|
|
"Watchmen" Goes Full FrontalThe film is an extremely faithful adaptation of its source material, Watchmen, a series of equally gritty comic books (later turned into a graphic novel). Dr. Manhattan’s nudity is portrayed in the same matter-of-fact way in the graphic novel – though his penis is considerably smaller there. What accounts for Watchmen going where even few American arthouse movies have gone before? The change is probably attributable to three things: Watchmen comic book creator Alan Moore, the film’s director Zack Snyder, and Americans evolving comfort with the male body. Moore is a true superhero visionary, renowned not only for his influential Watchmen series, but other titles including V for Vendetta and From Hell. Moore is known for taking on adult themes in an uncompromising style, and Dr. Manhattan’s complete nudity started with him, although even he wasn't sure his publisher would approve, and the artist made a point of keeping the nudity tasteful. “I was careful to give him understated genitals, like a piece of classical sculpture, too,” original Watchmen artist Dave Gibbons told SequentialTart.com in 1999. “I'm sure some people didn't even notice he was nude for a page or two and by then, it was too late!” Meanwhile, Watchmen director Zack Synder was also the director of 2006’s 300, another R-rated graphic novel adaptation, about a mythical battle between ancient warriors. Snyder pushed boundaries in that film’s portrayal of violence and homoeroticism (while some found it to be homophobic as well).
300's homoerotic Spartans "Keeping [Watchmen] R-rated wasn't so easy," Snyder told the Los Angeles Daily News. "After 300 came out, they were more like, 'Would you be open to discussing PG-13?' I talked about it, but I knew what was appropriate for the movie." The film’s male nudity clearly marks a new level of exposure for men on film, and the biggest reason for that might simply be that Americans – including American men – are no longer as uncomfortable with the objectification of the human body as they were even ten years ago.
David Beckham Indeed, most Americans have grown accustomed to seeing David Beckham’s bulging crotch peering out at them from Times Square or the pages of a glossy magazine. And he’s hardly the only celebrity using his body in the same way that many female celebrities have long done. Are we finally becoming a nation that's becoming less uptight about male nudity? It's a big leap to that from a single, modestly successful movie that features a naked computer-generated superhero. But Watchmen might be a sign that at least things are moving in the right direction. Submitted by on Mon, 2009-03-09 01:15. |
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
nudity
Apples and Oranges
i agree with wheeler, men
Brittney getting out of a car
We're not talking about similar things - like Wheeler and Eriku said, exposing women's actual sex parts would be a logistical nightmare - you need a camera angle like Brittney and Paris getting out of a car, or say, Basic Instinct. So Dr. Manhattan equivalent was done years ago. Men, well, flop around when there's not cloth in the way.
And it was just two weeks ago that I saw a paparazzi shot of Cate Blanchet in a robe on a balcony somewhere, robe open for a scene in a movie, where we were staring at that crease women have down in front (definition of ladybits isn't my specialty) - that's certainly the equivalent of Dr. Manhattan's junk out and about. We've gotten flashes of male anatomy in big movies before, but not actually just, well, casually displayed anytime a character is onscreen.
In other news, The Nerdist (comically, of course), reports that Dr. Manhattan's wang got a development deal at LOGO. http://www.nerdist.com/2009/03/dr-manhattans-wang-is-just-as-disturbing-in-person.html
Scarlette Johannsen's breast have gotten her roles for years - it'd be great if a guy's package got him a similar deals, wouldn't it? ;)
There's not much about Watchmen and comfort
First time I was in a theatre with geeks who knew what they were in for- second time with a more general audience and a bunch of people walked out- including the couple sitting next to me. It seemed like the Comedian and Rorshach emptied more seats than Dr. Manhattan and his lower burroughs.
But they do not know true horror. 3 words: Slave Leia Minnie. (it is real and officially licensed- google it if you dare)
Thank you, Brent
Thank you for pointing out Watchmen was a comic limited series before it was collected.
It can't ever be a "graphic novel" since it wasn't originally produced in that form. Technically such a collection is a "trade paperback." I know the companies like to toss "graphic novel" around liberally to give a project an air of legitimacy that "comic book" lacks.
There is a lot of confusion, isn't it?
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
That's Silly....
Many of the novels of Charles Dickens (among others) were initially serialized, and no one is going around claiming that "Great Expectations" isn't a novel.
It was conceived as a unified, finite story with the length and thematic complexity of a novel. If that's not a "graphic novel," then the term has no meaning. Some 60 page superhero punchup qualifies as a GN because it wasn't serialized, but Watchmen doesn't?
If the phrase can't inidicate that you're buying the comic equivalent of A NOVEL, then it is deceptive and should be abandoned.
I will certainly argue that non-fiction works shouldn't be called graphic novels, though. Unless prose biographies qualify as novels, then no, Maus and Persepolis aren't novels either.
Completely Off-Topic...
...and probably outside the realm of what anyone cares about, but I'm retracting what I said about Maus and Persepolis after thinking about it more. In general, historians distinguish history non-fiction from historical fiction by whether details (especially dialog) that weren't recorded are manufactured to reinact scenes. As such, both Maus and Persepolis are historical fiction, and probably qualify as graphic novels.
I'll let everyone get back to things you care about, now.
When I think of gorgeous naked men --
they're neither blue nor radioactive.
Call me old-fashioned I guess.
The nudity issue
What is it with the nudity that makes it a hot topic for discussion?
Nudity is what it is, how we were born.. There's much worse things in the world. Can't believe everyone is so uptight about it. But then again, I'm from Norway. We're a bit more liberal here. People rating movies here are VERY strict about violence but not nudity... Like both Milk and Brokeback Mountain got rated 11, but they were rated R in USA. If movies contain violence they automatically get rated 15 or 18. I think that's right. Violence can cause much more harm than just a little nudity!
Harvey Milk: You gotta give 'em hope.
How sad
How sad really all the fuss a penus makes. Im all for equal oportunity, so its about time they start showing the guys, even if they are computer generated.
Speaking of fuss about penuses, I went over to Rotten Tomatos and stumbled upon this review by Richard Knight, Jr. Apparently, he thinks that Dr. Manhattans blue dong its just about the only reason a gay man would go to see the movie and we would be very disappointed because it never gets hard. The piece does little to help you make up your mind to see the movie, but it does give you a glimpse into this guys mind.
You know, I get "tongue and cheek", but seriously. Does the fact that he writes for a gay newspaper let him print that. What annoyed me more than the piece is how its being perceived with comments like "remember, its a gay newspaper", ohhhh like that would explain it.
Ridiculous.
The movie
I honestly think the whole thing is much ado about nothing. Zack was being faithful to the comic which had the nudity. It was'nt thrown in. I think that anyone who has an objection to it must be someone not familiar with the series.
Also if I were a creature that could reshape myself don't you think I'd make it bigger?.
Except it wasn't COMPLETELY faithful to the comic book
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
Why wouldn't it be?
I mean seriously, Hollywood may be getting past their fear of showing a little wang on screen, but these are still powerful men making the decisions, and why would they show a small penis when they can show a large one? Men know no honesty in understanding the size of their equipment - as so many personals show.
They gave Franco a prosthetic add-on for Milk (though I don't recall seeing it front and center), that reportedly impressed Penn. If I was Dr. Manhattan, master of matter, before I managed to mentally divorce myself from human concerns, I'd make sure I was equipped like a porn star.
Watching men watching Watchmen
This issue is simply more of the Persecution of the Penis that is rampant in society for centuries now. Women, who shape and point out their pendulous (and often gag-inducing) boobs, object and are scandalized if men show off even the slightest bulge in their crotches. So, tell me, what is the big difference? Women have huge amounts of foreign material pumped into their chest areas and then wear pirate eye patches as clothing at the beach have been recorded in documentaries demanding no men wear thongs or speedos, only boxers. Huh?
And, here, after watching boobs bouncing with the slightest of covering, and without for decades, people have the guts to question a thong-like (very tasty) bulge on a (very hot) actor in a movie? And, what if he wanders around naked in the whole movie? The cameramen, directors and producers work themselves into an early grave to let you see as little dick as possible. Why? Because the ladies of the land will object. Who the f..k cares? The boxoffice. That's who.
i am reminded of a movie called "The Naked Prey" from my tender years. They worked themselves into a frenzy filming this story in which a man spends days running totally naked from natives trying to kill him. The camera angles and shots made sure we saw nothing of the Wilde dick. Nothing much has changed. Except for the occasional exception (Equus, the movie) the majority of flashing phalluses are just that: flashing and fleeting.
So, when women are required to cover up with drapes that change their massive and often scary bulges into flat shapeless wastelands such as society matrons showed in the early 1900s, this issue is nothing like a story of equal rights. It is more of the story that cocks scare women (and some straight men) into denying what god has wrought.
Huh??
I think you've got it wrong there. I don't know any women that would be upset at full frontal male. It's always been men with that problem. And, I won't even go anywhere near your offensive "gag-inducing" comment.
Jeez.
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
People get uncomfortable
Thank you.
This is a gem:
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
Um
No offense or anything. Just, as a straight woman, I'll say that cocks don't scare me. I like men in speedos.
However, the social construction of masculinity and femininity come into play here. Masculinity has been tied heterosexuality, constructed where men are sexually active women are sexually passive. A man was seen as more manly if he has sex with a bunch of women. On the other hand, women were supposed to be sexually passive, free from sexual desire. The whole virgin, whore dichotomy.
Women historically, have been socialized to feel ashamed of their sexuality. Women who are more sexually active or assertive have been suffered shaming. The was a girl at my high school who everyone said was slut because she'd hang out with a group straight guys and talk as crudely as they did. She was a virgin, but even dressing a certain way, or saying the "wrong" things are enough to get a girl labeled a whore.
So, while men are trained by their culture to enforce their masculinity by objectifying women, pushed to be hyper sexual. If a straight guy sees a naked girl the "manly" thing to do is to stare at her breasts, and maybe make sexual remarks. If a girl is seen naked by a boy, she's supposed to try to cover herself and be ashamed. If she sees a boy naked, she's supposed to look away and feel ashamed.
So women, for centuries have not been allowed to be sexual. In Victorian times it was believed women did not have sexual desires and if they did it was considered a mental disorder.
The only normal sexuality was men liking women; women were a neutral party in heterosexuality, objects to be desired with no desires of their own. These same constructs also give rise to homophobia.
Your comment seems to suggest that there's some sort of female privilege that allows women to show off thier bodies while men can't. The fact is, women aren't the ones in power, we don't shape society, at least historically we haven't.Male privledge, google it.
The fact is society pushes women to be sexual objects so that straight men can take the active role. The reason why objectifying men in the same way has been taboo is because being the object of desire is a "feminine" role. The reason women may have objected to male nudity is because "it's shameful" in the same context that anyone one other than straight men having sexual desires "is shameful". And it's the construct of masculinty and feminity which says "it's shameful", and I would argue these constructs are made by a patriarchial society, so male privledge is also kind of to blame here.
So, in sum, don't blame the women, blame the social construction of gender roles, and the construct of masculinity.
Women and other sex-monsters
I agree with so much of your beautifully written and argued post that I feel guilty about putting an alternative view. I think the crux of my disagreement falls into your use of 'cultural' as though that were a universal condition. That's just not the case - your argument may work well in an American situation, but I don't think it travels well outside of the US.
If you look at something that may appear to be the most extreme opposite to the US - the Muslim world - women are perceived to be far more sexual than men. One of the major reasons for women being covered in burkhas and the like is because women are perceived to be creatures who'll use their bodies to confuse and distract the far more simple-minded members of humanity (men). Perhaps that's a callback to an anthropological construct of time in which women were the custodians of creation (insofar as they understood how the human race procreated whereas males just undestood the short-term pleasure of sexual congress), but the sexual power of women is acknowledged in so much of the Muslim world. For example, a woman can divorce a man for being bad in bed. A man can complain about a woman being lousy at sex, but he can't divorce her for that reason (although he can divorce her far more easily for a hell of a lot of other reasons). Having said all that, women aren't taught to be ashamed of their sexuality in that culture, other women teach them to revel and use their sexuality to maximum effect in private, while being demure in public. Through public repression, their private power is acknowledged.
I know that's a red rag to a bull these days, but you have to acknowledge that in the 9th century, the Islamic world had female judges and women heads of universities who'd been appointed whereas the Christian cultures only had women with power who'd been born into the position.
And then that's the next thing about cultural differences. The US doesn't have a class system, so it has a tremendous number of advantages in terms of men reaching for their dream. Against that, it doesn't have the levelling aspect in which women can be born into positions of power. It lacks a 'cultural' norm of feminimity that gets subverted because the women in control refuse to behave like women should.
On one side, you have Queen Elizabeth 1 of England who used her body like a weapon to control her country by creating the concept of the 'virgin Queen' and forced the powerful men around her - and foreign nations - to bow to her constantly because she controlled her own womb (and thereby her successor). On the other hand, you have someone like Catherine the Great of Russia who screwed a lot of men because she could. It didn't matter whether the woman was a virgin or a whore - either way, the woman was in control and society simply had to get used to it.
You've used the phrase 'in Victorian times'. But you've missed the irony of that. Victorian times are called that because Queen Victoria married a man but did not make him a king and had a tremendous number of children. The whole idea of 'Victorian values' is based on a woman with absolute power who fucked a lot and enjoyed it a lot - but she didn't surrender her power.
In WWII, the US had to send an anthropologist over to the UK to explain differnces between how US and UK women worked. In the US a boy will make a sexual overture to a girl to show he's a red-blooded man. The girl will refuse to show she's a well brought-up girl.In the UK, if a man asks for sex, he's making a commitment and if the woman says OK, it's the establishment of a relationship. Which is why there were so many confused American GIs at the end of the Second World War who ended up with British wives whether they liked it or not.
I could argue a lot more, but I suspect most readers would be bored stupid if I did.
Essentially, my view is that your argument only works because you've never had women in control.
Well said
The on-screen penis is beginning to emerge
Powertool....
How about the full frontal in "Sex and the City"! WOW!
BTW I believe that hunk a is now on Dancing with the Stars....
http://thegaygrouch.blogspot.com/
Hmm. maybe it's just that
Hmm. maybe it's just that Hollywood's finally starting to grow up? Uk and Europe, it's not uncommon to see full-frontal nudity in both sexes on film. (see Ewan macgregor, who when he appeared in Emma, got the 'he's not naked! Will no-one think of the children!' cry from a large sector of the media). Full-frontal male nudity is no big deal on stage. As most people know, a moving image/person's full-frontal isn't that noticeable - it's only really noticeable when the image is static, like in photos and statues. but then the stage and European film tend to rate in reverse to hollywood - sex and nudity hardly raise an eyebrow, but violence'll get you an 18. Not to mention that an 18 is not seen as a hindrance at the box office like it is in America.
oh, and kauaiartist? Women really don't care that much about nudity, or male nudity. We giggle. And then roll our eyes at the adolescent males (who are often the ones who whine the loudest and longest about male nudity). Breasts on show, we're just resigned to. We'd prefer that they weren't a big deal, but your chest is more likely to be stared at in any society than your crotch.
And someday...
...Hollywood may make it past their fifth-grade mentality about boobies and wieners. And then American society may as well.
Especially since all those Red States were recently outed for their abnormally high consumption of online porn. Tsk tsk.
Let it all hang out, I say. Let's get over ourselves for a change.
Maybe it's a non-issue after all.
I've been watching the comments about "Watchmen" on a certain "national newspaper" web site all day, and all of the negative comments had to do with the plot or the likeability of the characters, not Dr. Manhattan's nudity, so maybe Americans are ready put a big blue penis behind them (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun).
Europa Europa
i just love the penis
'nuff said
do my bracelets make me look fat?