It depends. Roger Corman (super-low budget producer) used to say female skin was the cheapest special effect. I think there is no question that this happens on the lower budget films (horror, teen sex comedies) but i think it happens far less on big budget or serious movies.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Academy Award winner Hellen Miram was objectified in THE QUEEN. Or any of the actresses in the STAR WARS movies. In the SPIDER-MAN movies they sell Spidey, not Kirstin Dunst (she's lucky she's in the ads at all).

The film industry would do nearly anything they think will sell tickets. If they have something better to offer than sex they'll use that to sell tickets. Sex (the root of objectification) is a tool in the tool box.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Yes.

That's not to say that every actress is, but 'tits and ass' is one of the easiest ways to sell movies. Just look at the posters for your average Hollywood slasher movie.

"I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Academy Award winner Hellen Miram was objectified in THE QUEEN."

Does she take her clothes off in that one? I can't think of a single movie I've seen her in before where she doesn't.

"Or any of the actresses in the STAR WARS movies"

Cough... Leia slave-girl outfit... cough :).

BTW, Lloyd Kaufman from Troma has also talked quite openly about how he uses naked women to help sell his movies; if you use google you may find some of his articles online to provide some input on the question.

Then again, he's also known to put fat naked guys in his movies :).

Mark G, Although Hellen might take her clothes off and the Princess wore a brass bikini, as far as I know neither is/was used to sell tickets, aka "Objectified in the film industry to sell movies". There really is a difference between sex for objectification and sex for art. Sometimes the two are sleazed together to convince the actress to do something that she might not want to do.

Personally I thought the Leia slave girl outfit was silly but I think Lucas, rather than doing it for sexist motives was (a) undoing the anti-objectification of Star Wars when he taped her breasts down (b) trying to steal another bit from the era of Space Operas which were filled with bikini clad princesses. Part of me also wonders if he was simply seeing what he could get away with as she was coked out during the filming of Jedi (by her own admission)

On Lloyd Kaufman, one of his first movies was a sex comedy about softball. He made the mistake of scheduling the nude shots last. By then the actresses realized he's shot the whole movie and couldn't replace them if they chose not to bare all. So now he'll shoot the nude scenes first, if the girl bawks or doesn't work out he can replace her. Troma really does objectify but they also make no bones about it.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

I still think that Lucas knew he was aiming at the teenage boy audience. From what I remember, Leia is right in the middle of the poster wearing her metal bikini, so if I'm remembering correctly it's hard to claim she wasn't used to market the movie.

Here's one image Google found of what claims to be an original RoTJ poster:

Back on Helen Mirren, she's done a lot of serious acting on TV in the UK and was probably the first choice for that role as a result; but she might not have reached that point if she hadn't been willing to take her clothes off in many of her early movies (every one I can think of, anyway).

If an actress actually has some talent, it's an easy way to get into a movie where she can demonstrate that and get more serious jobs in future. On the other hand, if she doesn't then it's not much help; one of my actress friends played 'naked biker chick' in a few low-budget features but it was quite obvious she wasn't going to get anywhere beyond that.

There are plenty of talented actors of both sexes who never get anywhere, and considering I've met some actresses who'd sleep with just about anyone who might get them a break, it's hardly the sleaziest way to get noticed.

Definitly yes.

Nudity riders anyone? How many male actors have those? Not many.
Plus, look how females are usually protrayed. Nagging, weak minded, crying all the time, etc. Its disgusting.

That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough! I'm going to clown college!

Regarding sleeping with people to get noticed, I saw a behind the scenes of some show. I don't remember which, and the guys talked about how some Playmate (not at the time, she became a Playmate later) said she'd do ANYTHING for the part. They realized that if she was saying that around town, and they gave her the part, everyone would assume they'd slept with her even if they had not. Their reputations would have been screwed. So she didn't get the part. Granted a lot of producers don't have a reputation to protect, but it can work both ways.

Paul Verhovenn in the audio commentary of Flesh and Blood said that it was hard to get Jennifer Jason Leigh to keep her shirt on. She has no problem doing nudity in movies so is she being objectified if she's the one that offers up herself for art? Granted this is from the directors commentary, not hers, and Paul is a bit notorious but the point is there anyway.

Regarding the ROTJ poster, it does appear to objectify Leia so I'll concede that one. Although they didn't need to because I doubt they sold a single ticket because of that. Still they could have picked a picture of her in camo or something and chose not to.

Regarding Nudity riders, that goes back to my point of nudity vs sell the movie. Gwynth shows a bit of breast in Shakespeare in Love but that was never used to sell the movie. Rather than being objectified with nudity Gwynth came up as hollywood royality and hitched herself to Ben Affleck and avoided those traps. Perhaps her story is unique, perhaps not.

But back to Helen, I'm not really familiar with her earlier work, and perhaps she was objectified in the selling of those movies. My point was specific to THE QUEEN, in which she won the Oscar.

If the question is can an actress make it to that point without being objectified, my answer would be that it's probably nearly impossible but I'm sure some examples can be found and most of them made it prior to film (Barbara Streisand comes to mind). If the question is do movies have excessive gratiutious female nudity my answer is yes. Yes they do. There are a million actresses fighting for a single worthless part and a percentage of them will do whatever it takes thus lowering the bar for the rest. But except for the low end I don't think it's truly used to sell the movies.

Another question is the different attitude towards sex/Nudity between Europe and the USA. Can an actress be objectified in one continent and not in the other? By my definition the answer is yes because it depends upon the marketting. From other definitions if she's nude she's objectified no matter where the film is shown (unless censored totally).

Oh, and hello Nicole, welcome to the board.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Objectify? As in degrade? Or as in present as an object? Or as in give reality to?

At it's very core acting is giving reality to something. So using that definition - yes. All acting is objectifying. And to some degree every aspect of an actors job is presenting themselves as objects. Both men and women who act attempt to give life and emotion to the object - the written character - so I wouldn't agree that only the female actor (actress) is objectified.

But I suspect by how you phrase your question you are asking are actresses degraded? Do you mean on set? By directors, writers, producers, other actors or crew? In that case I'd say no. No more or less than anyone else might be degraded.

Are you asking if I agree or disagree that the female body is used to sell movies? If that's your question, then I would agree. The female body is quite alluring and alluring is a fine selling tool. But no actress can be used to sell a movie without consent so if she is "objectified" she is doing it intentionally and the full knowledge.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

You also have to keep in mind that although so much money is spent to market a movie, they also know that word of mouth, as well as websites such as mrskin.com ( a site devoted to making money by selling screencaps of actresses who've taken their clothes off in movies), also sells tickets. Regardless of whether or not a movie is marketed with pictures of sex or impending nudity, tickets will be bought based on word of mouth. I believe the idea of Leia in a bikini and shackles being choked by Jabba on occasion (even without the help of the poster) would've gone from one 15 year old's mouth to the next like wildfire.

Although many blockbuster movies don't throw sex and nudity into the posters and advertisements, they know it will still sell tickets... It's very rare that I see a sex scene that actually moved the story along, or a nude scene that the movie couldn't have easily done without. It's quite possible to tell the audience that a woman is stepping out of the shower by showing a shot from the shoulders up, as opposed to showing everything. The folks who make these movies make a completely conscious decision. Remember that almost nothing in a movie is put there by accident.

And yes, Certified is right about the fact that a woman must consent to do these things. But as we all know, an actress who has been struggling for years to make it in the business might eventually do something she wasn't originally keen on, if she gets desperate enough. In a case like this... regardless of whether or not she has given consent, she's still being manipulated into doing something she really didn't want to do. Slightly analogous of all those movies where the bad guy has a hostage and says 'I'll kill your son if you don't do as I say'... what choice have they got, if it's that important to them?

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

"Objectify? As in degrade? Or as in present as an object? Or as in give reality to?"

True, we may be using different definitions of the term; I'm thinking in terms of non-essential naked flesh used to sell a movie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjschwarz

Regarding Nudity riders, that goes back to my point of nudity vs sell the movie. Gwynth shows a bit of breast in Shakespeare in Love but that was never used to sell the movie. Rather than being objectified with nudity Gwynth came up as hollywood royality and hitched herself to Ben Affleck and avoided those traps. Perhaps her story is unique, perhaps not.

---

Definitly is unique. Look for instance at Eyes Wide Shut. I love Kubrick, but that was a clear example of sex selling the movie. Or for that matter, pretty much any B grade movie. You cannot get through one of those without the gratuitous sex scene.

Speaking of which, look at how many people got pissed about Lost in Translation and the lack of sex. Many can't see over it at all. Two people laying together in bed talking, everyone thinks instantly of the celeb sex to come, and WHAM! They get nothing. Even when they are in the strip club the viewer is so disconnected from the nudity thats it becomes part of the surroundings. Its sort of exsistential.

That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough! I'm going to clown college!

BTW-Check out the networking board. I seem to be the only one to have found it.

That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough! I'm going to clown college!