked takes all the mystery out. I'd much rather see Eliza in something tight and shiny!
As for my 2 cents...I don't much care one way or the other. I think it's a shame when actresses feel 'forced' to do nudity when they don't want to, as a means of keeping their career going or starting it up. But if they're fine with showing their body, who am I to tell them, "Shame on you." I mean, it's a body. It's got arms and legs and nipples and bellybuttons(usually only one) like most everyone else on the planet. The only reason it's so titillating is because it's usually covered up, because society tells us it should stay covered up...just cuz...
Soap box: Of course, it's perfectly okay if people are exposed to violence, gore, pain, blood...but God save us from the nipple, penis, and vagina!
Rogue Slayer | September 12, 10:39 CET
pat32082 | September 12, 10:52 CET
VerseRoamer | September 12, 11:21 CET
And giant breasts. I saw it on a Woody Allen movie once (I think it was a documentary). Very dangerous.
Saje | September 12, 11:26 CET
And I agree that a lot of onscreen nudity or even implied nudity is gratuitous. Sometimes it can enhance the story or the style or whatever, and if it is appropriate then I would respect that. If it's completely tasteless and unneccessary (as I suspect the Dukes of Hazzard scene would have been), solely for the sake of making money, then I don't.
I also think that the portrayal of sexuality in general is something that needs to be treated more acrefully by filmmakers. A naked body isn't usually offensive, but how characters use their sexuality or body can be even more so, even though it might not be as visible, it can be more explicit in a sense.
Razor | September 12, 11:36 CET
I was somewhat disappointed Natalie Portman wasn't naked in the rain scene of V, as that was a powerfully cathartic moment in the comic. She could have been seen only from the back or from the collarbone up and it still would have been, I think, more powerful than the one shot.
C. A. Bridges | September 12, 11:46 CET
zeitgeist | September 12, 12:04 CET
I think we're all proud of you for getting the word "poop" up there, too.
Heh-heh. That was a serious juice-out-through-the-nose thrill-ride.
(Made me think of the "powerful odor of mendacity.")
Yeah, I think you are wrong here, willowy, I think prudery's not the context of the nudity discussions here on whedonesque lately. Of course nudity is our guys' choice and yay! for that. All hail freedom of choice.
But if that was always the end of the story, there'd be no discussion of a number of actions that are people's choices, but must remain open to rational discourse. We've been talking about what may inform the nudity choice on a (primarily) gender basis, how the PTB choose to portray female and male nudity for entertainment purposes, and what may inform the public reception of that choice, and the relative merits of different venues for displaying that choice. Etc.
Can't speak for anyone else, but skin and sex per se are so not the issue for me. I'm one of the last of a hippie tradition -- the kind that Cartman would exterminate if he could -- and what we did in college and after (during more liberal attitudes towards the "lighter" drugs, and pre-HIV) kinda erased the last vestiges of my more puritan upbringing.
But we're discussing the various shades of meaning in public & paid nudity for men and women, and its celebratory, exploitive, liberating and commodifying aspects. At least that's what I'm doing.
Whereas Pointy and pat32082 and nixygirl and others are just plain evil. Evil and crunchy.
"JAYNE: Now Inara -- she's gotta have some real funny whorin' stories, I'd wager.
INARA: Oh! Do I ever! Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."
-- FIREFLY, "Out of Gas"
QuoterGal | September 12, 12:58 CET
Basically, whether it's showing your body, or any other thing you don't want to do, you have a choice. Sometimes, it's not a very good choice: Do it, or quit (or be fired). But still (and making a exception for those in truly desperate straits) it's a choice. And you can think about it, and discuss it, and give your honest opinion, but once you've made that choice, or a loved one has made it, the only thing left to do is do your best moving forward with the choice you've made, and/or provide support to your loved one as needed.
sari | September 12, 13:44 CET
I do get that, QuoterGal, and have enjoyed many of the posts. Still, I sensed a definite hostility - for lack of a better word at the moment - vibe, here and in the other nudie thread regarding the initial applauding of the choice to pose. That's what I meant to say with the prude remark.
You're welcome to think I'm wrong, of course. I still stand by my feeling.
Willowy | September 12, 14:25 CET
Rogue Slayer | September 12, 14:39 CET
barboo | September 12, 14:45 CET
[ edited by pat32082 on 2006-09-12 21:53 ]
[ edited by pat32082 on 2006-09-12 21:53 ]
pat32082 | September 12, 14:52 CET
I think there is a point in films especially where the flow of the film needs nudity. In a very naturalistic film, where everything else in the movie is deliberately completely realistic, not having nudity (of either gender) in a sex scene (and especially after a sex scene) sometimes pulls you out of the film. I'm not saying full frontal necessarily, i'm saying that it should be filmed carefully enough that it looks like no-one's hiding anything from the camera (even if they actually are).
(and as I say, it applies to both sexes. If a guy's naked in bed with someone he's comfortable with and gets up to go to the next room for a pee, he's not going to stop and put his shorts back on to do it)
Typing this i'm thinking of 'A History of Violence' as an example, where the two sex scenes really add to the film and reveal a lot of character stuff. If they were filmed as standard Hollywood fluffy sex scenes they wouldn't have worked nearly as well, IMO.
On the flip side, if the film has goodies firing 50 bullets without reloading their handgun, diving through the air and still hitting what they aim at, surviving explosions that would clearly kill any human being etc. then the fact that an actress holds a sheet up to cover her breasts after sex is kind of a small thing to overlook in the grand scheme.
Saje | September 12, 15:07 CET
Yes, good point. That always bugged me about tv and movies. Why would you wrap a sheet around yourself or put on clothes to walk around someone you just had sex with?
I do believe Buffy(the show) managed it well with Spike walking around his crypt, very naked and casual and comfortable, as Spike would definitely be after just having sex with someone. Yet we didn't see anything illicit. (Though I gotta say those little muscles on a man that go from tummy to groin are so hot they should be illegal!) But it felt natural and normal, and didn't make me go, "Oh, come on..."
Rogue Slayer | September 12, 16:19 CET
"Of course, it's perfectly okay if people are exposed to violence, gore, pain, blood...but God save us from the nipple, penis, and vagina!" -Rogue Slayer
I, Nancy boy hair gel, would cheerfully show peeps at my penis for $8.50 per pop, but bring your magnifying glasses!
[ edited by Nancy Boy hair Gel on 2006-09-13 01:19 ]
[ edited by Nancy Boy hair Gel on 2006-09-13 01:27 ]
Nancy Boy hair Gel | September 12, 18:16 CET
Ocular | September 12, 18:36 CET
Rogue Slayer | September 12, 18:36 CET
Nancy Boy hair Gel | September 12, 18:47 CET
pat32082 | September 12, 18:50 CET
Because they can't do full frontal on network TV. It's just one of those things. Or maybe David didn't want to be naked again.
pat32082 | September 12, 21:52 CET
I understand the reasons, and I realize that it may have been just too challenging on a tv schedule to work in all the not showing quite all of him that would have been required, given the extent of Angel's, uh, exposure in that episode. Nonetheless, from a storyline perspective, it didn't work.
I wonder if in decades to come people may look at that episode as being so quaintly prudish, in the way that we see things like episodes of the Dick van Dyke show, where husband and wife sleep in separate beds.
barboo | September 12, 20:52 CET
But...we wanna get our moneys worth. Right? Right?
Evil...and crunchy!
nixygirl | September 13, 04:21 CET
pat32082 | September 13, 05:34 CET
(never again)
Saje | September 13, 05:37 CET
nixygirl | September 13, 08:06 CET