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...
|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.