Another poll

[phantasmrose]

This time it's about women in film, both in front of and behind the camera. Again, this information is not being saved or stored or used for any nefarious purposes. If you haven't done so already, please check out my other poll about movies in general.

(Yes it is mildly biased. Deal.)

Comments

To expand on some answers I gave:

[hanzan]

Does it bother you that women in movies tend to be portrayed as sex objects?
Only when it's overdone. Just like I only object to the males being portrayed as sex-objects when it's overdone.

How do you feel about the rape of women being used as shock/gore factors in ultra-violent movies (such as The Hills Have Eyes)?
The rape of women being used as shock/gore effect makes me uncomfortable. However when done right it can be most effective but for pure pointless shock without underlaying connection to the emotional core of movie it irritate me. I didn't feel any of the options really fit me so I replied "It bothers me a little but not enough to really anger me".
Irreversible has one of the most painful rapes put to film, and in the context of the movie it's completly justifiable. The Hills Have Eyes... not so much. Last House On The Left? A despicable movie, but I wouldn't change a frame. The male rape in American History X? Most uncomfortable but needed.

How do you feel about full frontal female nudity being acceptable but not full

Re: To expand on some answers I gave:

[wrongly_amused]

I second your opinion on the rape factor. If it's contextual point is fitting, I'm still disturbed, but I let it go. But rape (to a male or female, though it's most often female, admittedly) for the general shock of it? Not something I enjoy viewing, and while I won't leave a theatre, I'll certainly walk out of a room.

Re: To expand on some answers I gave:

[hanzan]

*nods*

And I liked your comments about objectification. Even if I'd argue for that men also are objectified (even if not to the extent that women are). Maybe not as often as bodies, bur rather stereotypes that you're supposed to fill/fit.

Re: To expand on some answers I gave:

[phantasmrose]

Every gender and role are objectified and made into stereotypes in movies. That's just kind of how most movies are. But I don't think anyone can argue that men are objectified on a level equal to what which women are.

Re: To expand on some answers I gave:

[phantasmrose]

I did mean breasts and the lower bits, too. In context, full nudity is often not acceptable by most people, but a woman being fully naked is far quicker allowed in a rated R cut than a naked man. I remember people being shocked and horrified at a man showing his penis in a locker room in some football related film. I can't remember the name. In particular I remember seeing it with my father and watching every man in the audience recoil in discomfort. A far cry from how they react to female nudity - so men tend to be spared the discomfort of being presented with another man's penis, but women get tits and vag flashed around constantly, because it pleases the male audience.

Irreversible is probably one of the hardest movies to watch, ever, for me. But I wouldn't change it.

Re: To expand on some answers I gave:

[hanzan]

Ok. Option a in that question lead me to think only breast.

It's interesting. I saw a Swedish kid-movie from the 70:s where in one scene the father of the house walks around wearing only a T-shirt. And it's quite a long scene with plenty of time to see... everything as he walks around, talks to the kids, talks to the wife (who I think is also only wearing a t-shirt). And it's just there with no attention at all drawn to it, while the scene plays out. Time sure has changed.

Btw, I am a man and I freely admit that human eye-candy in a movie can be nice. But it's once again a question of scene. Does the scene/movie merit the nudity/objectification? Does it have a point? Or is it just there to please horny boys (or, more rarely, girls)?

Re: To expand on some answers I gave:

[phantasmrose]

Apologies. Like I said, this is not super specific market research. I threw them up pretty quick.

Cultures outside America have varying opinions on nudity. The 70s are especially unique. Lots of nudity in the 70s, even in American film.

I don't mind eye candy. Female sexuality is a useful tool and can be done well and used well and in some cases necessary or it isn't realistic (women as sexless drones is just as unrealistic as every woman being a hyper-attractive porn star). I'm a big Monica Bellucci fan, and she's known as a sex symbol who has chosen lots of sexual, powerful roles. I just often wonder at the line between tasteful/artistic merit and blatant over exploitation.