One foot on the floor, please

Guardian Unlimited: Why movie sex is better off faking it

This post at the Guardian's film blog was inspired by the (apparently) very real looking sex in Ang Lee's new film. The post makes this good argument against the increasingly common appearance of real sex acts in art house "R" rated cinema:

Sex changes in the presence of a camera, because it's no longer the business of the two people involved, but all about the third party - the viewer. What's always been dishonest about the likes of 9 Songs and The Brown Bunny is the slippery appeal to the audience that the sex is somehow scaling new heights of raw and fearless truth - when, in fact, it's just another performance sold as a non-performance, like everything else you see in a film. It's just that, rather than the strange, hairless, sheeny creatures of actual porn, you've got Tony Leung or Chloe Sevigny demonstrating their commitment to their craft. Not only is it all completely bogus, the results are usually far from erotic .... more importantly, they're not even dramatically potent.

In fact, the post reminds me of a general modern misapprehension about sex, perhaps particularly held by women, I suspect, that it is more revealing of true character than other day to day aspects of behaviour.

It is understandable that sex, particularly at the start of a relationship, can have a strong effect on each lover's perception of the other. But what I am questioning is the view held at an intellectual level that sex reveals "true" character.

The fact that the world's worst dictators, and probably a fair proportion of its worst criminals and murderers, have been married or in long standing sexual relationships, would suggest otherwise, wouldn't it? And surely everyone knows someone who ends up with a partner who is of bad or dubious character when not in bed with his or her partner.

There is every reason to suspect that the sex may be fogging the judgement of the partner, not enlightening it.

But do you need to have sex depicted explicitly in a film to realise this is true? Nah. Do you need to see an actor's genitals to understand the motivating role of sex in a character's life? Not at all.

I go further than the author of the post: story telling in modern cinema could be greatly improved if we went back to the almost non-depiction of the actual sex that existed in the cinema of (say) the 50's. Adults still understood when couples were lovers, without having to see them naked. The passionate kiss in the surf made the lust clear enough, didn't it? The sight of the train going into the tunnel at the end of North by Northwest was both funny and about sex. (Although that's not a trick you can repeat more than once, I suppose!) Adults knew that Black Narcissus was largely about repressed sexuality, and hardly a naked nun was to be seen.

The abandonment of the need for any degree of subtlety has worked against the interests of better story telling, and has lead now to the distracting stuff about whose breasts or penis are actually able to be spotted in the latest film.

Is there any spot on the censorship board coming up soon?