Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Once A Villain
My issue is with real sex. Unsimulated, and in a "real" film, as opposed to a pornographic film. It's that I find distracting. I see no point in any culture to be watching, say, Fatal Attraction or something and we suddenly cut to a close-up shot of the active genitalia of Michael Douglas and Glenn Close. What the hell does that add to the STORYLINE? What would it even add to the effect of the simulated sex in that film, which already features plenty of nudity and thrusting? Is there some sort of mystery to the activity that can only be solved by seeing the penetration itself? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely against censorship. I've seen plenty of porn in my lifetime. My only argument is that porn scenes in a real film, a film about characters and a storyline, is a gratuitous waste of time.
|
I don't have a problem with genitalia. I guess it's a realism thing, although I object to the notion that pornography is "real" sex. I can't stand the promotion of sex as something mystic, magical, or it being edited out and implied in self-censorship (although it could be edited out for practical, artistic reasons) in film. Although the counter to that is not pornography, that seems to have its own goals, and they're not realism.