![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.235.206.202
ain't it strange that, since Wild Bunch-era movies, it has become acceptable to make films portraying violence in the most graphic terms but sensuality in film has just about disappeared (unless in service to a violent story, i.e. a rape scene, sexual abuse, etc.).
Uma Thurman, Penelope Cruz, Salma Hayek, Heather Graham...I can't think of a moment in any of their films that rivals the pure animalism of Betty Taylor prowling around in her lingerie in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof."
I've heard some chatter that it's feminism that has led to this state but I don't think that's the case: women are beaten, shot, and tortured regularly in film with nary an outcry from NOW.
Anyhow, why something as natural as procreation now has an unspoken interdict while blood flows in ever greater rivers from the screen is very, very strange.
Carol Lynley, Ann Margaret, Tuesday Weld...where are you?
![]()
Follow Ups:
The rating system created much of this. An NC17 [the equivalent of the old X] is the kiss of death in today's Family value market.Killing especially by someone embodying good against someone so evil that their eventual demise is a huge relief [and release], is perfectly acceptable, and downright enjoyable. Good triumphs over evil...
I saw some mindless Mel Gibson/Danny Glover sequal in Palm Desert once. The audience actually applauded when Mel's loony character finally dispached the villian.
America is a moral, pro life society....sex is immoral.
Although, Heather Graham (who is prolly the worst of them) was quite convincing in Boogie Nights. Perhaps she wasn't really acting?:-)
...and today´s films are mostly addressed to people not so well endowed in that territory...As I have repeatedly said, a wise use of ellipsis makes the viewer fall deeper, and participate, in what is being showed at the screen, thus making it happen where it matters, inside himself. And nowadays, that art is not being cultivated, in the same way good oldstyle cooking has been sacrificed at the altars of the gods of Fast Food: people eat, and get fat..., without actually enjoying any true palatial pleasures.
Ditto for sex scenes, where a good, poignant dialogue can easily carry the viewer to heights a nude couple never will: as a good case, just look at "Key Largo", and enjoy those exchanges between Bacall and Bogie...
Elegance consists in achieving the most using the minimum, exactly the opposite to showing too much, and just achieving boredom.
Of course, no Faulkners, no Trumbos, no Hetches among today´s script writers...
And about violence, what was somehow innovative in Peckinpah has now been abused to a degree that it has become simply boring: there´s much more, and truer, violence, in just the way a Kurosawa´s character looks at the camera than in a whole film by Tarantino..., and "Kill Bill (1, 2, 3, n...)" are simply shit when compared to any scene in "Ran", "Throne of Blood", "Jojimbo"...
Our loss, indeed.
Regards
Nothing but quiet words there, but the effect it produces is incredible.Having come here from the ultra-restrictive Soviet culture, at first the sight of a bare breast would get my attention. Today, with a plethora of cable channels around, I hardly stop my surfing when outright screwing pops up... or maybe this is just the sign of Patrick getting too old? Maybe I should hang out more with young, healty, dumb young people?
![]()
![]()
What a minute.First, in "Outside", you post a web page that says you are a college or university instructor. Now, you write that you need to hang out more with young, healthy, dumb young people. As an instructor, I thought you already did that...or do you nobly refuse to chat up your students before, during, and after class and during your (ahem!) office hours?!
As a middle-aged college student, I know how easy it is for you to "hang out more" with young, healthy, dumb young people. It is a shame you only see the girls from the front...you should arrange it so you see them from behind, too...with the lowcut jeans and the thongs (if they wear underwear---in Wednesday night's class, one didn't!) and the little tattoo between the dimples.
I smell a trap :-)
![]()
![]()
No trap here!In my education class I led a discussion on the "thong visible" fashion. Some of the girls said it was disgusting, some of the girls said they couldn't see how guys could like it, and some of the girls didn't say anything at all...they just smiled! Guess which group of girls I like to sit by the most!
My wife smiles when I tell her about this and says, "Well, if I had that body, I'd dress like that!" The daughter thinks of her mom in her housecoat and fuzzy slippers and glasses...but I remember when here mom dressed a little differently than she does today. I love her more now than I did when we first dated, but that's another story for another time.
Take care and have fun trying to keep your eyes in your head, Victor!
Don't tell me college girls don't dress like that up north!If they don't, it's time to start applying to a good southern school!
![]()
In a few days I will be visiting my Alma Mater in St. Petersburg - that is pretty far North, and the girls there are just lovely, I must tell you.It was fun to watch them last time, in that cold weather, with their VERY low rise jeans and short tops - that ain't Florida, you know!
But I have to tell ya something you probably already know - it is not what you are wearing... it is how.
![]()
![]()
Viktor, it would be fun to read a recap of your Russian trip in terms of interesting cultural things, changes since you left the country etc...I know you're a busy guy but if you have the time I'd love to hear about your trip...hopefully it's not all business.
Larry
![]()
I can try, but my perception is not be fresh any longer - as I had visited Russia many times during the past 15 years or so, so the changes I observe are more of an evolutionary nature. Still, I will keep my eyes and ears open and the camera on the ready.
![]()
![]()
Enjoy your trip!
![]()
nt
![]()
There is no difference between the two in substance - in how they have evolved during the past decades. In both the violence and sex cases, the hint, the anticipation, the premonition and the emotions surrounding them, have been replaced with mindless graphic presentation of act itself. So I really don't see anye difference in their treatment.You like the babe in lingerie rather than full monty (never mind the pun)... cool, and I would draw the parallel with the scene with Robert Mitchum in The Night of The Hunter, where whistling Mitchum rides by the hiding kids, producing more gripping horror than all Friday the 13th sequels compbined could even dream of.
Subtlety expects some level of sophistication from the audience. As movies had become more and more mass culture fun, popcorn sale extension, really, the level of subtlety has dropped accordingly, but again, that happened in both areas.
Why aren't the NOW babes complaining? I just presume, that besides being typically hypocritical, they also represent the significant proportion of the viewing public that willingly pays to see all that crap.
![]()
![]()
(nt)
![]()
But part of my point is we get loads of violence now, even in mainstream movies, but precious little sex, i.e. depiction of seduction and the act itself.
Secondly, "mass culture fun" always has been what movies are about: I'm talking Hollywood now, not European art-house movies.
Re: lingerie. Well, when you see the nude figure and BOOM it proceeds to the act, that may be the beginning of sex but it's the end of sensuality: as exciting as watching farm animal sex.
Your first paragraph brilliantly points out that "staging" is necessary. Hitchcock's Psycho not only is one of the most menacing movies, it also shows a Janet Leigh (the white and then the black undergarments) that exudes desire.
![]()
;^)
![]()
One of the early master of violence on screen was Sam Peckimpah, he open a flood.
Angie Dikinson....
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: