MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Sex In Cinema… Not

“It’s really not that people are in desperate need of more sex in their summer movies, but it does seem to speak to a narrowing of ideas. And moreover, it seems that the relationship between the R and the PG-13 is getting more like the NC-17 and the R

Be Sociable, Share!

40 Responses to “Sex In Cinema… Not”

  1. Eric says:

    The effect of all of this is that a PG-13 rating is virtually meaningless. As with any other regulatory system, as soon as the regulated learn how to exploit its weaknesses, the system becomes useless.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    So how long before they split the PG-13 in two, just like they did with PG twenty years ago? And meanwhile, NC-17 is sitting there, unloved and useless.

  3. Blackcloud says:

    Heading into the fall, I see that Chris Cornell will perform the theme song for “Casino Royale.” Interesting choice. I like it.

  4. Eric says:

    Jeff, I was thinking the same thing. But really, they don’t need new rules, they just need to adequately enforce the old ones.

  5. waterbucket says:

    Hello, sex is what foreign films are for. Well, sex and homosexual subject also.
    Before BBM, I got my gay movie fix from Wild Reeds, Farewell My Concubine, etc., all of which are foreign and excellent.

  6. EDouglas says:

    David, Beerfest is a definite R..they won’t even try for PG-13 on that one. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why Night Listener would be an R…there’s nothing even remotely objectionable that I remember.

  7. Aladdin Sane says:

    I bought Logan’s Run on a whim a couple weeks ago. There are naked females for a few seconds, full on topless stuff and it’s rated PG. How times have changed.

  8. Hotspur says:

    The decline of anything approaching real sex – or even eroticism – in mainstream Hollywood movies is really depressing.
    Yeah, we get two artfully airbrushed bodies pressed against each other from 3/4 behind, with arms or legs or sheets placed just so. It gets to a point where the emphasis on not showing a nipple or a stray bit of pubic hair is so strong that it’s distracting.
    9 1/2 Weeks was a mainstream Hollywood film. The Lover was a mainstream Hollywood film. The Last Tango in Paris …
    Why is it now – when every 13-year-old in the world has seen hard-core pornography on the internet – that we have to be so damn prudish when it comes to serious films.

  9. Blackcloud says:

    What was the sex scene in Troy?

  10. ployp says:

    I only remember seeing Brad Pitt’s butt in Troy.
    I’ve never thought about this issue before. Now that Mr. Poland has pointed it out to me, wow, sex has really disappeared from recent mainstream movies. But then again, we’re actually getting real sex onscreen from ‘art’ movies. As waterbucket said, maybe sex on film only exists in non-Hollywood film.
    Sex doesn’t sell anymore? Or is sex onscreen so tamed that it is pointless because there’s always plenty of porn on the internet?

  11. ployp says:

    I just thought of something. It’s truly disturbing that violence is seen as being tamer than sex. I was shocked to see a crow pecking an eye off of a caged corpse in POTC 2. PG-13? I’m way over 13 and that really disturbed me. How did they get away with that?

  12. Blackcloud says:

    Probably because you don’t actually see it. Having seen it twice, I’m pretty sure it’s hidden in the editing. It looks like the crow pecks the eye out, but it’s not on the screen. Your imagination fills in the blanks.

  13. THX5334 says:

    The difference between sex and violence on screen and why violence gets more of a pass than sex is (imho) generally: The emotions of envy, jelousy, lonliness or inadaquecy aren’t normally ever engaged when viewing a violent sequence as they can be for some viewers when seeing two people engage in a sexual act (especially an explicit one).
    Since those emotions are almost never engaged during a violent sequence, and since the MPAA is composed (supposedly) of people from some type of rigid religional background (hence the need for the MPAA in the first place) those emotions are arguably even more likely to be engaged from a viewer with a socially conservative lifestyle.
    Yet, hasn’t it been evident that those filmmakers that are trying to film hardcore sex in mainstream cinema lately, a la 9 Songs, aren’t really generating much success with their attempts at explicits works either?
    It’s simple. If people want to watch sex without a story to support it, they go to porn. That’s why films like 9 Songs weren’t as successful, nobody cares about seeing explicit sex in a movie if there’s no story to support it. Why do I want to spend $50 on a night at the movies for that when I can download porn for free?
    As for the ratings degeneration, I said it in another thread here somewhere awhile back.
    Sixteen Candles came out when I was 10 in 1984.
    Molly Ringwald says “Fuck” in the first 10 minutes. There is a great boob shot of the hot girl in the shower in the first 30 minutes.
    Rating? PG baby.
    What happend? Has Corporate Hollywood let the crazy Christians dictate the content in pursuit of their oh so large market?
    …..*sigh*

  14. Jimmy the Gent says:

    Some interesting stats.
    All the President’s Men uses the word “fuck” between 8-10 times. Rating? PG.
    Dragnet has an extended scene set inside a stip club. There is top and bottom nudity. Rating: PG-13.
    Jaws would probably get a PG-13, possibly R rating today. Spielberg would probably trim the death scene of the little boy.
    A movie like The Big Easy would probably be made by a depnedent. It’s adult content wouldn’t cut at a major studio.
    The TV show Rescue Me has had at least three intense sex sncene in the last four weeks. I convinced that television is more daring when it comes to sexuality. Why? And I’m not even talking paid cable. Did anyone see the finale of Grey’s Anatomy? It had a great sex scene.
    I think the only filmmaker making smart erotic movies is James Toback. Two Girls and a Guy and When Will I Be Loved? have two of the best sex scenes in recent years.
    You have to go back to 2002’s Unfaithful to find a good, mainstream adult movie with some steamy sex scenes. Diane Lane should get out more. Stop with chick flicks.
    Why hasn’t anyone tapped into the sexuality of Patricia Clarkson and Frances McDormand? Or, Joan Allen. Where’s Debra Winger when we need her?
    Young Hollywood really needs to embrace their sexuality. Rememeber when Carol Kane wnet naked in The Last Detail? How come no one has thought of creating similar roles for Tina Fey or Amy Poehler?
    Any bets on when Scarlett will do nudity? It could bd a major event.

  15. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Joan Allen got nice and frisky in The Upside of Anger but nobody seemed to notice.
    I completely agree with the article though. Thing is, in years past it was violence that was frowned upon and sex that was turned a blind eye to. Now it’s the other way around.
    I still don’t understand how Mr & Mrs Smith was PG13. That had violence and sex hand in hand.

  16. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Another thing, it just appears that America’s rating system is screwed up beyond repair. It seems that you will never have an adult rating that isn’t seen as pornography. NC17 is basically a kiss of death, and R is pathetic.
    But, then I speak from Australia who’s rating system is pretty well solid. Our R is like your NC17 but instead doesn’t correlate with porn. Respectible award-winning movies can receive R ratings without fear of being, essentially, social outcasts. Wolf Creek received an R rating and made a tonne of cash, was nominated for lots of awards and was critically praised. I could rattle of other all sorts of examples but I won’t.

  17. palmtree says:

    I remember fondly the days when you could go to the local theater and see movies like Basic Instinct or Damage…serious movies about sex. Brokeback is probably the most recent example of that kind of film…the love story with highly charged sex scenes.
    I think to some extent porn is so ubiquitous that to do sex feels almost like a parody of it. I mean, every cool movie used to have the obligatory sex scene, but now it feels like, “well it can’t be as intense as porn so why not just let the audience use their imaginations.” The attitude towards sex is much more tongue-in-cheek…Team America anyone?

  18. Spacesheik says:

    Interesting topic.
    The Pg-13 rating is no longer a good indication of what to take kids too.
    We are no longer in the INDY JONES AND TEMPLE OF DOOM era which instigated the rating due to scenes involving hearts being torn out of chests, kids being whipped etc.
    Trust me I’m no prude but I wouldn’t want my 13 year old watching a five minute sequence involving Ben Stiller’s boner in DODGEBALL.
    In England they have the ’12’ rating as well as the ’15’ rating.
    The latter is comparable to a “hard” pg-13. I remember the only James Bond film to ever get the ’15’ rating was LICENCE TO KILL because of the violence.

  19. Nicol D says:

    “What happend? Has Corporate Hollywood let the crazy Christians dictate the content in pursuit of their oh so large market?”
    Remember what I said on the other post about weeding out the extremists who live in fantasy ville?
    The truth has more to do with human nature than anything else. Quite frankly it is much more difficult to film a sex or nude scene adequately than it is to shoot violence. No one really knows what it feels like to be in a 3-way shoot out.
    Most humans know what it is like to have sex. It is the most intimate thing a human can do with another human being…how many films can really jusify showing that act explicitly?
    How many directors are really comfortable with it and can pull it off?
    Spielberg for the longest time refused to show sex scenes. He said it could only detract from the story with the emphasis on the actors bodies.
    He finally relented with Munich. Did you like the result? Do you think he pulled it off?
    All acts of violence on film are fake. They involve squibs, stunt people and fake hits.
    Acts of sexuality are by necessity real. You really do have to kiss a breast, fondle a buttock or rim a…well you get the picture.
    These are more personal acts and most people in real life, regardless of the views they advocate politically, are social conservatives personally in thier actions.
    Most people (even the most buff of stars) have some insecurities about their own bodies. Read how even stunning Angelina Jolie felt uncomfortable with her ass in Girl, Interrupted. I saw nothing wrong with that ass! She did.
    I have two gorgeous actress friends who were, last year asked to audition for an onstage production of Hair. Both refused because of the nudity and they both could have used the work. I applauded them.
    Look at yourself in the mirror naked. Quick…would you rather tommorow have to show your bare ass and pubes off in a sex scene with Jessica Alba/Jake Gyllenhaal, or run around with a gun/sword like Jack Sparrow?
    That’s the answer I chose also. Most women do not want to be viewed as sex objects any more than men and also refuse to do nudity any more.
    There is no great Christian conspiracy folks. Hollywood is governed by left liberals and their sympathies are certainly not in that camp.
    The answer is in fact something more timeless and simple…
    …good, olde fashioned human nature.

  20. Nicol D says:

    Palmtree,
    “I think to some extent porn is so ubiquitous that to do sex feels almost like a parody of it. I mean, every cool movie used to have the obligatory sex scene, but now it feels like, “well it can’t be as intense as porn so why not just let the audience use their imaginations.”
    Excellent point! Again I have many friends that laugh at ‘soft stuff’ like Basic Instinct or The Dreamers. They say if they want to see sex they’ll just rent porn.
    How many reviews of Basic Instinct II called it too tame?
    I remember seeing Purple Rain as a child and it felt so dirty and hard R. Now it feels so tame.
    In a way, Basic Instinct killed the sex film. It created the straight to video erotic thriller which satiated the urge to have graphc sex in real films. Directors began to think it was cheesy to do sex.
    Personally, I actually have no problem with sex in film if it is well done and wish more actresses would act more sexy. Even in Mr. and Mrs Smith, Jolie’s dominatrix outfit covered vitually every inch of her body.
    But there is no conspiracy…just a convergence of different forces at work at this time.

  21. Josh Massey says:

    $63 million for “John Tucker Must Die?” What are people seeing in this flick that I’m not? I’m seeing “Just My Luck” style numbers, but here and over at Mojo, MUCH bigger things are being predicted.

  22. EDouglas says:

    I’m surprised that Accepted isn’t rated R… but I guess the R rating only works when you have strong star draws like Carell, Vaughn and Wilson

  23. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Remember when Amelie got given an R rating because of, what? that funny montage at the start of the film? Yet movies like afore mentioned Dodgeball and others get a PG13 despite being filled with sex jokes.

  24. Wrecktum says:

    “Look at yourself in the mirror naked. Quick…would you rather tommorow have to show your bare ass and pubes off in a sex scene with Jessica Alba/Jake Gyllenhaal, or run around with a gun/sword like Jack Sparrow?”
    Not a proper comparison. A sex scene with “bare ass and pubes” would necessitate an R rating while running around like Jack Sparrow is a PG-13. Here’s a proper comparison:
    Would you rather tommorow have to show your bare ass and pubes off in a sex scene with Jessica Alba/Jake Gyllenhaal, or be strapped to a chair and pretend to be eviscerated like in Hostel?
    That’s an easy answer for me but, hell, if I had a chance to do Hair, I’d pick it in an instant because, unlike the people you know, I don’t have any hangups about my body.

  25. Nicol D says:

    “Would you rather tommorow have to show your bare ass and pubes off in a sex scene with Jessica Alba/Jake Gyllenhaal, or be strapped to a chair and pretend to be eviscerated like in Hostel?”
    Not a proper comparison Wrecktum. You’re trying to smear the example with the most grotesque images of violence you can imagine to load the deck. I did not do that in my initial point. I used examples that present both the sex objects and objects of adventure in the most favourable light.
    To go with your example we would have to turn the sex into felching.
    …and most would still opt to pretend they were being tortured.
    Don’t be the cliche and insist that anyone who doesn’t want to run around naked has ‘hangups’.
    Have you ever been to a nudist camp? No nudity hangups there…and I’ve never wanted to see more clothes on people in my entire life. ‘shudder’

  26. Cadavra says:

    This morning I got out of bed, looked at myself in the mirror naked and said, “This isn’t worth $11.” If I were Diane Lane, the answer might be different.

  27. Kambei says:

    I think it really comes down to money. When the script says “and then they have sex”, it doesn’t really make that much difference to the plot if the movie fades to black or there is a graphic sex scene. Producers will look at those different interpretations and insist on the cut which will allow them to show that movie to the largest paying audience. Of course, this is for movies that aren’t explicitly about sex. Other than The Dreamers, I can’t think of one in recent years (maybe In the Mood for Love?), and I agree that that is a sad state of affairs. šŸ™
    On another note, I have actually found the vast majority of Christians to be very tolerant of the amount of sex in movies–they just don’t go to those movies. I’ve had friends object to “public” displays of sexuality that they can’t avoid, like billboards etc., but I think that’s their right.

  28. White Label says:

    We’ve been talking about movies, but what about trailers. I remember when Twin Falls Idaho got a red-band trailer because a woman crawled on top of siamese twins in bed, and it was judged a “3-way”. Yet I saw the preview for Shortbus 2 weeks ago which I found fairly explicit: green band, approved for all audiences.
    The ratings system is flawed in that there ARE rules and guidelines. And now that producers have learned through default what the rules are, they stop short at 1 f-bomb and a couple of shits. And also the process of resubmitting a movie. Where was that memo from Parker & Stone about the South Park movie from a month or so ago… They added worse things back in, and got the lower rating.
    I like the idea of ratings as a guideline for parents, but I think there’s just too much lobbying going on.

  29. Eric says:

    I think Kambei has pretty much nailed it. It’s not an anti-sex Hollywood conspiracy, and it’s not that the adult filmgoing audience is against sex itself.
    We are where we are because the producers want to maximize their profit potential.
    I think it’s a shame that sex on screen is considered more offensive than violence, but that’s a tangential discussion.

  30. Sandy says:

    The flirting around between Capt. Jack Sparrow and Elizabeth Swann in POTC2 was WAY sexier than anything I’ve seen in R-rated films.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    “These are more personal acts and most people in real life, regardless of the views they advocate politically, are social conservatives personally in thier actions.”
    I disagree with this, I would say that most people are ‘moderates’ in their personal lives, although there’s no markers for this. It sounds like Nicol thinks that anyone who isn’t into sex with candle wax and leather masks is a ‘personal conservative’ but I don’t think this is the case.
    The obvious response to Nicol’s remarks are to look at European films, which routinely feature more sex and nudity than American ones. Not because the actors are any better looking, simply because they’re less socially constricted.
    PS: Nicol, I’m guessing these two actress friends of yours are separate from your two ‘loose’ friends?

  32. Wrecktum says:

    “Not a proper comparison Wrecktum. You’re trying to smear the example with the most grotesque images of violence you can imagine to load the deck. I did not do that in my initial point. I used examples that present both the sex objects and objects of adventure in the most favourable light.”
    Your examples are not equivalents either. Showing pubic hair (on a guy at least) is pretty graphic nudity and implies a fairly graphic sex scene. Running around with a gun (your example) would be more equivalent to walking around in a sexy dress.
    And, yes, I’ve been to a nudist camp (actually a nude beach) and I had no problems with it at all. Why do you? Why would mere nudity alone cause such “shuddering.” I think that demonstrates your hangups pretty succinctly right there.

  33. James Leer says:

    Did Nicol seriously just talk about rimming? Now I’ve read it all.

  34. Nicol D says:

    Jeff,
    “It sounds like Nicol thinks that anyone who isn’t into sex with candle wax and leather masks is a ‘personal conservative’ but I don’t think this is the case.”
    Deal with what I said, not with the stereotype of me that you wish I said, so that you can smear me.
    Otherwise the exchange is useless.
    “The obvious response to Nicol’s remarks are to look at European films, which routinely feature more sex and nudity than American ones. ”
    A bit of an overstatement. We perceive European films to be filled with sex not because they all are, but because the sex filled ones are usually what distributors know will make money when imported into the States to appeal to the sex obsessed ‘art house’ crowd.
    And again, we were not talking about American Films in general…were talking about big studio pictures. If you want to talk broadly American, then we can bring people like John Cameron Mitchell, David Cronenberg, Wayne Kramer, Wayne Wang, Martin Scorsese and Todd Solondz into it.
    Much of this argument is about perception, not reality.
    “…simply because they’re less socially constricted.”
    As defined by who?
    One man’s social liberation is another man’s social bondage. Life is not that facile, Jeff. Clockwork Orange and Reservoir Dogs were banned in parts of Europe. Every society has it’s own versions of taboo …whether about dealing with sexuality or violence.
    “Nicol, I’m guessing these two actress friends of yours are separate from your two ‘loose’ friends?”
    These two friends are confident enough in their sexuality to not have to drop thier clothes because someone wants to make money off of them getting naked. They want to be judged for thier minds and talent…not their ‘O face’. I’m sure you would find them “socially constricted by the patriarchal Judeo-Christian…”. They laugh at such silliness.
    Wrecktum,
    Harrison Ford in Frantic, Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump. Saw pubic hair in both those films of the leads. No graphic sex involved.
    “Why would mere nudity alone cause such “shuddering.” I think that demonstrates your hangups pretty succinctly right there.”
    If ‘shuddering’ seeing a bunch of naked men who look like John Goodman and women who look like Rosie O’Donell means I have ‘hang-ups’ then I’m proud to say I have a closet full of ’em.
    Maybe I went to the wrong beach but there were no Angelina Jolie’s and Brad Pitt’s available that day I can tell you.
    It looked more like a Hell’s Angels Reunion. I could tell by the tatoos and piercings. ‘shudder’

  35. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, it doesn’t work if you’re just going to get huffy when I provide rhetorical examples for my case. You have to do the same. I would say that an example of ‘personal conservatism’ in a sex life would be a married couple who never have sex, or do it with the lights off every time, and only one partner is satisfied at the end, ‘personal liberalism’ would be extreme fetishes/bondage/kink, and the vast bulk of humanity would fall in the middle. You seemed to suggest before that anyone who didn’t want to fondle a breast on screen was therefore ‘personally conservative’. I would say that such people are merely camera-shy.

  36. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Kambei, the irony is that In the Mood for Love is about sex but doesn’t feature any. Only glances.

  37. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “What happend? Has Corporate Hollywood let the crazy Christians dictate the content in pursuit of their oh so large market?”
    Yes. While Disney courts the fundamentalists with “The Chronicles of Narnia”, ABC treats Pat Robertson and his kind with kid gloves. (“The 700 Club” is seen on the ABC Family channel and some over-the-air stations.)
    There is no great Christian conspiracy folks. Hollywood is governed by left liberals and their sympathies are certainly not in that camp.
    Blockbuster Video banned “The Last Temptation of Christ” after the company received threats from the American Family Association. What is the AFA? A right-wing Christian outfit that supports censorship of the entertainment industry. The AFA’s founder is on record as saying Hollywood is run by Jews.
    Disney ordered Miramax not to release “Dogma” after Disney corporate got complaints from the Catholic League. What is the Catholic League? A right-wing pressure group with direct ties to the Catholic Archdiocese of New York.

  38. Hotspur says:

    Nicol …
    Look at the movies you just cited. Frantic, from 1988, and Forrest Gump, from 1994.
    That’s not Hollywood today. Hollywood today has changed, drastically … and that’s the point.
    (Incidentally, 9 Songs isn’t, never was, and was never intended to be a “mainstream” film.)
    ‘The Dreamers’ seems to be the recent exception, here, although I think it’s important to emphasize how that’s not a “mainstream movie” in the same sense that “Last Tango in Paris” or “9 1/2 Weeks” were. (Compare the stature of the actors involved if you doubt me).

  39. jeffmcm says:

    The Dreamers is also a movie made in France by an Italian director and an all-European cast except for Michael Pitt.

  40. THX5334 says:

    I was flipping channels last night and stumbled upon Lynch’s Wild at Heart.
    And it was the scene were Cage is telling Dern about the girl who told him to take a
    “bite o’ peach”
    And then they go to the montage of Cage and Dern having sex. It was hot. it was shot and cut well and framed really well. But it was also tasteful and really steamy without being gratuitous.
    And I thought about this thread and I was like:
    “Why is it so fucking hard to have a scene like this today?”
    The point especially, was for me, it was still a really hot montage; without being gratuitious. In other words, even with the ubiquitous of porn now, I still think there’s plenty of life left in a good Hollywood sex scene. Which I wasn’t feeling earlier.
    It’s just a matter of composition.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” ā€” some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it ā€” I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury ā€” he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā€” and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā€” I was with her at that moment ā€” she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy namedā€”” “Yeah, sure ā€” you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that Iā€™m on the phone with you now, after all thatā€™s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didnā€™t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereā€™s not a case of that. He wasnā€™t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā€” if that were what the accusation involved ā€” the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. Iā€™m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, ā€œYou know, itā€™s not this, itā€™s thatā€? Because ā€” let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatā€™s what it lacked. Thatā€™s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon