Sex on the silver screen
by DOMINIC ARTHUR, Staff Reporter.
We live in a world where – let’s face it – sex sells.
Sex has become more and more dominant on the small and big screen. You can turn on just about any show and find multiple sex scenes within a five hour block. Sex is not something that’s whispered from person to person. People have grown to become comfortable with the act and it has become a part of everyday life.
But how far is too far when it comes to sex in films? How long does a sex scene have to run before it becomes full blown pornography?
I think that sex scenes are fine. There’s nothing wrong with it every now and then. But to have it drag on and on causes me to become disconnected with the film. I believe that sex scenes in films should be limited and should only be used to further the story or shed some light as to who the character is.
Sex shouldn’t be used as a filler. It’s a cheap way to draw the audience. The film that stands out to me is Blue is the Warmest Color (2013). The French coming-of-age story features a somewhat distant girl named Adele who finds herself eventually questioning her sexuality during her time in high school.
The first sex scene was short. It showed Adele with her male lover in bed together and eventually lead us in to show how she felt about being with the short lived boyfriend. She wasn’t satisfied and felt empty. That scene was fine. It ran on a little longer than I’d prefer, but it worked. It worked because the character of Adele had a revelation. She realized that she wasn’t attracted to men as she once thought. The next couple of sex scenes took place after Adele got into a relationship with classmate — Emma. The sex scenes between Adele and Emma were raw and passionate.
But the longer it went on, the more it became less of a scene that showed two characters growing into their own and more of two people simply “going at it’ for the sake of it.
The sex scenes went from being short and bearable to being drawn out and overdone. It went from being a way to build the character to a graphic showcase of what takes place behind closed doors. It took me out of the film and ultimately to turning it off. Some may argue that those sex scenes were needed because within each one there’s some sort of revelation. I didn’t see that newfound idea. I saw a director trying to use shock value as a way to draw people’s attention.
I think that having too long of a sex scene isn’t developing character, but trying to create some sort of controversy. It’s cheap. If I want to watch hardcore sex scenes, I know where to go. I believe that sex scenes should be toned down some and used sparingly. If you must resort to a sex scene, keep it simple and short. Get a reaction shot from each character and go from there.
There are other alternatives to get a character’s reaction than having them in awkwardly drawn out sex scenes. Find other alternatives and use them. In real life, sex doesn’t always lead to one or both persons involved trying to figure out if the relationship is something worth pursuing. And if you have to use sex scenes, try to stick with a more softcore style. Make them short and to the point. Having graphic sex scenes isn’t always the best way to go. Not everyone wins.
[/one_half] [one_half_last]Success can be found in sexposition
by MATT BROWN, Multimedia Director.
Filmmakers and creatives alike need to take a step back, and repeat: “sex does not sell”. The perpetuating social norms make you think it is selling. What is selling is fast, cheap, and diluted exposition.
Exposition is the storytelling device that expands on themes, theories and character development.
Writers, and viewers, have latched onto this idea that sex is success and have made it near impossible to have serious exposition through sexual acts.
For example, ‘sexposition’ is a term which was coined following an episode of the HBO show, “Game of Thrones”. In the episode, the scene’s narrator (Petyr Baelish) details his childhood as several women undress and begin sexing.
Critics have claimed that this scene, “uses exploitation tactics, insults the audience’s intelligence and covers up the screenwriter’s failure, which is having to rely on long segments of exposition in the first place”.
I agree with the critic’s claims. Filmmakers who think sex should only be an activity to take place in a set piece are poor writers. Filmmakers who think sex is a cheap way to spark controversy are limiting their perspective of what sex means to the participants. Sex, as in real life, should vary in length, intensity and ultimately reveal a character’s development.
The 2004 film, “Kinsey”, is a biographical drama about sex researcher Dr. Alfred Kinsey which uses sexposition in an effective manner.
The Doctor creates the Kinsey scale, which ranks overall sexuality from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual ranging from “1” (straight) to “6” (gay). Kinsey places himself as a “4” on his own scale, but not until after he has sexual intercourse with his coauthor: Clyde Martin.
This scene: real and graphic in nature, proves to be a benchmark in the character development of Kinsey. The aftermath and following confession of this event to his wife re-enforces the theme of sexology in the film.
As Robert Ebert put it in his review, “Of course there is opposition, now as then, but the difference is that Kinsey redefined what has to be considered normal sexual behavior.”
Along with films like “Her”, and “Brokeback Mountain”, “Kinsey” took the idea that there is success in sex, and expanded on how/why we participate in the activity.
[/one_half_last]
