Enough Sex?
-
elven_path_322 — 19 years ago(January 26, 2007 05:11 PM)
I thought the sex in this movie was actually very well done. It was artistic and truly integral to the plot. Bowie sees visions through his eyes and the first sex scene between him and Mary Lou is something that he longs for, intimacy, but knows he'll probably never get the chance.
Candy Clark was/is a beautiful girl. She was very beautiful in the movie. Bowie, of course looked great, although at the height of his coke use, which is definitely noticeable at parts, which only makes his portrayal of Newton all the more believeable. -
theodore_varengo — 19 years ago(January 28, 2007 08:53 PM)
I agree, elven path! I mean, it's a matter of personal preference, I guess. But I think the sex scenes in the film are very well done. They are pretty graphic even by today's standards, but a graphic sex scene can work to a film's advantage if it's done right. I thought the scenes were essential to both character and plot development, and in particular I thought the scene between Candy Clark and David Bowie during younger, happier times was beautiful and touching, while the later one with an older Candy and a more drunk and defeated Bowie illustrated how degenerated they had become. If you want to see how graphic sex can fail miserably in the context of a film that's intended to be "daring", "artful", and "intellectual", watch 9 Songs. With no plot, no point, and an extremely unlikeable (though physically attractive) female lead, that movie amounts to the world's most pretentious porno.
-
X-Hal — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 10:55 AM)
I'm afraid I must disagree with you on one point. The phrase "graphic even by today's standards." Considering that today's standards are far more puritanical and retardedly prudish than they were in the sixties and seventies and that we've gone BACK in time when it comes to acceptance of sex and nudity, well that's my point right there. People today are morons when it comes to the natural human body and the natural things you do with it. Torture and violence is all well and good, but are there BOOBS in it oh noez!!
Whether they find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered an enemy planet.
-
nedwards-1 — 18 years ago(June 23, 2007 02:32 PM)
hang on a sec, now i'm curious. i just watched a version of this film that i rented from blockbuster that was marked with an R rating. I thought it contained quite a bit of sex, but is there another uncut version with even more sex?
-
CountVladDracula — 18 years ago(June 23, 2007 06:29 PM)
'hang on a sec, now i'm curious. i just watched a version of this film that i rented from blockbuster that was marked with an R rating. I thought it contained quite a bit of sex, but is there another uncut version with even more sex?'
All DVD versions are complete but any American VHS tape of The man who fell to Earth from before 1989 is cut, badly. It still has sex in it but it's missing the gun scene (you'd know what I'm talking about if you saw it) as well as scenes that were actually important to the story.
And yes, there is no sex in the novel. Betty Jo (Mary Lou in the film) tries to seduce Thomas Jerome Newton but it doesn't work in the novel. -
-
theodore_varengo — 19 years ago(February 08, 2007 04:51 PM)
But my understanding is that the original American release cut most of these scenes out and as a result was even harder to follow and more confusing, so they must serve some purpose to the story. To be fair, I haven't seen the edited version. Maybe some people would like it better (like some of you folks on this thread that didn't like all the sex scenes).
-
hurleygirl-1 — 19 years ago(February 13, 2007 07:13 AM)
I wasn't at all bothered by the amount of sex in the movie. But I will admit to two things
- I giggled a bit at the springy pubic afros; and
- I could have gone my whole life without ever seeing Rp Torn's wang and died a happy woman.
I'll leave my love between the stars
-
fattymcmatty13 — 19 years ago(February 15, 2007 04:38 PM)
I think I hate "mattqatsi".
"You can tell I'm an artist, can't you?" is probably the most undeservingly pretentious thing I've ever heard.
Show me the art you've produced and made money on. Send me some links of all the beautiful art you've made as the artist you are and I'll buy anything else you "make".
I hope you start your next post with multiple "no"s, too. -
mattqatsi — 19 years ago(February 21, 2007 08:27 PM)
I don't think I called myself an artist
And what's wrong with saying I'm an artist anywawy? Just because I think a movie has too much unnecessary sex, and I do draw, why would that make you hate me.
Plus, most artists don't really make a living off of Art, just like writers.
So what's wrong with saying that?
This movie just seems toomuch like a Tinto Brass movie, where there is more unnecessary sex than there is plot. -
fattymcmatty13 — 19 years ago(February 25, 2007 12:08 AM)
"I don't think I called myself an artist
And what's wrong with saying I'm an artist anywawy? Just because I think a movie has too much unnecessary sex, and I do draw, why would that make you hate me.
Plus, most artists don't really make a living off of Art, just like writers.
So what's wrong with saying that?
This movie just seems toomuch like a Tinto Brass movie, where there is more unnecessary sex than there is plot."
And now, seeing how undeservingly pretentious you sounded, you're lying to people on the internet. Genius!
Here's when you updated the post where you said "You can tell I'm an artist, can't you?"
UPDATED Wed Feb 21 2007 20:21:25
Here's when you posted the first quote, your pathetic lie.
by - mattqatsi on Wed Feb 21 2007 20:27:07
So it's a coincidence that you "just found a spelling error" in your first post, then posted your excuse for a refutation only minutes after? You're not fooling anyone. By the way, saying "And what's wrong with saying I'm an artist anyway?" afterwards doesn't strengthen your credibility either.
I hate you because you're the cliche modern, wannabe artist. Even though you have no talent and don't know the first thing about art, you claim to be an artist by saying stupidly pretentious things. There's a difference between art and "do draw".
Artists and writers make a living, support themselves, put bread on the table, by painting, screenwriting, sketching, writing, directing, producing, animating, whatever the hell verb you want. People who doodle with mechanical pencils on notebook paper and people who write the first three pages of a sloppy story with no rhetoric aren't artists and writers. They may have it as a hobby, and that's fine, as long as they (i.e. you) don't claim to be something they're not.
Then they're liars (i.e. you).
I'm not arguing about the movie, it may very well have too much sexual content, it may very well have the perfect amount of sexual content, and it may very well merit more sexual content. But when you type one word sentences and imagine yourself drinking pinot noir in a library as you type, then end your post by saying "You can tell I'm an artist, can't you?", you're trying to convince people you'll never know that you're something you're not.
That's extremely pathetic.