This is the third debate of our monthly feature, entitled ‘THN Friday Face Off’. One Friday every month will see two THN titans of film knowledge duke it out over a pressing issue relating to our most beloved art form. Each film fanatic will argue from a different viewpoint on a particular subject, in a bid to persuade our exceptionally attractive readers, as well as his or her colleague, they should be deemed the winner.
Of course, there are no definitive right or wrong answers. However, we would love for you to get involved by sharing your opinion, and voting for whoever you think has argued their case in a more effective way. You can do this by commenting below, tweeting us via @thncom, or commenting on our Facebook page. Before doing so, we ask that you read the opposition’s stance on the matter here.
This month we ask whether unsimulated sex in narrative films is a necessity, or just something to shock?
Method Acting vs Acting
As my esteemed friend and colleague Luke points out here, the idea of unsimulated sex in film is primarily an issue of method acting vs acting. There is a famous, apocryphal anecdote about the making of John Schlesinger’s 1976 classic MARATHON MAN, in which Laurence Olivier arrives on set to find Dustin Hoffman looking tired and irritable. Upon asking why he looks so rough, Hoffman replied that his character had been up all night, so he did just that as part of his ‘method’. Olivier famously retorted, ‘Why don’t you try acting?’ Now imagine the film featured several sex scenes and Olivier arrived on set to find Hoffman deep-throating Roy Scheider. What would the theatrical legend’s response have been? We may never know.
The point is that unsimulated sex is very much like method acting; it’s down to the conscience of the film makers and actors and what they feel will create the best work. When De Niro put on several stone for the climax of RAGING BULL (1980) or Day Lewis spent time off-camera being spoon-fed in a wheelchair for MY LEFT FOOT (1989), these no doubt helped the actors inhabit the roles to an extraordinary degree. Oscars were chucked at their faces and cinema, as a whole, became richer through these performances. But did these actors need to go so far? Some would say ‘No, that’s what acting is for.’ Yet these performers would not have put themselves through such physical rigour (Lewis injured his ribs being constantly hunched in his chair) if they didn’t deem it completely necessary. But can the same be said for real sex in film?
Nobody will be giving Shia LaBeouf any awards because he genuinely gets to penetrate a lady’s vaginal port in Lars Von Trier’s NYMPHOMANIAC. But, more importantly than awards, will the audience engage with the piece more because of their knowledge that the boner is bona fide? Let us look at other examples (hehe, boner).
Reception
William Friedkin’s gay romp, CRUISING (1980), historical epic CALIGULA (1979) and the first blaxpoitation movie SWEET SWEETBACK’S BADASSSSS SONG (1971) are all classics that feature real sex, but not because they feature real sex. Those three movies each have a rich history (mainly due to censorship) and the genuine shaggery is woven into the tapestry of their mythology. But they would all have been what they are without it. CALIGULA would have been a ridiculously over-the-top, camp extravaganza without the cum-shots (which were filmed and added later on the whim of the porn-impresario producer). CRUISING would have raised the ire of the LBGT community AND the appalled Christian right at the time of release, whether or not it included fisting. But would those films have been so notorious had these activities been simulated? I think so. Regardless of whether anyone’s fingers went up anyone else’s bum, it’s not just the sexual content that angered people about CRUISING. For some it was the equating of gay sex with murder and criminality, to others it was the representation of homosexuality in any sense other than completely negative, and people would still have wanted to watch it due to the star power of it’s lead actor and director, which also applies to CALIGULA. SWEET SWEETBACK started a cultural revolution in film with its editing and strong, confrontational black lead (who also happened to be writer/producer/director/on-screen-knobber) which paved the way for SHAFT (1971), FOXY BROWN (1974) and other genre staples. The unsimulated coitus had little to do with the audience reaction. Never the less, there’s no denying that these films benefited greatly from the publicity that real life boinking provided.
Then you have the indie flicks which almost completely rely on genuine bump’n’grind to get any press at all. INTIMACY (2001), KEN PARK (2002), 9 SONGS (2004) and SHORTBUS (2006) for instance may not have seen the light of day had it not been for the real, explicit sexual content therein. Though they all had big name independent directors (KEN PARK was helmed by Von Trier’s Dogme 95 mate, Harmony Korine), it was the heavily publicised and discussed whoopy-making that drew in the punters (the ones that bothered anyway). These are films that are only really remembered in discussions such as this. That is in no way meant to be detrimental to the artistic merit of the pieces, but when talking about Michael Winterbottom’s 9 SONGS, people seldom mention Elbow’s performance of Fallen Angel. Not when there’s an on-screen jizz bomb.
Necessity
So it would be fair to say unsimulated sex can generate interest and hopefully revenue for a film, but would these movies have been any worse had these acts been faked? Absolutely not. The inclusion of Kieran O’Brien’s love spray does not make for an essential visual metaphor, or have any real importance, other than the performer now being the only actor ever to be seen ejaculating in a mainstream, UK funded film, as well as the column inches that provides (hehe, inches). INTIMACY would have said everything it did about the nature of secrets, family and passion had the sex not been utterly genuine, because the writing and performances were so strong.
Regarding SHORTBUS, director John Cameron Mitchell said ‘The way people express themselves sexually can tell you a lot about who they are. Some people ask me, “Couldn’t you have told the same story without the explicitness?” They don’t ask whether I could’ve done Hedwig without the songs. Why not be allowed to use every paint in the paintbox?’ It’s an interesting point, and if the writer/director feels that he HAS to include explicit, full on fuckery to achieve his artistic vision, then who are we to say he doesn’t? But does it have to be unsimulated? I think his comparison doesn’t hold water. If SHORTBUS had NO sex, that would have been like HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH having no songs. But had the sex been simulated, that would have equated to HEDWIG having ‘faked’ songs, such as actors lip-syncing to different singers. And if that’s good enough for WEST SIDE STORY and MY FAIR LADY, it’s good enough for HEDWIG.
So whether or not unsimulated sex should be included in film is a matter for film makers AND audiences alike. If people will pay to watch it, and the folks behind the camera deem it necessary, then not only will it continue, but it SHOULD continue. Personally, I have yet to see a film where real life boning has improved the piece in regards to narrative, character, even mise en scene. Knowing that penetration is occurring before my eyes has never made me engage with a film more, nor in fact aroused me more. But if a solid film will get more attention, press and revenue because of the explicit nature of the sex, then that must be a good thing. For instance, this year’s winner of the Palme d’Or at Cannes was BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR, which shocked many critics with it’s extended and intense scenes of lesbian love making. It would surely have won the prize without those sequences (to say it wouldn’t would be an insult to everyone involved) but their inclusion will create a buzz and get the film noticed just as much as it’s critical acclaim. Let’s see how it does commercially over here and what impact the unsimulated sex will have on its success. Also, sex is brilliant, isn’t it? So who’s complaining?
Please do tell us what you think, but first, be sure to read the counter-argument, which can be found here.
