4 ms·
I don't agree with the author's characterization. Little of the sex scenes in Hollywood films are "bold" or "daring" in the slightest. They're timid, lifeless a
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I don't agree with the author's characterization. Little of the sex scenes in Hollywood films are "bold" or "daring" in the slightest. They're timid, lifeless and quite often completely pointless. They're put in there more to appease some informal filmmaking convention rather than to drive the film itself. A few are explicit, most are comical and still suffer from puritan tropes (like the infamous "his-and-hers bed sheets").
Lars von Trier is certainly controversial, too. Antichrist received quite a bit of opposition from ratings and censorship boards. Then, in the USA, even if your film isn't censored, the NC-17 is a de facto death penalty.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoActually, from my personal observation, Hollywood seems to have toned down on sex scenes significantly in the last decade or so. Actually, I can honest-to-god say that Hollywood blockbusters are now higher culture than theatre in my country is...
- sp332 11y agoSimple math - more people will turn out to see a movie rated PG-13 instead of R. So that's what the studios tend to shoot for.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIt used to be that they were shooting for superfluous sex scenes, and a similar argument could be made - sex sells. Theatre is apparently behind the loop and it tries to exploit it now.
- olavk 11y agoYeah, TV and movies are kind of switching place in this regard. Once TV was safe and family friendly while movies could be provocative and daring. Now it is the opposite with TV (HBO/Netflix) pushing the boundaries with sex and violence and bad language. I think the reason is that mainstream movies today are so expensive they need to go after as large an audience as possible (ie PG-13), while TV can cater for a more specific, say adult, audience.