MovieChat Forums > Cashback (2006) Discussion > It's Really The American Way....

It's Really The American Way....


...to so be outrageous about nudity in this movie, and treat it like if it was showing porn. Not every American will feel this way obviously, but it's a common tendency nonetheless.
Not to speak of the offended women, unbelievable. You have got to be idiots, sorry, but you do. It isn't often a movie treats the female body with such appreciation and love like this one does, and you pound on it like if it's treating you like prostitutes or something.
The main character doesn't even look at any women at any given moment with lust or desire, he looks at them with always with fascination for their beauty and for the inspiration they gave him. When he sees Hustler as a boy, he even becomes nauseous for showing sexuality, other than the beauty he was seeking for.
Please mature yourselfs, and try to open your mind a little, because not everything in life is black, bad or devil when it comes to sexuality or the female body.
I don't think the movie is a masterpiece of any sorts, nor is it even one of my favorites, but it's a nice movie with some good ideas, and you are misinterpreting them.
Just one more thing, the Time Frieze isn't real, its beauty the main character as an artist sees the world. In the end, he can show it to his lover, with love (hence the kiss).
This is not a Sci-Fi movie, how did you ever got that idea?

reply

[deleted]

Have you ever taken an art appreciation class? Naked people depicted everywhere, throughout the ages. How is this all that different?

reply

[deleted]

Is this a British thing? Cause in America we don't have penises swinging in our faces on the telly.. They aren't allowed. Womens pubic hair is rarely allowed.. Actually, it's pretty much just boobs and butts. Men aren't really objectified (in terms of nudity I mean.)

reply

[deleted]

Woooah. What if I was living under a rock? And I'm sorry that the shows and movies I watch don't have, now, "big swinging dicks". I was just saying my experience with television is different than yours. No need to accuse me of being a hermit. Haha.

reply

[deleted]

Look. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just said that the movies and shows* I* watch don't have that. So stop being a borderline *beep* because we watch different things. And yes, I did resort to name calling. Conversation over.

reply

[deleted]

I amended it with my second post. Get over yourself. Its the Internet, not a debate about politics or the enviroment. No one cares if you think you're right or I think I'm right. At least I had the decency to correct my first statement and know that I was being too broad. You aren't god.

reply

How old are you anyways. You know that your life has now boiled down to arguing with a 17 year old girl about big swinging penises on televison in a imdb message board for a movie that barely anyone has seen whilst you sit at your computer and actually answer me, like, immediately after I answer you. The only reason I answer you is because I just graduated high school and am completely bored outta my mind. So good job on life.

reply

[deleted]

Lol. You didn't even get the point.

You are also a product of the education system you know. Duh. -___-

And I don't even talk like that, maaan. This isn't That 70's Show.

reply

Well this digressed.

reply

Haha, sorry for taking over your statement.

reply

Actually, you are incorrect about the FCC regarding regulation of cable broadcasting...

Per https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq

"What makes material indecent? Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.

Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the material is patently offensive.

In our assessment of whether material is patently offensive, context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors."

Also, in your post further down the chain, all but one of the shows you cite are on premium pay sites like HBO and Showtime, not cable. Hence the ability to have adult, graphic storylines (and the reason the one on cable - American Horror Story, is on at 10pm, per FCC regulations). =)

reply

I think u need to open your mind when it comes to the film business you can scratch out art. Seriously you need to wake up from being and idealist its immature true sexuality isn't about what is. Its about what could be its possibility of what could happen. Not what actually is happening film makers seem to forget that. Yet again only showing the possibility without actually showing what is. In the film industry isn't correct or legit to selling a mo ie they have to show it all to make profit.

There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness and truth. (Leo Tolstoy)

reply

...because you can't make such statement about the entire film industry around the World, it simply isn't true
And when did any form of art stopped being it so, just because it depicts a penis, a vagina or intercourse? Just ask the Greeks, the Romans and some Renaissance artists, like Michelangelo
In fact it's the opposite, it's when showing these, one sees if the authour is trying somehow to bring to our consciousness our unconscious desires, or if he's just taking advantage of those inner desires to stack up his wallet

reply


" just because it depicts a penis, a vagina or intercourse? Just ask the Greeks, the Romans and some Renaissance artists, like Michelangelo "...we are not in those times anymore .It's the 21st century things change time changes the greek and romans were actually a more sophisticated civilization than us.Back then artist's were broke it wasn't so much about lining pockets.Today penis and vagina and intercourse all have vanity attached to them.It's not artistic in film ,films aren't artistic their product to be sold.Film industry and art should never be mentioned in the same breath.They are completely different things
There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness and truth. (Leo Tolstoy)

reply

You guys aren't even speaking in full sentences, so I'm having a hard time taking your points seriously.

And to say that film and art are different and "shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath" is the most ignorant statement in this entire argument. Clearly you have not seen enough good films. Not all films are "made to be sold." Do you know how much work it takes to make a movie? How much artistry? The director of photography, the set designer, the costume designer, the acting... all of those roles are mediums of ART. Do you really think the only forms of art are ones involving paint or clay? I'm relatively sure the dictionary would disagree with you. Take a moment to educate yourself on the literal meaning of the word "art" and then get back to me.

reply

"with some good ideas" strong emphasis on "Some" meaning it could of been better but wasn't .The whole story sounds cheesy the fact that they tryed to have the main character come off as not looking at women as meer objects is silly.Even more silly to show home being offended by looking at a hustler and being offended .If he realy felt that way then why even incorporate women into this period besides the love interest?.Having someone freeze time so they can strip a women of her clothes is not artistic.It's perverse its obvious this is a contradiction to your him becoming.Nauseous at the sight of the hustler magazine but undressing a real woman he hasno issues? very incongruent don't you think?

In Europe an actor is an artist. In Hollywood, if he isn't working, he's a bum.

reply

Actually it makes complete since that he would become nauseous at the sight of a Hustler magazine but imagine women around him to be naked. Reality check: people imagine what other people look like naked. We do it every day. Does that mean we frequent porn websites and buy Hustler? No. He simply appreciated the female body without objectifying it (as those magazines do). His attraction to the female figure is an appreciation, not a perversion. His relationship with the female lead proves this. Is there something wrong with the female body that you are so offended by in seeing it naked? The male and female figures have been celebrated and replicated in art throughout the ages. I see no difference here.

reply

"the female body that you are so offended by in seeing it naked?" i'm not offended by it just when i see it multiple times in a movie .I know that its not there for artistic reasons to be appreciated.Especially in a moive involving young adults it tends to get redundant after a while .He couldn't appreciate the human female body with clothes on? we are supposed to believe he froze time and people so he could take off her clothes and paint her ? .The spirits of the great painters jumped into his body at that particular moment ? Gimmie a break ,he sees her as a object look at the way the scenes set up.He has to freeze everything to manipulate her in such way.He lifts up her skirt ,takes off her top he objectifies her .


"The male and female figures have been celebrated and replicated in art throughout the ages. I see no difference here." There is a difference big difference first of all that was back then .secondly that was mostly in europe where the male and female bodies were works of art . Times change we're not that sophisticated today as we were back then .Big difference

In Europe an actor is an artist. In Hollywood, if he isn't working, he's a bum.

reply

"Times change we're not that sophisticated today as we were back then .Big difference"

Times change. We're not as sophisticated today as we were back then. There's a big difference.

LOL. Clearly.

reply

Last time I checked this film was made in England.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, and / or doesn't.

reply