Unsimulated sex- An integral part of the art of film or just posh porn?

KenSwee

I'm wondering what you all think of Unsimulated sex in the film industry?
Personally, I don't have much of a problem with it and that's mainly because I'm not a fan of the type of films that this generally appears in but I'd like to hear what others think as it seems to be moving from art house type films into more mainstream productions.

Is it really a necessary part of certain films or is it just posh porn?
Where should an actor draw the line for his/her love of their art?

I have seen films such as Baise-Moi and to be honest, I did find it a bit too tedious not shocking. I think that might be because we are so used to easy access to porn nowadays and with more nudity and sex in mainstream TV series such as Rome and Game of Thrones, it's like the film industry has moved up a level in terms of how explicit they can be.

Mickeroo

I always find it strange that sex is seen as a taboo of sorts on film yet extreme violence can be seen as entertainment.

I've no problem with nudity/sex scenes in movies, I don't really see the necessity of having sex scenes be unsimulated but I guess I don't really have a problem with it being that way. I haven't seen many films with unsimulated sex in them, the only ones I can think of are Shortbus & 9 Songs. I thought Shortbus was great and still would have been great without the sex scenes but in many ways they were important to the themes of the film, I thought 9 Songs was pretty pretentious and uninteresting overall.

johnny_ultimate

Entirely depends on the film in question, to be honest. No point just throwing a load of unsimulated sex into your film for ****s, giggles and unwarranted controversy. It can often be an important component of the story - stuff like The Idiots, Shortbus, In the Realm of the Senses... Sure, some examples are provocative for provocations sake, but in others it suits the tone and identity of the film.

That said, I do think mainstream cinema is all too backwards in their approach of the topic. I don't think every film needs unsimulated sex, but the American industry in general is strangely terrified by the concept. Everyone knows the old MPAA nonsense that goes on, but the L-shaped sheets that have come to define the backwards rom-com approach to sex illustrate an industry with a very peculiar moral compass.

KenSwee

Mickeroo wrote: »

I always find it strange that sex is seen as a taboo of sorts on film yet extreme violence can be seen as entertainment

I couldn't agree more.
Films like SAW and Final destination are just porn for a different crowd.

adox

KenSwee wrote: »

I couldn't agree more.
Films like SAW and Final destination are just porn for a different crowd.

Thats true but its simulated violence, not unsimulated violence.

I dont see any need for unsimulated sex. Most of acting is simulation anyway. They arent hitting each other, they arent driving......etc etc...

Mickeroo

adox wrote: »

Thats true but its simulated violence, not unsimulated violence.

I dont see any need for unsimulated sex. Most of acting is simulation anyway. They arent hitting each other, they arent driving......etc etc...

This is the exact attitude I don't understand, why box sex in with violence? Sex is harmless, it doesn't make a difference whether its simulated or unsimulated no more than a kiss is simulated or unsimulated whereas unsimulated violence would be a different issue entirely imho.

I agree there's not really any need to have it unsimulated but to say unsimulated sex is in any way similar to unsimulated violence is a bit strange to me.

DrumSteve

Mickeroo wrote: »

I always find it strange that sex is seen as a taboo of sorts on film yet extreme violence can be seen as entertainment.

I've no problem with nudity/sex scenes in movies, I don't really see the necessity of having sex scenes be unsimulated but I guess I don't really have a problem with it being that way. I haven't seen many films with unsimulated sex in them, the only ones I can think of are Shortbus & 9 Songs. I thought Shortbus was great and still would have been great without the sex scenes but in many ways they were important to the themes of the film, I thought 9 Songs was pretty pretentious and uninteresting overall.

Gotta agree TBH it seemed to me like a Film winterbottom thought up in five minutes while he was sitting in the jacks. " Ah yeah sure have a bit of riding, stick a few songs in it, the press will go mad and we'll be quids in".

bee_keeper

Mickeroo wrote: »

This is the exact attitude I don't understand, why box sex in with violence? Sex is harmless, it doesn't make a difference whether its simulated or unsimulated no more than a kiss is simulated or unsimulated whereas unsimulated violence would be a different issue entirely imho.

I agree there's not really any need to have it unsimulated but to say unsimulated sex is in any way similar to unsimulated violence is a bit strange to me.

what if the actors are married to other people , might pose a problem , dont ya think

Corkfeen

bee_keeper wrote: »

Mickeroo wrote: »

This is the exact attitude I don't understand, why box sex in with violence? Sex is harmless, it doesn't make a difference whether its simulated or unsimulated no more than a kiss is simulated or unsimulated whereas unsimulated violence would be a different issue entirely imho.

I agree there's not really any need to have it unsimulated but to say unsimulated sex is in any way similar to unsimulated violence is a bit strange to me.

what if the actors are married to other people , might pose a problem , dont ya think

Lars von Trier just used doubles for unsimulated sex in Antichrist, that's what he does in many of his films. My opinion is if a director wants to use it, it should be acceptable. It's their piece of art and critics will simply lambast it if it's unwarranted for the film.

Sad Professor

I don't think unsimulated sex is ever justified in cinema. Like adox said, they are actors. I don't need to see a close-up of a penis entering a vagina. That's porn as far as I'm concerned. I like Trier, but I feel he crossed a line in Antichrist.

As an aside, I was watching Nicholas Roeg's The Man Who Fell to Earth a while ago and there's an absolutely ridiculous sex scene involving a naked woman pretending to give a blow job to Rip Torn's clearly flaccid penis. There was undoubtedly censorship reasons for this and I'm sure it scandalised audiences at at the time regardless, but if he couldn't go all the way, I don't know why Roeg even bothered. It just seemed like he was trying to be provocative for the sake of it. And ultimately I think people will look back at films like Brown Bunny and 9 Songs in the same way.

Galvasean

While I don't think there's any much need for it (after all, don't films simulate just about everything?), I'm not exactly against it completely either. Although I do feel a lot of filmmakers throw it in to get their film a bit of extra exposure through controversy - something that annoys me.
Much like anything in a film, if the actors are comfortable and happy to do it I don't see any moral reason against it.

Necronomicon

Galvasean wrote: »

Although I do feel a lot of filmmakers throw it in to get their film a bit of extra exposure through controversy - something that annoys me.

Agreed. Remember the furore when 9 Songs came out? Pretentious toss that it was.

I'm far from offended by the idea of unsimulated sex - it's the director's prerogative in making the film, and if the actors are happy with it then I don't see the harm. But I don't think there's ever the need for it; if it gets to the point where a sex scene has to be demonstrably unsimulated (i.e. seeing actual intercourse) then it's just glorified porn IMO. Sex scenes can still be powerful while leaving a sufficient amount to the imagination. Hell, just look at Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie in Don't Look Now. That was in good taste but so effective it's long been rumoured to have been unsimulated, though Sutherland denies it vehemently.

Sad Professor

Don't Look Now is another Nicholas Roeg film. I think he put out that rumour about Sutherland/Christie himself.

adox

Mickeroo wrote: »

This is the exact attitude I don't understand, why box sex in with violence?

I wasn't specifically boxing those two together. I was responding to your post before where you had them boxed together and in the one sentence. I also went on to mention driving etc in films as other acts that don't have any need to be real and can be acted.

johnny_ultimate

adox wrote: »

I wasn't specifically boxing those two together. I was responding to your post before where you had them boxed together and in the one sentence. I also went on to mention driving etc in films as other acts that don't have any need to be real and can be acted.

Plenty of films have and need actual driving Loads of shots that aren't possible to fake and require an actor to be driving.

But for me it all boils down to individual cases. I don't think it's easy as saying 'real sex in film is glorified porn and always will be'. To me it's no different than an actor putting themselves through an extreme physical transformation: it's commitment and belief in the film and role. In fact, it's altogether less dangerous than that particular example, if approached carefully. If a director and actors involve all agree it's right for the film, and it's consensual and done with all proper precautions, then I don't see any harm in it. I guess it can partially boil down to an individual's moral perceptions of sex and what it stands for.

The reason the Brown Bunny and Nine Songs are bad isn't because of the sexual content - it's because they're bad films, and they use the sex as the sole selling point. Shortbus is an altogether better example, as without the explicit content it contains it would be altogether less capable of exploring its themes of sexual liberation as vividly and bravely as it does. If it approached it from a more removed perspective, it would potentially be a much less worthy of applause. Shortbus is easily one of the most mature films I've seen in the way it deals with its provocative themes of sexuality, and I think it's a healthier approach to sexual matters than any tawdry teen comedy.

As I said, there's only a small amount of films currently in existence that artistically justify their use of 'real sex'. But they do exist, and there's no reason other directors and actors won't utilise it as a worthwhile storytelling tool in the future. It doesn't suit everything: we're talking a serious, almost 1% minority here. But I personally think it's altogether more taboo than it should be.