or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Most Gratuitous Nudity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Most Gratuitous Nudity

post #1 of 104
Thread Starter 
So...what's the most gratuitous exuse for nudity in a film? The shower thing is an old staple and there are far too many examples. I'm looking for the perfect mix of the audacious and inventive, scenes that amost make you laugh at the nerve of the producer. I'll bet, for example, it was a cigar-chomping studio big-wig who suggested the only highlight in Oliver Stone's Alexander.

So a few that fit that profile for me are-
-Under Seige
-the bit in Die Hard when the topless lady is being led from her office
-Swordfish

Of course, many posters may argue that gratuitous nudity is a contradiction in itself...
post #2 of 104
Looking or something to rent tonight to so your wank spanners can get you to vinegar strokes quickly, eh ?

Rent Door In The Floor if you like fleshy Cruise cast-offs. Or else Broken Flowers might give the rewindable hit you're after.

You could always try www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tour/ as well.
post #3 of 104
Starship Troopers
post #4 of 104
COMMANDO when Arnold and Bill Duke are fighting and one throws the other through a door, and there's a couple having sex. Of course, the big-tittied lady bounces up in a panic.
post #5 of 104
Horror movies are your best bet. There's a great Italian zombie flick out there that features chicks getting attacked while taping a TOPLESS AEROBICS SHOW. Zombies, blood, and boobs. What was that title? Strax?
post #6 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
Horror movies are your best bet. There's a great Italian zombie flick out there that features chicks getting attacked while taping a TOPLESS AEROBICS SHOW. Zombies, blood, and boobs. What was that title? Strax?
Umberto Lenzi's Nightmare City (aka City of the Walking Dead).
post #7 of 104
What about gratuitous near nudity? That's even more pointless. A prime example would be Angelina Jolie's side-boob in Tomb Raider.
post #8 of 104
Eh, you're right. I thought might have been Zombie Holocaust, but that's actually the one with Ian McCulloch watching helpless as his wench gets tied, legs almost akimbo, to a sacrficial stone. Loads of flange, right there.
post #9 of 104
I always thought "Death Spa" looked like the best fit for this, but I just cannot find a copy of that movie anywhere.
post #10 of 104
This thread will only be complete when temos has posted.
post #11 of 104
The nude shot of the woman who played Viggo's wife in History Of Violence. They had 2 sex scenes already (no nudity except for Viggo's butt) so there really was no point in it other than to give us a cheap thrill.

Halle Barry in Swordfish.

Renee Russo in Thomas Crown Affair.

And anytime Van Damme showed his butt in his movies. He really loved his butt.
post #12 of 104
this one might sound odd, but what about Showgirls. I'm not talking about the stuff where they are dancing, stripping, or the parts where people are having sex. I can understand why that stuff is there.

It gets gratuitous when there are shots of Elizabeth Berkley walking down the street and her shirt blows open for no reason and we see her boobs. didn't Paul Verhoeven think he had enough nudity?

Paul, when is enough, enough?
post #13 of 104
I don't think anything rivals Flesh and Blood. Jennifer Jason Leigh is naked for the majority of the film, and if it's not an unsettling gang rape, it's her prancing around naked in a medieval bath house and getting her nipples tweaked by Rutger Hauer.
post #14 of 104
One of the most gratuitous nudie shots in a mainstream film that I can recall is in HALLOWEEN II. Michael Myers drowns a naked nurse in a boiling hot faux-jacuzzi, then yanks her out by the hair. Cut to a wide-shot, her face horribly burnt, with her lovely breasts bouncing about all over the place. Outstandingly unnecessary.
post #15 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
The nude shot of the woman who played Viggo's wife in History Of Violence. They had 2 sex scenes already (no nudity except for Viggo's butt) so there really was no point in it other than to give us a cheap thrill.
Cause, y'know, married people never walk around naked, right?
post #16 of 104
The sound of one hand typing.

CLOSE THE THREAD !
post #17 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
The nude shot of the woman who played Viggo's wife in History Of Violence. They had 2 sex scenes already (no nudity except for Viggo's butt) so there really was no point in it other than to give us a cheap thrill....
And I'm certain that "thrilling" was exactly what Cronenberg was going for. Christ, while you're at it, why not cite Short Cuts as featuring nudity for nudity's sake.
post #18 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
Cause, y'know, married people never walk around naked, right?

Yes married people walk around naked, however there was no point in her being naked in that scene. It added nothing to the movie other than "wow, she's naked" and that's it. If her nudity meant something ok, but it didn't - the whole scene could have played out with her dressed and it wouldn't have changed the drama of the scene.

We are talking about gratuitous nudity here.
post #19 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobblemonkey
And I'm certain that "thrilling" was exactly what Cronenberg was going for. Christ, while you're at it, why not cite Short Cuts as featuring nudity for nudity's sake.

Short Cuts had the scene with Julianna Moore bottomless didn't it? I thought it was pretty unnecessary as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude but sometimes nudity isn't necessary.
post #20 of 104
How do you know there was no point? Christ, this is David fucking Cronenberg for christ's sake, not some random point and click director. Even the placement of the MPAA logo on his movies' credits have a point. Personally, the point for me was simply to emphasize their relationship as a couple in realism, which is what zero Hollywood movies do.
post #21 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
The nude shot of the woman who played Viggo's wife in History Of Violence. They had 2 sex scenes already (no nudity except for Viggo's butt) so there really was no point in it other than to give us a cheap thrill.
The fact that you can't see a point to nudity beyond a "cheap thrill" doesn't mean that's the case. In the context of both character and story, there's a perfectly valid - and important - reason why she appears naked at that point, in front of that character.
post #22 of 104
Ok, if there was a point to it - what was it? What does her nudity tell us? (And I'm not asking this to be a smartass, I really want to know what nudity represents...)

I am assuming her nudity is meant to represent intimacy and her closing her robe is the loss of the intimacy they once shared?
post #23 of 104
Trust plays a huge factor in that scene, especially with the events the evening before.
post #24 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
I am assuming her nudity is meant to represent intimacy and her closing her robe is the loss of the intimacy they once shared?
Pretty much. Given the way in which their relationship has changed - both emotionally and sexually - the notion of her revealing herself in that way to her "husband" is loaded with meaning. It's David Cronenberg, for fucks sake. He's not known for just throwing stuff on-screen for no reason. If he shows you that scene, of course he wants you to take something away from it other than just "Woah! You can see her pussy!"
post #25 of 104
This is David goddamned Cronenberg, for shit's sake!



What? I wanted to say it too.
post #26 of 104
I understand that David Cronenberg isn't some hack director, but I still feel that scene could have played out the same way without the nudity.

Most movie nudity is gratuitous anyways, so I'm not signalling him out only.

And this will get me shot, but I can't stand his movies.
post #27 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
Ok, if there was a point to it - what was it? What does her nudity tell us? (And I'm not asking this to be a smartass, I really want to know what nudity represents...)

I am assuming her nudity is meant to represent intimacy and her closing her robe is the loss of the intimacy they once shared?
Also, film is partly a visual medium. Even if you can't articulate why a nude shot might appear (although in this case as well as in the case of Short Cuts, the rationale is pretty obvious and easily explained), there are emotional undertones that might be at play. Even if there's no easily discernible reason for it, the default is not necessarily "gratuitous for the sake of cheap thrills."
post #28 of 104
I can understand nudity having meaning and being "ok" in a film - for example the nudity in Schindler's List. It showed how they (the Jews) were stipped of their humanity and dignity and turned into cattle. It didn't bother me at all, I could see it having a place and a purpose.

I haven't seen Short Cuts in years so I would have to rewatch it to get an idea of the context of the scene but I do remember feeling it was a bit too much.

I just feel that some things can be said without the nudity, and it makes me feel that it is gratuitous.
post #29 of 104
So, nudity is always gratuitous unless there is some really explicit message behind it?
post #30 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
I can understand nudity having meaning and being "ok" in a film - for example the nudity in Schindler's List. It showed how they (the Jews) were stipped of their humanity and dignity and turned into cattle. It didn't bother me at all, I could see it having a place and a purpose.
That seems like a weird example to me. The single allowance you could come up with for nudity has to do with a lack of dignity? Yeesh...

Quote:
I haven't seen Short Cuts in years so I would have to rewatch it to get an idea of the context of the scene but I do remember feeling it was a bit too much.

I just feel that some things can be said without the nudity, and it makes me feel that it is gratuitous.
First off, here's how I see it: you go to an art museum, and the nudity isn't going to shock you, right? It's representational. Well, film is representational, too. When you watch A History of Violence, Maria Bello isn't standing in front of you naked. It's a filmic image of her. So I think that perspective (that film is just another form of visual art) should take some of the edge off. I can't think of many other works of visual art in which nudity is criticized as "gratuitous."

Whether the image works for you or not, it's just as likely that it was put there for some visual effect as it was to turn you on. In the right hands, it may be no different than putting your protagonist in a red shirt instead of a blue one. There may be symolism happening, but it may just make for a better visual or a better match with the scene. If two married characters are in a bedroom together, they're just as likely to have their clothes off as they are to have them on.
post #31 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
So, nudity is always gratuitous unless there is some really explicit message behind it?
I wouldn't say it is always gratuitous, but sometimes it feels that way.

I have no problem against nudity, I really don't, but there are films where it isn't necessary because it adds nothing to the film overall. This scene in HOV is one, it added nothing to it. I got they were intimate, now it's at risk, so I didn't need to see her naked to know that. He could have passed on the nudity and we'd still get the point.
post #32 of 104
The scene in Short Cuts proved that Julianne Moore is a natural red-head. An important statement, in my book.
post #33 of 104
How has no one mentioned Lifeforce yet?
post #34 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
I understand that David Cronenberg isn't some hack director, but I still feel that scene could have played out the same way without the nudity.
No, it couldn't. In that scene, her being naked is integral to the point being made. Her being naked says everything that needs to be said. Yes, you could have them say it out loud, but doing it visually, without dialogue, is a much smarter, more interesting, more cinematic way of putting that point across.

You clearly won't agree with this, but that scene is more subtle because of the nudity.
post #35 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
I wouldn't say it is always gratuitous, but sometimes it feels that way.

I have no problem against nudity, I really don't, but there are films where it isn't necessary because it adds nothing to the film overall. This scene in HOV is one, it added nothing to it. I got they were intimate, now it's at risk, so I didn't need to see her naked to know that. He could have passed on the nudity and we'd still get the point.
Even if it didn't have the meaning it does, the scene still wouldn't be gratuitous. See DaveB's post.
post #36 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Rocco
The scene in Short Cuts proved that Julianne Moore is a natural red-head. An important statement, in my book.

Not like HOV where the carpet didn't match the drapes.
post #37 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
I understand that David Cronenberg isn't some hack director, but I still feel that scene could have played out the same way without the nudity.

.
Sure it could. The violent scenes could have played out without lingering shots of bloody faces. It could have all been shot in a completely different manner than the one chosen. But why should it?
This is David Freakin' FLippin' Cronenberg for hot shit's sake. This is the way he chose to tell the story. The nudity serves the story and enforces the theme. Therefore, it's not gratuitous.
post #38 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
No, it couldn't. In that scene, her being naked is integral to the point being made. Her being naked says everything that needs to be said. Yes, you could have them say it out loud, but doing it visually, without dialogue, is a much smarter, more interesting, more cinematic way of putting that point across.

You clearly won't agree with this, but that scene is more subtle because of the nudity.

I don't feel they had to say it out loud, I was getting the idea that the intimacy between them was at risk. I would go for more subtlety anyday I just found her nudity to be jarring - it came out of the blue and was unexpected. If that was his intent then it's a job well done. I just felt it seemed so out of place at that moment - like going from a whisper to a scream.
post #39 of 104
I think the jarring reaction toward nudity is the problem here (I'm sure you aren't alone in your reaction), not the nudity itself.
post #40 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
Sure it could. The violent scenes could have played out without lingering shots of bloody faces. It could have all been shot in a completely different manner than the one chosen. But why should it?
This is David Freakin' FLippin' Cronenberg for hot shit's sake. This is the way he chose to tell the story. The nudity serves the story and enforces the theme. Therefore, it's not gratuitous.
Ok, if this is the way he chose to tell the story then there is no such thing as gratuitous nudity in movies because since it's his artistic vision, then we have to give a free pass to everyone out there who throws in a nude scene since it's their artistic vision.
post #41 of 104
Many of those listed here aren't gratuitous, but Under Seige and Commando certainly are. But, hell, even those have some sort of comedic aspect to them.
post #42 of 104
I didn't say it's valid because it's his vision, I said it's valid because it serves the story. There's a difference.
Cronenberg chose to tell a certain story. His artistic choices must suit this story.
post #43 of 104
Gratuitous nudity is when, in Airplane, the topless woman jiggles past the camera as the passengers panic.

Maria Bello being naked in History of Violence is nothing of the sort. It's done for a reason - a fairly obvious reason - and is absolutely connected to the themes being developed. To say it "added nothing to the film" suggests you don't really understand David Cronenberg or what this particular film was about.
post #44 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
That seems like a weird example to me. The single allowance you could come up with for nudity has to do with a lack of dignity? Yeesh...



First off, here's how I see it: you go to an art museum, and the nudity isn't going to shock you, right? It's representational. Well, film is representational, too. When you watch A History of Violence, Maria Bello isn't standing in front of you naked. It's a filmic image of her. So I think that perspective (that film is just another form of visual art) should take some of the edge off. I can't think of many other works of visual art in which nudity is criticized as "gratuitous."

Whether the image works for you or not, it's just as likely that it was put there for some visual effect as it was to turn you on. In the right hands, it may be no different than putting your protagonist in a red shirt instead of a blue one. There may be symolism happening, but it may just make for a better visual or a better match with the scene. If two married characters are in a bedroom together, they're just as likely to have their clothes off as they are to have them on.
No, nudity can represent a lot of things - love, innocence, power, intimacy, fear, fragility, etc...

My example from Schindler's List is what came to me at the moment. Not a very good one I admit, but c'est la vie.

I can't see any other reason for the nudity in that scene other than it's meant to show the loss of trust, intimacy, innocence, etc. It could be that was exactly what he was getting at but the feeling I got from it was that it was redundant and therefore excessive.
post #45 of 104
You're kind of a prude, wade.
post #46 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
You're kind of a prude, wade.
Ha ha...and you know what? that's exactly what I knew was going to happen with all this.

I really don't have a problem with nudity at all - onscreen, in art, on tv, in real life, etc...I just listed that scene in HOV and ended up in some weird debate that makes me sound like the biggest prude around. Sigh...
post #47 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade1972
I can't see any other reason for the nudity in that scene other than it's meant to show the loss of trust, intimacy, innocence, etc. It could be that was exactly what he was getting at but the feeling I got from it was that it was redundant and therefore excessive.
That's a fair opinion, but removed from the subject of gratuitous nudity. Your talking about a lack of subtlety in storytelling, not showing a naked chick just for kicks.
post #48 of 104
You obviously do have some kind of problem with nudity if you think seeing a naked woman on-screen, just being naked, is jarring.
post #49 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
You obviously do have some kind of problem with nudity if you think seeing a naked woman on-screen, just being naked, is jarring.
Well if I do have a problem with nudity, it's news to me. I think I must have misspoke when I mentionned the "jarring" issue. I don't think seeing a nude woman onscreen is jarring at all. What surprised me was that it was so unexpected. During the sex scenes I was expecting it (seeing her nude) but we didn't so when we did see her, it was a surprise.

That's why I felt (and do feel) it was gratuitous. It didn't feel necessary.
post #50 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
Gratuitous nudity is when, in Airplane, the topless woman jiggles past the camera as the passengers panic.
Exactly! If the nudity occurs in a situation in which nudity would be unusual in real life, then there's a chance it might be gratuitous. In Airplane's case, the artistic reason is to mock this sort of usage, of course. An actual occurrence of this might be that Showgirls example given above, in which Elizebeth Berkley's shirt flies open (although even that might be an artistic decision along the lines of "we need to take this ridiculousness further over the top!").

But I don't see how nudity in a sex scene or in a scene in which people who are utterly comfortable with each other are hanging out in privacy can ever be "gratuitous." It's realism.

I'd suspect that, on any given night in America, there's a higher percentage of naked people having sex than strategically-clothed people having sex. If anything, we should be upset about the unrealistic, gratuitous clothing in movie sex scenes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Most Gratuitous Nudity