Hollywood Vs. Indie: Sex and Nudity

A recent discussion on a message board has prompted me to post, what I hope will be the start of a series of articles. The discussion essentially erupted into a flame war after a colleague of mine posted a casting call for a short film. His casting call included just a single phrase that stirred the entire debate: “One of the rolls requires nudity”.

No real description was given as to what the part entailed, however many of board members reacted rather negatively to the post, calling the movie sick, and tasteless. The crazy part is the casting call didn’t even include the description of the movie, or even the title! People just assumed he was making some bizarre trashy horror flick…blood blood boobs…blood blood boobs. For all they knew, it could have been a religious short about the garden of eden. But sadly people always assume the worst.

But what really got me upset was one person’s inference that things should be done “tastefully”, the way Hollywood does it, by covering up the nudity. Allow me to get on my soap box.

Hollywood Vs. Indies
Everyone knows, whether Hollywood or Independent, that sex in a movie sells. By and large, most sane people want to see attractive people naked. However, the way Hollywood treats sex and nudity is usually 180 degrees different than the way Indie movies do.

Hollywood tries to satisfy the ambiguous standards of the MPAA. If they want to market the movie to adults, they make it just raunchy enough to get an R rating, while still getting the hottest possible female star to agree to do it… usually for no justifiable story purpose.

Director: “Why does Angelina Jolie get naked in this scene?”
Producer: “Who cares! Angelina Jolie agreed to get naked in this scene!”

The nudity is used in a purely sexual way only as a marketing tool. This is true of many Hollywood movies, except those made by directors held in such high esteem that they are given free reign by the studios.

Now contrast that with an independent movie. Many indie movies go to extremes in terms of sexual content. Movies like The Dreamers, Short Bus, and Nine Songs, take huge risks in presenting sexual situations like you’ve never seen them on film. However, despite its extreme nature, the entire sexual nature is integral to the plot. The sexual situations are presented to say something important about the character, or to make an important statement about societies views on sex.

However, in my opinion, the most insidious use of sex and nudity occurs in Hollywood movies, targeted not for adults, but for teens. I’m talking about PG-13 movies. In PG-13 movies, they try to get just under the threshold of what the MPAA will allow so that they can market a sexualized movie, but market it to a younger audience. Here sexual situations are implied, and most often presented with little or no consequence. Jessica Simpson bounces around in a tiny top and every goes wow look at the boobies.

In my opinion fake nudity and fake sex, marketed towards teens is far less moral or tasteful than realistic sex, and full nudity marketed to an adult audience for the purpose of making a point. A black and white artsy photograph of a woman completely nude, is significantly more tasteful and more moralistic than a racy yet clothed Maxim photo spread.

When it comes to determining what is “moral” I tend to side with context over content. It’s not about how naked are you, but why are you naked in the first place.