> So yeah, ultimately, they removed the sex scene, and I think the movies are better for it.
My opinion is that, just like with "foul language" and violence, we are speaking of artistic devices. These are tools. Does it aid the story or detract?
I was a child of the 80s, so I remember the 90s very well. I remember people complaining about "gratuitous" sex scenes.
But how do you tell the story of Basic Instinct or Cape Fear without the sex scenes? You know, the ones where the murderer kills during sex.
In forbidden love stories, a well placed sex scene can represent crossing the Rubicon. The point at which the characters decide to break taboos and expectations and proceed with their relationship, despite the inevitable consequences that are to follow.
I never read or saw 50 Shades of Grey, and I know it's probably a bad example due to it's reception, but from what I understand of that story it could not work without sex scenes.
As with everything, use the right tool for the job. If a sex scene is a good way to drive home an important beat in a story, then I say go for it. Just like if a well placed "f-bomb" in a stand-up comedian's joke can drive impact.
One last example / analogy: during the early 00s I began to develop an extreme distaste for CGI and action sequences in movies. Just like with the "gratuitous" sex scene, it was blatant, in your face, over done and didn't seem to advance the story. As a practical FX lover, I thought that CGI was a cheap alternative. These days CGI and modern technology are used in conjunction with practical FX more than ever, so that each can contribute what it does well. At least, when the FX themselves are done well. And I don't remember too many recent examples that remind me of The Matrix 2, where the highway chase scene felt like it went on for hours and contributed nothing but boredom.
When we recognize that these elements are tools, and that the best result comes from choosing the best tool for the job / problem at hand, then anything and everything ought to be on the table.
Although I do see your point, Good practice in storytelling has always been show don't tell, this is because stories themselves can always be shortened drastically and a plot can be summarized to a sentence, this is why the importance of storytelling is not the story, but the experience the writer can impose on its audience.
A writers primary weapon and tool to manipulate its audience is engaging their empathy, being told "they loved each other" might make someone think about a loved one, but it wont work on the majority.
Basic Instinct is about an author/psychologist who writes books that foretell/confess murders.
Sex isn't the essence of the story, it's a choice of set dressing.
My opinion is that, just like with "foul language" and violence, we are speaking of artistic devices. These are tools. Does it aid the story or detract?
I was a child of the 80s, so I remember the 90s very well. I remember people complaining about "gratuitous" sex scenes.
But how do you tell the story of Basic Instinct or Cape Fear without the sex scenes? You know, the ones where the murderer kills during sex.
In forbidden love stories, a well placed sex scene can represent crossing the Rubicon. The point at which the characters decide to break taboos and expectations and proceed with their relationship, despite the inevitable consequences that are to follow.
I never read or saw 50 Shades of Grey, and I know it's probably a bad example due to it's reception, but from what I understand of that story it could not work without sex scenes.
As with everything, use the right tool for the job. If a sex scene is a good way to drive home an important beat in a story, then I say go for it. Just like if a well placed "f-bomb" in a stand-up comedian's joke can drive impact.
One last example / analogy: during the early 00s I began to develop an extreme distaste for CGI and action sequences in movies. Just like with the "gratuitous" sex scene, it was blatant, in your face, over done and didn't seem to advance the story. As a practical FX lover, I thought that CGI was a cheap alternative. These days CGI and modern technology are used in conjunction with practical FX more than ever, so that each can contribute what it does well. At least, when the FX themselves are done well. And I don't remember too many recent examples that remind me of The Matrix 2, where the highway chase scene felt like it went on for hours and contributed nothing but boredom.
When we recognize that these elements are tools, and that the best result comes from choosing the best tool for the job / problem at hand, then anything and everything ought to be on the table.