When I first began watching this film, I was absolutely frustrated with Jane's thinking she should keep the money based
-
skay_baltimore — 12 years ago(July 21, 2013 11:43 AM)
I watched it on Netflix and there was brief some genitalia. Nothing major, IMO.
As far as character development goes, I thought they developed her character in an interesting, somewhat non-linear fashion. I don't think she's a rocket scientist, and I think she's probably typical of a lot of the folks in the porn industry, but by the same token, she did seem to have a good heart, and did not appear to be as messed up as Melissa.
"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss) -
skay_baltimore — 12 years ago(July 21, 2013 09:00 AM)
I don't think it was gratuitous at all. I think it served notice of the hard edged lifestyle she was living, despite here "girl next door" look. That scene drove that point home quite well, IMO. That's who she was, and that's what she did; so no, it's not gratuitous at all. It wasn't like she worked in a diner and they tossed in some irrelevant scene just to show some skin.
"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss) -
lukejbarnett2002 — 9 years ago(April 25, 2016 07:51 PM)
exactly and also the fact that it's so unrealistically shown and is so blocked and done in such an obvious blocking way, blocking the nudity and blocking things to hide the fact that it's not real sex and they did that in the most unrealistic and fake way. I mean there are soft core porn movie sex scenes that are more realistic and believable than that scene. in fact I've never seen a movie sex scene that is as unrealistic, choreographed and acted out looking, and obviously fake as this one. and the fact that the main character actress would refuse to show any nudity at all in that scene also takes you completely out of the scene as does the fact that it's so poorly and unrealistically staged.
-
snagswolf — 9 years ago(August 24, 2016 12:29 PM)
You must've seen a different version, because the one I'm watching on DVD isn't fake or 'blocked' at all. Full penetration, penis in vagina. Clear as day on the screen. And there's also some side shots of him doing her doggy style and you can clearly see he's penetrating her.
Not that I mind. -
lukejbarnett2002 — 9 years ago(August 27, 2016 07:23 PM)
and there you go. exactly my problem with it other than the fact that it's so fakely staged and so manufactured looking and choreographed. nothing worse than a body double nudity scene, it's even worse than having no nudity.
-
lukn4frnz — 12 years ago(July 23, 2013 03:36 PM)
Same here.
Enjoyed this movie immensely, might turn out to be my favorite movie of 2013.
But the explicit sex scenes just didn't seem to fit into the movie
I liked that the movie was 'real' in that characters' bad sides were shown, but it didn't need to go into the detail it did during the porn filming scene.
Makes me think it's not easily accesible by teens, and it's such a great movie I think it should be seen by anyone.
Jane decided early on to fess up to the old lady about the money, but old lady wasn't open to talking to her about it. I don't see what you were so frustrated about in that regard. -
zachbraffrocks-1 — 12 years ago(August 13, 2013 11:25 PM)
NR is literally "Not Rated." It's not NC-17. They probably didn't submit it to the corrupt rating system. I'm sorry you had a problem with gratuitous nudity. If you've ever had sex, you've seen more than this movie showed. Common sense dictates that not all movies are for children. Adults should be able to handle adult scenes.
-
Butterfly041532 — 12 years ago(August 23, 2013 11:38 AM)
No one said anything about this not being a family friendly movie and just because someone doesn't want to watch a porn scene woven in to a movie doesn't mean they can't handle adult content. The point is the sex scene was needlessly extensive. We got the point that she was doing a porn movie way before we were shown him going down on her. Like another poster said in another post, they could have cut it when they were laying on the bed and then shown the guy walking down the hall. Was the rest really needed for anything other than shock value? No. When I want to watch a porn then I'll watch a porn, but when I want to watch a movie then let me just watch a movie.
Who Cares. -
brian-cartwright2 — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 08:45 AM)
The MPAA is a trade organization which created the ratings in 1968. Rating is voluntary, but it would be difficult to find a theater willing to show an unrated movie.
http://www.mpaa.org/our-story/
To protect and support the industry, the major motion picture studios formed an organization in 1922 now the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) that has served as the voice and advocate of the motion picture and television industry around the world. MPAA has evolved with the times in order to promote the success of our core mission: advancing the business and art of filmmaking, protecting the creative and artistic freedoms of filmmakers, and ensuring the satisfaction of our audiences worldwide.
Our members include: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLC; and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
http://www.filmratings.com/what.html
Submitting a movie for a rating is a voluntary decision made by filmmakers. However, the overwhelming majority of filmmakers have their movies rated, and each member of the Motion Picture Association of America has agreed to have all its theatrically released movies rated. -
Dragon000 — 12 years ago(August 27, 2013 07:30 AM)
I think the fact that she was a porn actress could have been established without the long drawn-out sex scene. I watched it with my son (granted, he's an adult and we were both aware it would have an "adult" theme as this was stated in the preview) and we both found ourselves looking away after it went on too long.
DRAGON..*SWAK. -
argento100 — 12 years ago(October 14, 2013 03:54 PM)
Then tell em they are dumb puritans, sex is part of life, it happens, like em or not, and their kids watch porno and have sex before 18 no matter they do or chain em, so tell em welcome to 21s century or beep off.
-
William_Hunt — 12 years ago(October 15, 2013 08:21 PM)
the scene was not 'extensive' at all. It's ridiculous how conservative these American viewers are. In European arthouse movies there is a lot more nakedness. This movie was also about a woman who's job was working in the porn industry so it makes perfect sense that there is a scene about this in the movie but it wasn't very explicit since most of it was blur and the scenes were very very short. Americans have absolutely no problem with violence or gore in movies but when a vagina or tits or shown for a fraction of a second they completely freak out. That is very odd to me. Anyway: fantastic movie, great direction.
-
Pantdino — 12 years ago(November 07, 2013 10:48 AM)
I think there must be more than one version of this film out there. The version I saw on Netflix was very brief and literally showed only a few frames of the actual sex acts so not at all extensive.
I think it was necessary to graphically show how she earns a living to be able to understand her as basically a nice person looking for connection. -
Jon-nel — 12 years ago(November 16, 2013 09:39 AM)
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I just watched this on Netflix and I don't believe there are two different versions. The sex scenes are brief flashes due to editing and camera angles, but if you hit pause, rewind and play a few times you will see actual cunnilingus, fellatio and vaginal penetration from different angles performed by "Jane" and her co-star (it appears to be a body-double for Jane for the most graphic parts). If you allow the movie to play through at normal speed, these scenes flash by very quickly. I would call them explicit, but not "extensive."
For Americans, this is a more explicit portrayal of sex than we are used to seeing in non-pornographic or even soft-core porn movies. The sex is not simulated, and that will bother some. I can appreciate that. I can also appreciate the irony that violence at almost any level is considered acceptable, while sex and nudity are considered too shocking to view.
Was the scene gratuitous? I think the filmmaker was trying to inject a level of realism not typically portrayed in "mainstream" films. The scene was a bit jarring, considering what had preceded it. But it was the point of the filmmaker to jar the viewer into seeing these characters as real people, warts and all.
Most sex scenes in movies are not portrayed the way real people have sex, in my opinion. They almost always seem obligatory, predictable, over-choreographed and boring. In the case of Starlet, the sex scene does serve to show the "real" Jane, who was a porn actress. I give the benefit of the doubt to the filmmaker.