btw, no need take it seriously.. lol. its just tony jeez.. if chow yun fat did it. u'd be allover it too lol u know why? its shocking for many reasons thats why. it's not expected.. paris hilton / lindsey lohan doing stupid things and outrageous things are COMMON and no big deal. tony and these big legends pushing it, is another eye turning thing. thats all it is seriously.. if they casted a nobody for this position, i highly doubt it'll get that much attention. lets be serious... now..
I don't see anyone censoring images of The creation of Adam thusfar, so yes, I think it is alright to show nudity even to children. And did I mention? Censorship sucks. There's a reason Lust Caution is rated NC-17. So legally the so-called kids should not be having access to it. I don't see other films such as SAW getting the middle finger from the righteous "don't ruin the children's innocence" activists. The fact that I saw Ang Lee personally was the reason I lined up for 6 hours for this film. Because I know his films are worth it. Unlike some, I did see BOTH Eastern Promises AND Lust Caution. So my judgement is slightly more than just a "OMG Tony Leung naked must be good" call. Say that to all the Renaissance masters who painted nude men and women, and try convicing the museums and galleries to place a fig leaf on whatever deem inappropriate. Good luck with that. I don't see why contemporary film should be judged more harshly than Italian masters in terms of their generous use of nudity. Sex definitely sells, and I am talking about all the media coverage (especially in less open minded places like China and Hong Kong). Because, most media coverage I've read thusfar do NOT give particular emphasis on the nudity of Tony Leung and Tang Wei in this film. It's just China and Hong Kong (and half of Asia Pacific) which made an absolute HUGE deal out of it.
I certainly will be all over it, just to make sure that I can sucessfully avoid it like a plague. IMO Chow Yun-Fat can't act (for the most part anyways) so I couldn't care less if he decided to maim himself in a film. I thought that Tang Wei was a NOBODY enough relative to Tony Leung, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, still there are certainly a lot of news coverage of her leap of faith in taking this part -- without the fear of being typecasted as "oh that girl who doesn't mind being naked and have explicit sex scene".
I can't believe you ignore totally of what I wrote, instead you nit pick things you see points and dissect it into another route. Obviously, you are taking examples out of context of the concept. You talk about painting and will not look at the media, the entertainment industry and the concept of art itself. Like I already suggested, I won't go redundant again on it. Censorship is there for a reason obviously and supported in Aisa Pacific as well in America. I think the reasons manifest itself, but you seem to not see it that way. By your position, you think NUDITY if portrayed in art, and "in a good" way is acceptable to all ages. Obviously that is not true, and in most societies it is not. THERE IS A REASON, why they teach sex ed after certain ages, there's a reason why they rate TV shows and parental guardian ship. People do not want to expose w/o guidance. You mistaken and misunderstood Tang Wei and Lindsey analogy. What I'm saying is that because of TONY, the media has drawn scrutiny towards the film itself. If it weren't for the big names, then it wouldn't have attracted nearly as much And for you to attack on less conservative cultures, countries, areas shows how biased you are about it, it also shows the lack of knowledge and sympathy for them. So there is no need to keep saying. You do not bother talking about both sides, your stance is clearly given. Being 1 eye blind to the whole picture only allows you to see so much. It's a shame to bash a certain culture and stereotype them. You still dont' see why, it's because of culture differences. Please realize how much the Asian culture has changed with Western influences, from the media, to sex, to general appeal, to philosophy, etc. Stop being such a biased person. We get the point by now how much you like ANG, and how much of a fan you are into the film and all that. But you shouldn't diss and not respect another culture for their views. If you haven't already noticed by NOW, HK entertainment and the industry itself is all about media, hype, and hoopala things such as this. I've said all I have to say. Enjoy the film.
Wow this argument between you two is getting confusing lol... Well hope you guys don't mind me commenting hehe. Well hiake said that there's a reason that the film was rated NC-17 and that is to prevent kids from watching it. I think it's never really up to us to decide what age is nudity appropriate for because the society we live in dictates the laws that treats nudity as a normality or obscenity for the people especially kids. Usually though the limited amount of nudity shown to kids does not depict sexual actions by the figures portrayed in the portrait and also they are non moving or interactive forms of art and have a historical context to them. And also yea society doesn't want to expose nudity or sex without guidance but i think it can be worst case scenario when kids don't get the explanation and they witness a sexual encounter of some sort and take it as a normal greeting. It can go both ways though, the kid can turn into a sexual addict. i mean i don't expect people under 10 or something to know what sex is but i think now in society people learn about sex at least a couple years earlier than that and yes media is the number one cause of that be we won't know if sexual education at earlier ages is a good or bad thing, it's just unpredictable and depends on the person. And yea i agree with Espresso Bunny on that how when A-list actor does sexual things in movies that are never seen before they draw scrutiny to their movies. I think that's always gonna be happening though i mean they are freaking big celebrities, the media would go crazy over them if they have a break up or something or like they do something out of their built media "image." The Media always take in the fresh stuff, that's why it exists lol, if a celebrity does the same thing all the time in their films the heat wouldn't even exist anymore, but usually those are typed cast people and not treated with the A-list respect, of course paris hilton and lindsay lohan would always do something "fresh" so even if they are not A-list the media would be all over their asses lol. Also hiake mentions saw as one of the movies that media doesn't really bash on for the violent content and all. I think media nowadays weigh nudity and sex as a more obscene subject than violent, it should be equally weighted that's what i think. It's seriously like signing up for the army or something at 18, you don't have the right to drink alcohol but you have the right to die and kill. Like when I watch a movie with my parents, decapitation and torture, that's ok. Sexual scenes, awkward moment.
^^ I'm not gonna continue too much back and forth. It's not really an argument but just expressing views, at least to me it isn't. I agree with you on the violence, and obviously this world has too much problems. Sexual scenes are awkward to most situations because it is an intimate thing after all. It should be that way, and not over done. It commands that ability. With death and violence, it isn't. It isn't intimate, sacred on any accounts. Now if you count sacrifice, that's another thing in itself. That's were the difference lies, and that's why sex and nudity should be careful. The media in the USA have welcomed and opened itself up LONG LONG AGO and it continues to PUSH its limits. Words like "BITCH" and "ASSHOLE" were censored, but of course it has been allowed on shows through out. The content DOES NOT have to express ACTUAL VULGAR language, it's the intent. Rating has NOTHING to do with the movie obviously, it wasn't about that. It was the subject of nudity. Obviously they will put ratings on a film. NO one has a TRUE SAY for anything, but with out basic guidelines to situate society, our world would be a mess. Now that's why guardian ship is necessary. Everyone's different, and PEOPLE have to keep that in mind regardless. That's where the smarter better people, more careful people come in. In a sense, you have to be politically correct because of the standard that's been set. It's like you have all these kids come over to a birthday party. You being the parent guardian of them all SHOULD consider everyone. Even though your OWN CHILD might understand sex at an early age, it doesn't mean everyone else understands it. Do you show an ART FUN FILM w/ naked guys/girls or something else? I mean come on, you get the picture. Obviously regardless of content, you SHOULD NOT show something controversial. Again, that's my 2 cent. i am really tired aobut this. hahahah
Ok just dropping in my two-cents then... Well as in violence, i'm usually talking about torture porn in general but you said death isn't intimate, well the way deaths are shown in r-rated movies i think they are because of the details and all that. Just like sex, death and violence has vulgar and some "intimacy" in it. it's just overlooked because the audience is used to it. Relating to real life situations seeing death or seeing sex have the same amount of obscenity to it, it's just that they create opposite moods. And about the sacred part, i mean some people just watch "horror" movies for the violence they recreate, they crave some type of snuff film atmosphere, just like how people want to watch movies just for sex appeal, they want that porn atmosphere but included in something that won't be completely rejected from the society because it's been approved by the ratings etc. So i mean some people find gore and violence just as some people would find sex appeal sacred. And about the ratings thing, there are movies that rate the subject matter of the movie itself, like "Whispers and Moans" that movie didn't include explicit sex scenes or nudity but it was rated CAT III for it's subject matter on Prostitution. And the censor vocabulary thing, i don't agree with the censor thing really because those are words that people use everyday anyways, i would probably take more offense to people saying something that is so-called "proper" like "you are a bad influence" or "you are useless" than someone calling me a "bitch" or a "motherfucker", i mean it's just vocabulary or "improper" vocabulary whatever but it's just a figure of speech nowadays, who doesn't use those words. Censoring words would cause the audience to lose some connections with the characters and they would probably seem too fake. I do not get why are these considered vulgar anyways, they should seriously be called "greetings" cause i use them as greetings all the time haha.
What the society accepts or not accept is not any of my concern. For most societies, homosexuals and even women in the work force is still taboo. The reason why there's sex ed class only after certain age is 1. children need certain vocabulary to understand the content of sex ed; 2. it generally coincides with puberty; which led to 3. because adults think that children before puberty as pure as snow, innocent and all. It is the social construct of how a child is "nicer" or "less evil" than an adult that caused this choice in curriculum. For someone who questions such social construct (like me), it is meaningless. For big names, no matter what they do, they will attract media attention/scrutiny. It was not an ATTACK, per se, to conservative cultures and countries, but more like pointing out the obvious (lack of tolerance) in such places. It is very strange, then, I don't see Asian cultures influencing Western cultures. Even now we practice Yoga, practice vegetarianism, studies Confusian. I thought being biased is etched on my forehead. It makes life much more interesting. And oh, I am only intolerant to those who doesn't tolerate. And I know must be some reason why I stop following HK entertainment scene save for certain artists. I believe if you have to find a scapegoat in the befallen morality and openness to all things vulgar (be it language, violence, sex or nudity), your first stop should be the nearest bookstore and see how magazine covers in Hong Kong pack PUNCHES. Which begs the question: is it easier to be a sexual addict or a sociopath? If it's a concern for public safety, I would think that more scrutiny on violence is called for. Someone dying is as sacred as I see it. While someone (or two) having sex can happen on a repeated basis. Now we proceeded to whether it is the media influencing the crowd or the crowd influencing the media. Like PETA with fur and leather goods, if there's no market for it, the media will not do it (since it's not profitable). But putting the blame SOLELY on the media would be ridding the audience from their responsibility and choice. If you don't like the vulgar languages, don't see that particular show/film. It will go down in flame if enough people make the supposedly right choice. And of course, there's always good ol' censorship. Just beep everything. The question is WHY. Do you not expect certain controversial matter if a film is rated NC-17? I wouldn't do that just because I would hate to argue with the kid's parents, it just going to be a nuance. And oh, if the children cannot appreciate it properly, it isn't worth my bother and trouble to argue with their parents about said film. I should not show something controversial not because it's my moral obligation, but because I would have hell to pay when I deal with the children's respective parents. And how does this children's birthday party scenario relate to general nudity or anything controversial if they are rated NC-17, which the children should not be seeing because they are not 17 yet? My view on the film and its sex scenes: the film is rated NC-17 for a reason, if you are uncomfortable with that, go find yourself the edited G-version (which will be released in China, as far as I know, with only 7 minutes worth of film removed.) And censorship sucks.
