MovieChat Forums > The Sessions (2012) Discussion > Regarding on-screen nudity and the notio...

Regarding on-screen nudity and the notion of “fairness”


Since when is there an issue of "fairness" in art? Since when is fairness essential or even mildly important when telling a story (unless the story is about fairness, like a story about a courtroom trial, or in school, or playing a sport)? Life is innately "unfair" from a human perspective. It is proved to us again and again. So, in a play or a film for instance, what is fair or unfair about one actor being naked and another clothed? Have you read the script? Do you know the particulars of the actors' contracts? Are they getting more compensation for the nudity (probably, if it’s an exploitation movie but not necessarily for a movie like The Sessions)?

It was Hunt’s choice to play this role. She knew what was expected of her as an actor. When Jason Segel was shown with his schvantz dangling in our faces in Forgetting Sarah Marshall while we never saw anything of naked interest belonging to Kristen Bell OR Mila Kunis whatsoever, were you squalling , “Oh, sooo unfair!”

This whole idea of “fairness” regarding this particular issue is completely irrelevant. This is one of the highest paid jobs in the world, and only a very narrow band of human beings are ever considered to be movie stars. But they work for the money, as the song says. You can’t think that some actor is being treated unfairly because they are nude in a scene and someone else is not. When Nicole Kidman got naked in Eyes Wide Shut, she was only too ecstatic to be in a Kubrick film and would have done whatever Kubrick had asked her to do for nothing! because it meant a great deal to her and Cruise both (Cruise was naked as well as his then-wife, just for the record). Both the man and woman were completely naked, but not for the sake of fairness.

Women and men have different characters to play, and nudity is only one thing that they do among many others. Smoking for instance. Or driving. Swimming. Dancing. Using an accent. Using props, like carrying a sword and/or firing a gun, wearing costumes, dressing in one film like a lady and in another like a whore. This is what acting by definition is. What about it is fair? Or unfair, for that matter? To incorrectly quote Mae West, "Fairness has nothing to do with it."

ekw

reply

Well, John has addressed the issue in interviews and has said his body should've been shown but the folks paying for the movie didn't want it. So that's that.

But I don't think the lack of John's nudity is an issue of fairness so much as in the context of the film it literally makes no sense. Especially given how big a deal it is for him to even see his full naked body for the first time. His nudity is almost more important than Helen Hunt's.

reply

There may actually be fewer actors willing to go full frontal with the advent of DVD's and the ability to freeze frame on a sharp image. Being nude in a film is one thing. Having your nude image posted all over the web is another.

reply

More roles for the ones willing to do it then...no big loss.

reply

"The folks paying for the movie" - as in...test audiences? Studio heads?

I can understand the "fairness" point even as a straight male, because it does kind of stand out that you see every bit of Hunt but Hawkes' "junk" remains covered (not that I would've needed to see it anyway, lol).

reply

The financiers. They felt like if you saw a penis in the movie it would be harder to sell it.

reply