This is one issue (of many) I had with the film: Helen Hunt's naked body is shown in every angle short of spread-eagled, but for John Hawkes the camera stops modestly at his waist. Why?
If an actress has to reveal every aspect of her body for a film, why not the actor? It's a double standard and I'm disgusted by the hypocrisy of it.
but names aside, you raise an interesting point, and one I could well agree with (right now, I'm undecided).
"In your eyes, the light, the heat; in your eyes, I am complete"- Peter Gabriel
Yes, sorry about my getting his name wrong. I don't know why I called him Charlie!
It seems very wrong to me that the woman is essentially expected to bare all on screen, but not the man. Is there any good reason behind that? Is there any reason at all, other than male vanity and priviledge?
Imagine how it felt for Helen Hunt to play her role completely naked, while John Hawkes revealed nothing more than he would at the beach in a swimsuit.
The difference in their relative physical vulnerabilities was appalling to me. The emotional price Helen Hunt paid to play that role...was it worth it?
I believe it was Anthony Hopkins who said that all actors are whores, and I'm beginning to understand what he meant by that.
She was naked. What's the big deal? I think the nudity between the characters was relative to their personality. Hunt's character was sexually open and experienced, while Hawkes character was not sexually open nor experienced.
Inside all of us is....a WILD THING
"The emotional price Helen Hunt paid to play that role...was it worth it?"
The merits of potentially seeing a full frontal shot of John Hawkes in this movie notwithstanding (I wouldn't have minded, but I'm sure the filmmakers had a reason for not doing it), you're not really being fair to Helen or the director here. It's not like Helen was dragged on set and forced to strip down - she signed on to play a sex surrogate, she read the script, she was aware going in that she was going to be taking off her clothes for the camera. All evidence points to her being comfortable with the idea. Not everyone is shy about their body - if Helen was comfortable enough with her nakedness to take a part in this movie, I say good for her. I also say stop transferring what I'm assuming is your own shyness about the naked body (with which there is nothing wrong, I might add) onto an actress who fully consented to her own on-screen nudity.
You're phrasing this like she was being exploited - but the film wasn't trying to be erotic with her nakedness, and it wasn't making a big deal out of it (I saw no "Go watch 'The Sessions', you get to see Helen Hunt STARKERS!!!" blurbs on the posters, did you?). She was naked because it was a part of her job, and it was treated (I think) with perfect frankness by the film. It doesn't mean anything to her character or the camera. She's just naked.
I think it's all to do with the penis being erect. You cannot show that on screen for some odd reason.
Everyone seems to be obsessed with the size of wangs too, way more than with women's boobs.
And what emotional price are you referring to? Did she say it was distressing?
--
Bauer vs. Bourne, that is the question.
There was one scene where I thought it would be perfectly appropriate to have shown Mark nude, and that was the flashback scene where she was holding a full length mirror in front of him showing him what his naked body looked like. We see the image in the mirror but his penis is just out of view. I think it was a missed opportunity for a poignant, touching scene. And this wasn’t a sex scene so he wouldn’t have been erect or anything. Showing his naked vulnerability would have been a nice contrast to her brazenly confident nudity.
sharethat was exactly what i was thinking. that mirror scene would have been a lovely moment for mark to embrace his manly body and see himself as a sexual being than the little boy inside he clings onto.
if the script specifically did not want mark nude; then fair enough; but we live in hope that one day nudity won't be an issue; especially since we had a fully nude female straddling a man.
it's a dirty world Reich, say what you want
I would guess it's because a penis looks disgusting. Check out "The Crying Game" Full frontal male nudity there.
==============================
He lifts me clear to the sky, you know he taught me to fly.
This is one issue (of many) I had with the film: Helen Hunt's naked body is shown in every angle short of spread-eagled, but for John Hawkes the camera stops modestly at his waist. Why?
If an actress has to reveal every aspect of her body for a film, why not the actor? It's a double standard and I'm disgusted by the hypocrisy of it.
[deleted]
I haven't see The Sessions so I defer comment but the idea that men show more skin in American films than women is ridiculous. Since the institution of the rating system in 1968 women have always been more prone to bare all than men and this has been documented in article after article.
Labia are not part of the vagina. If you want to use medical terms at least be correct about their usage.
shareWhy no full frontal male nudity? Because in the context of the film, the penis would need to be erect, and showing an erect penis in a movie is not permitted according to some movie-making code (unless you're making a porno).
But genitals are genitals, and while I've seen several movies with male genitals showing, I've never seen one with female genitals showing, because they're covered up with pubic hair. But who cares, really? Why is it so important? I go to a movie for the story, not to play peek-a-boo.
By the way, what you see between a woman's legs is not her vagina. Her vagina is the birth canal inside her body. What you see is her vulva.
Exactly. This is the correct answer.
share1. To simulate O'Brien's extreme spine curvature, Hawkes filmed his scenes with a soccer-ball-sized pad under his right pelvis <http://mobile.cleveland.com/advcleve/pm_29206/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=PIq5Jk2d>;. As a practical matter, they may have wanted to keep it covered.
2. A woman can act arousal without being aroused but a man shows the state of his arousal openly. Hawkes and the director might have shied away from the kind of self-stimulation necessary to "act" O'Brien's erection.
I wondered about that... It's certainly considerably less coy about sex and nudity than your average Hollywood film. But, maybe showing a severely disabled character completely nude is still a step too far for a fairly mainstream American film... I think the makers of a similar European or Australian film would be more comfortable to show a disabled character completely naked.
shareMy thought:
A naked woman is apealling for the majority of the male audience and it dosen't matter if there's pubic hair, big breasts of small, chubby or slim, etc... Her image won't be tarnished.
A naked man on the other hand, if he's not ''hung'' or don't have a normal sized penis will prolly not appeal to the majority of the female audience and will surely tarnish his name (articles mocking him in newspapers, comments made towards him on twitter/FB, etc...).
An example would be the redhead guy in Hall Pass; extremely small penis and I've seen a lot of bad comments and insults regarding the size. He's not even a known actor so imagine if your ''Charlie'' would show let's say a 3'' fully erect penis how bad that could be for his image.
Anyways, if some of you guys/gals don't agree, don't diss my opinion, because that's what it is, an opinion :P
.02
An example would be the redhead guy in Hall Pass; extremely small penis and I've seen a lot of bad comments and insults regarding the size. He's not even a known actor so imagine if your ''Charlie'' would show let's say a 3'' fully erect penis how bad that could be for his image.
[deleted]
Sex has always been a big deal w/American made movies (sorry if this has already been said). Violence is fine, but sex, esp male genitalia, no no nooooo..
[deleted]
This is true. Nudity in general is just not done. That's one reason why French and Spanish films are so refreshing.
Only a delusional idiot doesn't realize that "full frontal" is different for men than women. "Full frontal" exposes the male actor's penis, and male actors don't want the audience or fans knowing how tiny they are. Did Helen show her genitalia? No, of course not. Only a fool wouldn't realize this.
share