Plot or no plot, our bodies react to what we see. So, when film directors say that some sexually explicit scenes are not meant to titillate but are crucial to the plot, I wonder. People do not get intimate in the streets for a reason – it is about intimacy, and that is private.
Therefore, I do not understand why director David Fincher insisted that he will not permit any cuts in his film The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo recommended by the Indian censor board. The suggestion was to blur bare bottoms and bare breasts.
When access to varied forms of media is easy, one might question such prudery. This is precisely the point. Sexuality titillates and there is nothing that would make it so crucial to the story. People are watching YouTube videos of real people being battered and raped. It is all live streaming. Even if we find it squeamish, our brains are partitioned to ‘enjoy’ what is going on without endorsing it.
Is it cultural? To an extent. But even in the more open societies, one cannot assume that love-making is necessarily seen in context and not just for pleasure. Cinema is in a sense also a tactile medium, besides addressing the sensory stimuli of sight and sound. It transfers the smells to us, especially if we are watching it in an auditorium with others. Taste is about dry throats, salivating salvation.
One of the most disturbing rape scenes I have watched did not show anything. It was in a Hindi film, Ghar. It relied purely on one piercing sound and the aftermath was in the eyes. Yet, one could feel the terror.
For someone who talks about several sexually related subjects, I do get uncomfortable watching explicit scenes. It could be partly a sense of shame that is ingrained in us, and also fear about one’s hormonal responses. There are beautiful sequences that build up like foreplay, but I want them to stop just short. Again, a comment I always recollect is when a Hindi film director, known for his light comedies and subtle romances, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, was asked why he did not show bedroom scenes in his films, he said something to the effect that he left the room when his characters made love.
There has been a departure and we have some hardcore films. Unfortunately, however hard they try, they look self-conscious. I don’t see much ‘realistic’ difference in the deliciously simulated Bollywood kiss that showed two flowers meeting and today’s lip licking and finger sucking. Both are merely conveying something. And for those who go on and on about the Kama Sutra and how free we were, well it was written by Vatsyayana, a celibate, and he used his imagination.
Sexuality in contemporary cinema does not leave much to the imagination, although in other aspects there are several nuances it lets us explore.
Does one say the same about books? Can we not get turned on by a piece of writing? Of course.
I had read an account by a person I respect a lot. She spoke about her personal experience with date rape. If the idea was to display the gruesomeness, it did not work. The graphic details of being roughed up, being pushed, while she was in her senses and in fact continued talking to the man, and then the assault from the back just made it exciting in a macabre sort of way. I speak here as a woman who has and will raise my voice against such violence and abuse. But I cannot deny that reading the account did not nauseate me; it had the opposite effect. Perhaps too much empathy makes one feel it right in the bones as well as the flesh.
Why was it so? Because, she did not convey any hatred towards what was happening while it was happening. It was later that she realised that it was an intrusion. This is not to justify my response, which might for all you know have been similar had I watched animals on Discovery Channel. What I am saying is that sex in any form is titillating, whatever be the motive.
Some of my poetry has been described as ‘raw’. It comes from rawness, whatever other emotions go along with it. Obviously, the potency registers more sharply than the purging. But then, tears too are wet.
- - -
Update: I would like to add that ‘pure’ pornography is a niche market and cannot be viewed in the same manner. My views on it are different because it is stacked on a separate counter. An earlier article: Civilise society, add a dash of porn
Therefore, I do not understand why director David Fincher insisted that he will not permit any cuts in his film The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo recommended by the Indian censor board. The suggestion was to blur bare bottoms and bare breasts.
When access to varied forms of media is easy, one might question such prudery. This is precisely the point. Sexuality titillates and there is nothing that would make it so crucial to the story. People are watching YouTube videos of real people being battered and raped. It is all live streaming. Even if we find it squeamish, our brains are partitioned to ‘enjoy’ what is going on without endorsing it.
Is it cultural? To an extent. But even in the more open societies, one cannot assume that love-making is necessarily seen in context and not just for pleasure. Cinema is in a sense also a tactile medium, besides addressing the sensory stimuli of sight and sound. It transfers the smells to us, especially if we are watching it in an auditorium with others. Taste is about dry throats, salivating salvation.
One of the most disturbing rape scenes I have watched did not show anything. It was in a Hindi film, Ghar. It relied purely on one piercing sound and the aftermath was in the eyes. Yet, one could feel the terror.
For someone who talks about several sexually related subjects, I do get uncomfortable watching explicit scenes. It could be partly a sense of shame that is ingrained in us, and also fear about one’s hormonal responses. There are beautiful sequences that build up like foreplay, but I want them to stop just short. Again, a comment I always recollect is when a Hindi film director, known for his light comedies and subtle romances, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, was asked why he did not show bedroom scenes in his films, he said something to the effect that he left the room when his characters made love.
There has been a departure and we have some hardcore films. Unfortunately, however hard they try, they look self-conscious. I don’t see much ‘realistic’ difference in the deliciously simulated Bollywood kiss that showed two flowers meeting and today’s lip licking and finger sucking. Both are merely conveying something. And for those who go on and on about the Kama Sutra and how free we were, well it was written by Vatsyayana, a celibate, and he used his imagination.
Sexuality in contemporary cinema does not leave much to the imagination, although in other aspects there are several nuances it lets us explore.
Does one say the same about books? Can we not get turned on by a piece of writing? Of course.
I had read an account by a person I respect a lot. She spoke about her personal experience with date rape. If the idea was to display the gruesomeness, it did not work. The graphic details of being roughed up, being pushed, while she was in her senses and in fact continued talking to the man, and then the assault from the back just made it exciting in a macabre sort of way. I speak here as a woman who has and will raise my voice against such violence and abuse. But I cannot deny that reading the account did not nauseate me; it had the opposite effect. Perhaps too much empathy makes one feel it right in the bones as well as the flesh.
Why was it so? Because, she did not convey any hatred towards what was happening while it was happening. It was later that she realised that it was an intrusion. This is not to justify my response, which might for all you know have been similar had I watched animals on Discovery Channel. What I am saying is that sex in any form is titillating, whatever be the motive.
Some of my poetry has been described as ‘raw’. It comes from rawness, whatever other emotions go along with it. Obviously, the potency registers more sharply than the purging. But then, tears too are wet.
- - -
Update: I would like to add that ‘pure’ pornography is a niche market and cannot be viewed in the same manner. My views on it are different because it is stacked on a separate counter. An earlier article: Civilise society, add a dash of porn

9 comments:
FV,
Your personal views on the subject are very interesting and obviously formed after a lot of thought. But the very concept of censorship will inevitably lead to selective cultural oppression. We in India need not be reminded of this.
"...sex in any form is titillating, whatever be the motive."
Provocative statement...when you say "sex in any form...whatever may be the motive", do you intend to include rape (or does that not count as sex)? I do not believe that (viewing/reading) rape is always titillating for everyone- surely psychological resistance often has the power to supersede purely physical responses?
Should we not be talking of personal tastes here? To take an extreme example, some may find no titillation in a display of a fecal fetish- others may. What I'm trying to say is, "sex" is just too broad a term for your statement to be plausible...
On a lighter note: Noomi Rapace is fantastic...I feel sorry for whoever has to match that in the US version.
FV,
Nice post - I have pondered it, when some would make condescending remarks over taciturn-fisted-Indian-Censor board, which invariably took a predictable course of self-sympathy and
borderline laconophilia, with all things kama-sutra.
I however do believe that, everyone is entitled to their own style of on-screen-narration - I know, even I find it funny when sexually-explicit scenes are being passed off having some contextual-relevance to the story line. But if some director sees it necessary in his movie( maybe he lacks the capability or simply the will) so be it. I do think he alone has the right to decide how he wishes his work to be displayed.
The above was more on a principle level.
I could not help but notice this remark " And for those who go on and on about the Kama Sutra and how free we were, well it was written by Vatsyayana, a celibate, and he used his imagination. "
Personally, I fail to understand - how does the fact that the author was celibate and his works were his wet dream, somehow undermine the fact that we were an open society ?
Are we to conveniently ignore the sociological aspect and the willingness of a culture to take this work in it's stride ?
>>somehow undermine the fact that we were an open society ?
Imagery in Ajanta-Ellora caves or reliefs on Khajuraho, lot of the art had religious inspiration in India; sometimes even created by Monks themselves.
Society's attitudes towards sex does have something to do with evolutionary biology and law and order but, it is surely the taboo aspect that ignites even more stubborn interest.
There is a famous Zen koan of a Monk helping a woman across the river by lifting her up and disciple being quite uncomfortable about it. Monk finally tells the disciple "I dropped her at the river bank and you should too".
F&F:
This was about my personal views, and rather general at that. I updated the post, but your comment had already been posted, to reveal my views on the more 'open' form of expression.
I doubt if such censorship would lead to cultural oppression, for had those scenes been blurred or deleted we would not know. Cultural oppression is when movement is restricted to bludgeon a group that has caused no harm. When we deal with a larger space, we have to consider the factors of that space.
Perhaps my other responses will clarify this further.
- - -
Anon:
Provocative statement...when you say "sex in any form...whatever may be the motive", do you intend to include rape (or does that not count as sex)? I do not believe that (viewing/reading) rape is always titillating for everyone- surely psychological resistance often has the power to supersede purely physical responses?
Glad you brought this up. The point is, when we are talking about a huge canvas, then
1. individual psychology gets pretty much muffled beneath the louder herd catharsis. Heard the catcalls?
2. rape is not titillating, but the way it is portrayed often is. I think I was clear about how we partition the act/portrayal in our minds.
Should we not be talking of personal tastes here? To take an extreme example, some may find no titillation in a display of a fecal fetish- others may. What I'm trying to say is, "sex" is just too broad a term for your statement to be plausible...
Fecal fetishism/necrophilia constitute perversions, and are practised by a small number of people. They would be a part of sexuality, but on the fringes. Rape should be ideally an outcast, but it is beyond perversion; it is crime and power control.
There is no place for "taste" here, for even the criminals are not really doing it for pleasure. What I was saying,and I repeat, is how it is portrayed. The example I gave was of a colleague, and I could not empathise with her because the heinous aspect did not come across. We are talking about a hugely talented person, and this was not even a memoir or fiction where one could see the 'person' on a broader scale. We have instances where women have fallen in love/married their rapists.
I really do not wish to be misunderstood, that I am conveying an act such as this is pleasurable. Even reports on rape are vicarious.
In another comment I will post a link to a piece...
PS: I did not know about Noomi Rapace, so am not sure who'd be better. Don't like Craig. Would prefer Nicholas Cage.
CandidSpade:
Certainly, how a director wishes to translate her/his vision is a matter of choice and creative license. A society might now find that palatable.
If we come out of this particular film discussion, I know of a few Indian film directors who make sensitive 'women-oriented' films but are misogynists personally, including being accused of wife battering and molestation.
If this part of his life is 'censored out', then surely he has the will. Again, I am not a prude. It really raised a few questions.
I could not help but notice this remark "And for those who go on and on about the Kama Sutra and how free we were, well it was written by Vatsyayana, a celibate, and he used his imagination."
Personally, I fail to understand - how does the fact that the author was celibate and his works were his wet dream, somehow undermine the fact that we were an open society ?
Are we to conveniently ignore the sociological aspect and the willingness of a culture to take this work in it's stride?
It does not undermine it; I was making a case for the power of the imagination. That projecting something takes away from it.
The sociological dimensions of such works are grainy, for we do not know how many people became acrobats following the treatise. Were we an open society - tribal societies are - or just not exposed to such literature that was only unearthed and glorified later?
Would our moral police stand by the depictions and their 'performance' in the public space, with all forms of sexuality?
And can we (ah, now we are getting there) use the same yardsticks for, ahem, other cultures?!
Hitesh:
...it is surely the taboo aspect that ignites even more stubborn interest
True. And that is cultural. I mentioned guilt and shame, even as 'personal' examples.
I have read that Zen koan, and often wondered whether 'leaving her at the river bank' necessarily means the process of doing so did not have its moments!
- - -
For Anon:
Here is the piece I mentioned. The regulars here have read it:
http://farzana-versey.blogspot.in/2011/04/what-i-would-do-to-rapist.html
I believe I was not perfectly clear in my initial comment; the second paragraph was not about rape, but was a general comment on how we need to consider personal preferences/tastes when making a claim such as "sex in any form is titillating." Hence the reference of fetishes. I had not been implying that the enjoyment of rape or it's portrayals is a matter of tastes.
I find it curious that you would use a term like "perversions", with all its loaded history. Did u intend those connotations?
As for your other piece, thanks for the link. Wil get round to readning it soon.
Funny. I much prefer Craig to Cage. :)
I suppose we need to make a distinction between personal taste and social acceptance of it.
I find it curious that you would use a term like "perversions", with all its loaded history. Did u intend those connotations?
I used it here for the basic connotation of a kink, an unusual sexual choice, a 'subversion' of life-giving sexuality. Necrophilia and fecal fetish are contrary to that.
I guess I did not consider the loaded history, except that death is history.
PS: Craig or Cage - a matter of taste? I would be curious to know your gender just for this.
Post a Comment