This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Because, sir, to be blunt, the last time you became complacent about your existence turned out rather badly."
11943 members | you are not logged in | 17 April 2014












September 12 2006

(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.

Well, we know where your "head" is at, don't we, Pointy? ;-)
Just some personal reactions. I respect Eliza for rejecting a career opportunity on a matter of principle. While very talented, she's not that big a star, so turning down a role in a guaranteed hit like "Dukes" is a sacrifice.

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.)
Don't lead us on like that. :(
With tongue firmly in cheek I'll respond to this news with a resounding, "Dammit!"
Are you *sure* it's in your cheek? Be honest now.
Harmony and Cordy got nude.
Faith would do it!

Come on Eliza :D
I remember Eliza saying "You'll have a better chance of seeing God than me nude.". Go E!
There are those, Angelica & Eliza, who would find the two experiences not entirely dissimilar.

[ edited by Pointy on 2006-09-12 06:30 to avoid fires of hell.]

[ edited by Pointy on 2006-09-12 06:36 ]
I've always thought that the mystery of not knowing is far more exciting that when it's revealed. Once Charisma bared it all, it just wasn't as good. I hope Eliza sticks to her principals.
Are you *sure* it's in your cheek?


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!)
Good for Eliza (like SMG) for sticking to her beliefs, no matter what kind of pressure there is not to -- money, fame, fans clamoring, etc. You go, girl! :-)
Yeah, billz, I'm dying inside too.

;-)

[ edited by Pointy on 2006-09-12 09:18 ]
Pointy: "Let the nudity discussion continue!"

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.)
"Let the nudity discussion continue!"


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.
Talk about buzzkill.
Aye. Between that and the Gina Torres article, I'm just spreading the love today. But since this thread is here, we might as well carry on discussing.

She also turned down a role in "Dukes of Hazard" "because producers wanted to include a nude scene on the DVD."


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, my sole purpose for starting this thread was to put the words Big Orgy on the front page.

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 ]
A noble purpose indeed :).
Nudity in film is a tough one. I think nudity purely for the sake of ticket sales is worthless. Nudity as part of using your whole body and self in a performance, on the other hand, can be remarkably effective... And the former certain devalues the latter...

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.
Would you tell a producer his film is complete rubbish and that is why you don't want the role? When you can use nudity as an excuse? :-)
Well, if Eliza won't do it, I can hope that Amber Benson will.... ;-)
Naughty ;). Hope does spring eternal though Dana5140.

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 ;).
In theory I agree with Kentonist that nudity done right has a very specific and rightful place on screen. But while the 'sheet in the way' is a pretty obvious and distracting tactic, on the other hand boobies don't act.

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.
I don't see anything wrong with nudity. If you want to do it do it. If you don't want to do it then don't. Not doing the Dukes movie was a smart move if only because that was a crap movie. Point being I'm not going to loose any respect for an actress that decides she wants to do nudity. Being pressured into it is a different story entirely.

it doesn't say anything that can't be shown in another way.

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.
Don't really get why this is even an issue here. I think we all pretty much agree that if one of our girls or guys wants to do nudity, then yay. If they don't want to, that's alrighty too. In other words, so what?

Am I wrong, or does the pervasive smell of this thread (and the other one) reek of prude?
It reeks of something Willowy, I'm not sure prude's the right word for it tho ; P

Oh and also...

Are you *sure* it's in your cheek? Be honest now.


That was a frickin good laugh!
And pat32082...your sleeker!
I know not what you mean, nixygirl and Pointy. I know not at all. *cough*
You right there Pat?
D'ya need a glass of water?

;-P
Well, since EdDantes doesn't have 'net access right now, I'll respond with what I imagine he'd say:
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!
No, no nixygirl. Just a small animal caught back in the throat-al area. It's dead now.
Parenthetically, the referenced-fact that Affleck won an Acting Award might seem stunning to many, but I saw Hollywoodland the other day, and he truly disappears in his portrayal of George Reeves. Great little noir flick, with an astonishing perf by Big Ben. FWIW.
but God save us from the nipple, penis, and vagina!

And giant breasts. I saw it on a Woody Allen movie once (I think it was a documentary). Very dangerous.
I think nudity is really up to the individual themselves. If they're comfortable with it, then that's entirely up to them. If they're not, then fair play to them for refusing to do any nude scenes.

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.
While i'm a big fan of nudity, myself, I have to admit that the most effective use of it I've seen in movies is to display vulnerability and openness, rather than eroticism.

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.
I think its somewhat telling that the nudity scene was mentioned as being for the DVD. That (and the fact that it was The Dukes of Hazzard) tell you all you need to know about whether there was any artistic merit. It was all about selling the un-rated edition of the DVD. LAME... Good on you, Eliza!
Pointy: "Simon, my sole purpose for starting this thread was to put the words Big Orgy on the front page."

I think we're all proud of you for getting the word "poop" up there, too.


lone fashionable wolf:"...on the other hand boobies don't act. I've tried. They don't."

Heh-heh. That was a serious juice-out-through-the-nose thrill-ride.


Willowy: "Am I wrong, or does the pervasive smell of this thread (and the other one) reek of prude?"

(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"
I wish the most humiliating thing I had ever been asked to do, by my various bosses over the years, was show my boobs. Though if I had shown them more often, who knows what corporate heights I might have acheived.

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.
"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."

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.
"Prude Nudes". The title of my first book, right there. Or "Nude Prudes". Gosh, have to think on that one...
We seem to be focusing an awful lot on FEMALE nudity here. Just one case in point where nudity would have been more appropriate, I find it completely jarring that in the Buffy episode "Beauty and the Beasts," Angel, who had in the previous episode dropped out of hell, naked and feral, had somehow managed to acquire a pair of pants. Everytime I see it I start wondering how, in his state of mind, he was supposed to have managed to dress himself? That's a case where the storyline really required nudity to be true to itself.
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.

[ edited by pat32082 on 2006-09-12 21:53 ]

[ edited by pat32082 on 2006-09-12 21:53 ]
Yeah but there's ways and ways pat32082. We wouldn't need to actually see anything so long as it was filmed properly. Even a shot of naked hip from the back, along with DB acting as if he's standing there naked, would probably convey the idea (unless the network needs viewers to actively know there's no frontal nudity ?).

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.
(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)


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..."
"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." -Pointy

"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 ]
Sometimes nudity can be empowering. It's rarely used that way, but it can be. I'm kind of glad Ms. Dushku isn't doing a nude scene, though; I'd probably hurt myself getting to the theater.
For $8.50, I expect magnifying glasses to be included! AND popcorn!
FINE, but all poppcorn WILL be of the microwavable type, and you have to share magnifying glasses, and like it!
Just make sure nothing pops out unexpectedly.

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.
Just make sure nothing pops out unexpectedly.


But...we wanna get our moneys worth. Right? Right?


Evil...and crunchy!
So crunchy it's burnt.
That's what happens if you're not careful with magnifying glasses. And popcorn for that matter.

(never again)

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home