Don't move. I want to move. Don't move.

It seems like too many movies (and TV, and books, and...) focus on lust rather than love, and the movies you cite above, Roger, do not do that. Lust is certainly easier to portray, as you mentioned - all you need is a handy surface. Love is something much more delicate, more subtle, more nuanced. But I agree completely that love is far more satisfying for a movie to show than mere lust.

I say "mere" because quenching your lust is fine, but it's like the old cliche about eating Chinese food; you just want another session an hour later. You can spend your lifetime quenching love, and never finish. And, to continue the food metaphor, the meal lasts as long as you're together, satiates the whole time, and the flavor just gets deeper and richer.

Not easy for a movie (or TV, or books, or...) to portray? Sure. That's why it's so fantastic when one tries, and [i]gets it right.[/i]

Very few people know how to make a motion picture.

Ebert: And fewer care.

I'm actually surprised that you didn't mention "Belle de Jour," but after some consideration it's appropriate that you didn't. "Belle de Jour" is about eroticism and sexual fantasy, not love. Though there is a sense of modesty with the camera work (you never see Severine actually make love, but the foreplay and following are huge hints of the intense eroticism throughout the film). I only just heard about "Medicine for Melancholy" and am only fortunate enough to be close to Landmark Theaters, which shows various independent and documentary type films throughout the Bay Area (San Francisco and all the fun jazz).

There is a great irony in how modesty intensifies sexuality – it also explains why the Catholic School Girl outfit is such a infamous pop-culture fetish. But, as Hollywood goes, it's all about kiss kiss bang bang, and that's really too unfortunate, and even more so that it makes a motherload of money.

Two of my favorites among erotic moments:
1)the kiss in 'Notorious'-One of the only times that the Production Code gave a film an advantage; the series of three-second kisses was more erotic than any make-out session I've seen in the movies. Foreplay and suspense are basically the same thing, so it's no surprise that the Master of Suspense was able to create such a hypnotic moment between Grant and Bergman.
2)the love scene in 'Mulholland Drive'-The most erotic thing about it is the nervousness between the two women;you really believe that neither of them have been with another woman(at least they think they haven't), so there's an innocence of discovery in the scene. If it's a dream, maybe the dreamer is remembering how she felt her first time.

My memory is not as good as I would like it to be, so I don't remember which character said which line in "Out of Africa." I'm trying to imagine if it makes a difference whether the male or female says "Don't move" or "I want to move."
What I do remember is that my female friends thought the scene where Redford washed Streep's hair was the most intimate/sexual.

I think that there are many movies that could have been better if they had been more subtle in exploring the sex lives of their characters.
Some of the greatest romantic scenes of all time, in movies like Casablanca, The Quiet Man, City Lights and Sunrise, were powerful because of what they didn't show.
Some movies that I didn't think were as good because of over done sex scenes include The Reader, A History of Violence and Shakespeare in Love.
Most times, in this area, less is more.

I like the ones where it's all in the words:

Ben Quick: Your friend left early without even firing a shot.

Clara: I was kissed goodnight, Mr. Quick.

Ben: Kissed and left! If that had been me I would have stayed 'til sun-up.

Clara: Aren't you reckless?

Does anyone watch that scene and think that they are watching Ben and Clara, rather than Paul and Joanne?

---

Ramses (Yul Brenner to Ann Baxter): You will be mine, all mine. Like my dog, or my horse, or my falcon. Only I will love you more, and trust you less... You will come to me whenever I call you, and I will enjoy that very much. Whether you enjoy that or not is your own affair... but I think you will.

---

Rhett: You need kissing, badly. That's what's wrong with you. You should be kissed and often, and by someone who knows how.

I've always felt that the rules of suspense should also apply to the sex scenes. Jump-scares are pretty easy to manufacture, just as quick flashes of nudity are, but it's just there and then forgetten. It takes skill to build mood and anticipation in either circumstance. Sure, it's a time consideration; when pressed for time, a nipple shot is going to take priority over all else, but nearly all of the most erotic scenes I can think of lacked those explicit shots or at least held off on them for a while. Having just recently watched a porno, I was astounded how dependent they were on jump cuts--start kissing while clothed then instantly go into a sex act (of course more graphic than sensual), with no time for arousal. It reminded me of a comment a friend of mine made a few days after watching Showgirls: "I haven't had an erection since I saw that movie. I may never again."

While I respect Pollack's choice to refrain from graphic exploitation in Out of Africa, I'm sure you don't think that doing so suits the tone of every film, the motivations for every cinematic character, or the raw and primitive realism that urgent sexuality can elicit.

Consider the sex scene between Billy Bob Thornton and Halle Berry in Monster's Ball. Both characters are vulnerable, grief-stricken, and aching for intimacy. Forster's camera during that scene is nearly unflinching and yet, because of Hank and Leticia's unspoken solitude and sensual anguish, the scene's tonality accomplishes a primordial essence rather than a pornographic one.

Ebert: Oh, yes. I didn't mean to imply that all sex scenes should be sedate and subtle; just that they are ultimately meaningless if sex is the only point of the scene. The scene in "Monster's Ball" has enormous meaning.

Hi Roger.

Three movies that I probably won't get to see. Sounds like it will be my loss.

I'm a guy. I enjoy a good sex scene in a movie. But, as you rightly point out, there are not a lot of good sex scenes in movies any more. Most of it is debased, in the Apple Pie movie tradition. Although I did think that the Juno and Paulie scene was remarkably chaste and still effective.

It's highly personal, of course, which sex scenes appeal to you. Even discussing them (if you're not a movie critic) is revealing.

I stopped after I read this and gave myself a minute to think through which sex scenes stood out in my mind. I thought of three. I

1. Sexy: Jennifer Tilly getting Gina Gershon to touch her while sitting on a couch in "Bound". You can't even see the touch, it's out of frame. Just looks on faces, and a breath catching...

2. Unrequited: Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansen in "Lost in Translation". I'm thinking of a scene late in the movie when they are laying together on a hotel bed - clothed. Finally having a serious and intimate discussion about life. Not touching, except Scarlett's foot touching Bill's leg...

3. Funny: Jaime Pressley and David Spade in Joe Dirt. Jaime slapping her hands on the headboard saying "I'm your sister, I'm your sister..."

Ebert: Three most excellent scenes.

I'm glad we have you over here away from the Ben Stein thread!

Sensuality is much more sexy than explicity.

you know, I always get turned on whenever I watch that romantic love scene in 'Tristan and Isolde' with James Franco, but maybe that's because I have a huge crush on him. yes, I know that movie is horrible, but still...

African Queen, Wild Strawberries, Roshomon......and many, many Indian films of the first century.....the entire range from the hellish to the sublime is encompassed....Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf to Vittoria de Sica's Two Women....

Mr. Ebert, a few sex scenes I have seen recently do seem to add to the movie, not just add to the commercialism by showing naked bodies. The first (one that has had many detractors groaning), is from The Watchmen. On the surface it seems like the type of sex scene you specifically rail against in this blog (groaning, writing, etc.) However, the use of Leonard Cohen adds a layer of humor and provided me with an epipheny moment while watching it. It is when I first noticed that Snyder is indeed offering up a sort of deconstruction of Hollywood films, much like the original graphic novel offers a deconstruction of comic books. It was screaming, "Here is your over-dramatized sex scene, movie goers."

The second is the love making scene from "Don't Look Now." It is filmed in such a naturalistic way that highlights not only the husband and wife's urgent need for physical contact, but also further implies that thier marriage is strained.

I didn't think anybody could write about sexuality and sensuality in films in such a clear mature voice. Thank you Roger.

On the subject, there was this Filipino film entitled "First Time" released a few years ago which I reviewed. I belabored how the movie could not simply deal with a woman's first time experience with sex. It goes about being softcore porn instead.

As I noted:

"Couldn’t these filmmakers have made a straight-forward story of a young man and a young woman, both nervous but willing to commit themselves to an experience they will both look back on for the rest of their lives? No Filipino seems to be willing to deal with sex and sexuality seriously (or even half-seriously)."

Hey I like sex as much as the next guy, but its presentation these days in many mainstream films has been devalued.

Ebert: There's a good Filipino film going around named "Serbis" that is about the extended family that runs a Manila porno house.

A beautiful and provocative entry. Eros and thanatos have not without reason been put together. The experience of sexual union, like the death experience mirrors the entirety of life. Modern Buddhism says, "Desires equal enlightenment." One of the loveliest of lieder, "Der Tod und das Madchen".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDMdNXut8Yc

This made me think of my favorite erotic moments in film, and realize that it's not the eroticism that gets me - it's the tenderness. To wit:

* Cary and Ingrid in Notorious, famously never kissing longer than two seconds.

* Jason Patric and Rachel Ward in After Dark, My Sweet. In total silence, in near darkness, with repeated fades to black - and I can still see and feel it.

* Harrison Ford drinking the lemonade as Kelly McGillis stares at him in Witness. I find this gives a greater charge than the dancing scene and the embrace in the wheat field scene, and just as much as the more obvious sponge bath scene.

* There's a moment in Keeping the Faith when Jenna Elfman is talking with Ben Stiller as they stand in a doorway, and she holds the top of the doorway for support and sort of... leans into him. They kiss a few times and part ways, but I couldn't get that leaning moment out of my head for the rest of the movie. For all I know, it might not be a good movie.

I suspect you'll be getting a lot of these "let me give you my personal list" sorts of letters, and I'm sorry if I'm going in a different direction from the point(s) you were making, but I think we'd both agree with the truth that the brain is and always will be the sexiest organ.

Ebert: The "Notorious" shot was done, of course, in one three-minute take, and when Grant says "goodbye" to Bergman at the door, I imagine the character speaking, but also the actor himself.

We saw Silent Light when it premiered here in Toronto. We got to have a longish discussion with the director about the meaning of time in the movie. It was a really lovely and magical experience. We are very excited to know that it is getting attention from A.O. Scott and now from you. The director was so kind in answering questions and so passionate about his films. An audience member accused Reygadas of producing a deus ex machina to solve the problem of three lovers. It seemed just the opposite to us. The miracle reproduced the problem where the narrative sequence had already resolved it.

I love this entry, and I long for more erotic sex scenes in movies. I remember watching the Emmanuelle movies on Cinemax in my childhood, and even though they were ridiculous, I still felt a sense that it was more than just soft core porno. Too many movies feel like they have obligatory sex scenes to please the audiences and show off that people have good bodies. Mr. and Mrs. Smith had a hot sex scene between Brad and Angelina, but it was hardly erotic.

One of the most erotic moments of the last few years was when Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal met for the first time in four years in Brokeback Mountain. They give each other a tentative hug when they see each other, and then Ennis shoves Jack into the corner and almost violently kisses him, and they kiss and kiss and don't realize that Ennis's wife is watching through the doorway. That's when I find films most erotic: when it is centered on the desires of its characters, and nothing else. Like James Spader said, no one wants to see pistons.

Have you seen Shortbus yet, Roger? I know it came out during your time in the hospital, but I thought about it while I was reading your entry. That movie works almost in reverse of what you describe as eroticism: the sex, which is entirely unsimulated, is incredibly realistic, but hardly erotic, perhaps because the actors are all normal looking people having fairly gritty and realistic sex. The characters fall in and out of love with each other, but as they swap body fluids, we get the sense that they are looking for gratification instead of satisfaction. There's only two sex scenes in the movie with any sense of eroticism, and you can tell which ones they are, because the film seems to stop when these moments occur, and for a movie that takes place in and around a sex club, it's fairly impressive that any eroticism came through at all. Great film.

Ebert: Missed it. Am I selfish for thinking that movie characters should gratify us instead of each other?

"[I urge filmmakers] to encourage and convey hope, humor, compassion, adventure, and love, as opposed to despair, synthetic theatrics, and blatant bloody violence. And sex, sex, sex, by all means.... indeed, but with a bit of mystery, a touch of charm and elegance, and lots of imagination. "

- Alex North, after receiving Honorary award at 1986 Academy Award ceremony.

Ebert: Yes, yes, yes. Oh, yes.

I'm sure I could think of more, but two particular sex scenes come immediately to mind as favourites.

One is from 'The Competition', a lesser-known Richard Dreyfuss film from his post-Goodbye Girl days (back when I was madly in love with him). Dreyfuss and Amy Irving spend the first half of the movie trying very hard to dislike each other, but when he finds out that his father is ill, he realizes that she's the only one he wants to be with. They end up back at his room, they lie down on the bed... and he starts crying.

That always gets me.

The wonderful part is that instead of having sex, they spend the whole night talking. Talking about everything. His terror that he is doomed to mediocrity. The pressure she feels to succeed at all costs. His guilt over the sacrifices his parents have made for his music career. They lie down, they sit on the floor, they pace. It's all incredibly intimate, so by the time the sun rises and they do finally get around to making love it's like they already have.

A similar intimacy happens in 'Passchendaele', a Canadian film set in WWI that most of you probably haven't heard of. The lovers spend days together in his room as he nurses her through some pretty ugly withdrawal from a low grade morphine addiction. As she gets over the worst of it, they start talking - again, about very intimate, personal things. In the end they kiss, but we don't see anything more.

The real sex scene happens months later, after they have been separated by war and misunderstanding and finally find each other again in Belgium. They rendezvous in a bombed out building with the teeming, endless rain pouring through the roof, mud up to their ankles, troops hustling everywhere. They know they have no time, no time, so she backs herself up onto the edge of a table and hikes her skirts. And when they come together, it's not at all like you would imagine. It's quiet, spare, not hurried, a little desperate, intense, seemingly exposed but completely intimate.

I keep coming back to that word, but that's what I really liked about these two movies and those two sequences in particular. Maybe it's just a chick thing, but I think two people sharing all their fears and foibles and really seeing each other for who they are can be the best sort of foreplay.

(That said, I also love Russ Meyer's movies. Much more entertaining than modern porn.)

Personally, I have no problem with sex or sex in movies -- and, to be sure, both things have made me happy where leaden-pulsed misery was always a close Curtain B.

But I have wondered for a while why the same filmmakers and studios who try to justify their erotic or sexually graphic material on the grounds that sex is natural and no big deal, etc., are the same ones who often advertise this same material in a titillating way. I sometimes see a kind of "having it both ways" hypocrisy where this is concerned. I think sex is natural and no big deal also. I take it where I can. But, for example, if filmmakers release a campus sex comedy and then use interviews and press materials to elevate and justify the movie by saying that "It's no big deal, this is just a realistic look at how college students are, etc." then why do they often advertise this same movie as if it is the most ultimate thing you should be ashamed to see, but you know you want to, so be naughty and come see it? This happens not just with comedy but drama.

My rambling comes down to this: if sex was removed from advertising of all kinds, how would that affect consumerism? Hell, how would it affect sexuality?

Two stray thoughts:

1. Aside from the topic of the thread, I was stopped most by the title "Medicine for Melancholy". What an awesome title.

2. I like how one piece of dialogue from Out of Africa stayed with you. Three lines that spoke to you, or at least stuck with you.

Someone above mentioned "Shakespeare in Love", my favorite movie. I should have mentioned it in relation to love scenes.

But also for a memorable line. I remember the producer of the play who, when asked several times how the play can possibly turn out well given all of the chaos of producing it, says something on the order of "I don't know. It always does. It's a mystery."

I quote that often to my wife, who is chagrined by my "it will work out" attitude.

As I watch movies it seems to me that explicit sex scenes aren't around nearly as much as in the past. It seems like the 70's had way more than we do today.

I know that my approach is skewed because I was born in 1980, and obviously don't have a complete grasp of 1970's cinema - at least not the same grasp I have on our current cinema. You've been a critic since the late 60's - does my assertion hold any water?

If my impressions are right, it's probably a good thing, because most sex scenes are pretty rote. In many movies they seem included just to titillate the audience rather than explore the nature of their characters. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but they seem few and far between. I'll still contend that the best movie to explore sex in a fairly explicit way is "Last Tango in Paris".

Ebert: I agree that violence has now replaced sex as the most effective content to exploit. Am I dreaming, or are today's audiences less interested in sex? You would be amazed how many people went to see "Blow Up" because of one or two alleged frames. Maybe porn on the web and greater teenage sexual activity has negated the appeal. And stars themselves are being drained of their mystery by b celeb-gossip and snark.

You mentioned earlier that you missed Shortbus, but you reported on it from Cannes for this article - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060522/FILMFESTIVALS01/60522003/1023

An excerpt: "Yes, there’s hard-core sex in this film (gay, straight, solo, amateur, professional and all of the above). But you couldn’t call it a hard-core film... it’s not about sex but about sexuality, not about scoring but about living, and at its center is a remarkable performance by Sook-Yin Lee as Sofia, a sex therapist (“I prefer the term Couples Counselor”) whose search for her own first orgasm leads her into the gay, bi, trans and S&M underworld of New York. It is a world that seems so gentle and friendly in this film that I overheard a strange comment afterwards, 'This is the first time New York has seemed Canadian'."

Ebert: A memory cloud!

This thread got me thinking about "Body Heat". I always thought Lawrence Kasdan handled the erotic elements of his movie very effectively without being in bad taste. The desire was palpable and Kathleen Turner has never been better. Except maybe as Jessica Rabbit.

Dear ER,
There is so much to learn from every article of yours ! 8 reviews and this inexplicable journal came out almost simultaneously, no? One of your earlier article states how faster he thinks who writes fast. I think your speed is loaded with so much of relevance and rare values. Can you cite any other contemporary example, besides yourself ?

Ebert: I think that applies to a lot of writers, probably most journalists. Who was the columnist who said, "I can write faster than anybody better, and better than anybody faster?"

Sex scenes, if present just for their own sake, obviously don't work in a film. Drama is all about delayed gratification, and you don't get more instantly gratified than in a gratuitious sex scene.

The least sexy trend in contemporary Hollywood cinema is the lovers (combatants?) ripping off each other's clothes, then a two-shot of their faces as they get close and they noses touch (or they play a round of tonsil tennis), and then back to the original shot of ripping clothes. Who does that?

Aw... why did you change the title (and its use later in the article)?
I thought it was great when I read it this morning: Don't move. I want to. Don't.
Don't change it. You wanted to. You did.
Why?

Ebert: I didn't change its use in the article. I started with "Don't move. I want to move. Don't move." It wouldn't fit on one line. I shortened it to "Don't move. I want to. Don't." Then Jim found a way to get one more "move" in. I wanted it to be s close as possible to what Pollock said. The full version is on the blog page. One word shorter is on the home page.

You don't miss much, do you?

Could on forget Vertigo, the Lolita of movies?

Love or not, the sex scene in "A History of Violence" is provocative. I find that interpretations vary widely, and even my own thoughts on it are different today than when I first saw it. The interpretations I hear reveal far more about the person themselves than the movie. Your review didn't touch the subject, and while reading this, I found myself hoping you would this time.

Hi Roger,

In reading your review of "Crossing Over", I noted you mentioned NPR as your (The U S of A) best radio station. I wanted to mention the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which to Canadians is somewhat of a source of national pride. In particular, Stuart McLean's "The Vinyl Cafe", which I'm sure you would love. I'm sorry to hijack the blog comments like this, but wanted to mention it while fresh in my mind, and I have no idea how to e-mail you. This is not solicitation, only a recommendation. Check it out here: http://www.cbc.ca/vinylcafe/

Thanks,

Darren

What a range of topics, from quantum mechanics which aspires to unlock the universe's secrets to love scenes in film that seek to capture the heart's secrets in a lightning jar.

The love scene that has stayed with me is from "Raiders of the Lost Arc", 1981. Two old "First Loves" with a daunting, dark history of unwanted, lost pregnancy and abandonment resurrect their love in a scene which accepts and even embraces the past. Marion asks Indy, "Where doesn't it hurt?" He impatiently points to a spot with his finger and she kisses him there, as if to make it all better. He finds other painfree spots for her to kiss until all the pain disappears and the scene turns serious. Fun, healing, forgiveness and renewed desire in one.

“It is the mystery, the unknown that makes images sexy to me, so I choose to add layers, rather than taking them away. I use available light and shoot through materials that create textures. I work with props that express the fantasies of the individuals I photograph and film. Every image I shoot makes you think “I wonder what happens next? The images are meant to turn on the sex organ that is between your ears first and then later, travel down and turn you on between your legs. It is a deep and slow working sensual, rather than a fast and furious sexual stimulation.” – Petra Joy, an award winning German erotic filmmaker & photographer and innovative pioneer of a new wave of female orientated erotica.

I’ve never seen her work - I don’t think you can outside of Europe? But I am aware of it now. I was looking online for Life studies ie: B/W nudes to draw, and 20 minutes later, et voila! I discovered there’s such a thing as Feminist Art House Porn. Who knew?

“Mainstream hard-core porn is done by men for men and therefore usually fails to turn women on. Where many men want graphic images and do not care if the porn stars are repeating the same poses, most women like to see more subtle images that leave something to the imagination. As the average porn consumer is still male, no commercial porn producers have yet ventured into erotic films that express women’s fantasies, desires and dreams. What reaches the market is made with profit in mind, rather than promoting a variety of erotica, catering for women as much as men.” - Petra Joy

Gosh Marie, uh, thanks for sharing… and your point is?

“There once was a time when movies approached eroticism with some awe. Now too often it is trivialized. How did it happen that exhibitionism became confused with sexiness? When did intercourse become something to be rushed through?” – Roger Ebert

How did it happen? That’s my answer; the above and with profit in mind. I think the porn designed today for men is having a negative impact on mainstream film making for it needing to increasingly appeal to what 18-35 yr. old males now find sexy or erotic. And boys don’t care as much about foreplay. They’re in too big a hurry to get to the “good” stuff so to speak. I’m not saying all men are boys, though! I’m just talking about the dynamic between Hollywood and it’s favorite demographic in terms of sex. Young American males.

I admire Petra’s standards but even Art House Porn is a bit much for me, chuckle! And the PG13 or R rated American stuff is simply mind numbing in its banality. So I prefer the British myself, but that’s because they’ve been traditionally so repressed that they’ve raised the unspoken to a sensual art form. And why touching (gasp!) speaks volumes. Thank God for Jane Austen fans; here’s “the” moment from Persuasion 1995 I wanted to share!

Frederick wrote a hopeful declaration of love and slipped it surreptitiously to Anne before leaving – whose since read it now and for loving him too it sends her dashing off to find him! And she does, along a street in Bath where a surreal traveling circus is all color and chaos ala Fellini behind them as the hand that was previously refused is now offered again and at long last, finally accepted. Kiss!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/549943538_d60e64746e_o.jpg

Like Mr. Darcy in a wet shirt, sometimes it’s the sex you don’t see but infer that is the most satisfying; for allowing one’s imagination to custom tailor the sex so it can fit you.

John & Margaret in the BBC adaptation of “North & South” by Elizabeth Gaskell and considered a worthy rival of BBC’s Pride and Prejudice. Set in Victorian England, it’s the story of Margaret Hale, a well bred middle class Southerner who’s forced to move up North where she meets the difficult & handsome “Mr Thornton” who owns a cotton mill in Milton. She hates him. He hates that he doesn’t hate her back. And after a lot of pride and prejudice and a rejected marriage proposal “this” is how all ends well… I think this is totally hot…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyYiwD1Q1aY&feature=related

Sir Robert Lindsay & Cherie Lunghi as Benedick and Beatrice in Shakespeare’s “Much Ado About Nothing” from 1984. Note: move the slider forward to 4:30 in this video clip and wait for the kiss…!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsX6o6XPDI

And now likely the most erotic kiss I’ve seen in the past decade. The recent 2007 BBC adaptation of Austen’s Persuasion. In this alternate ending, Anne goes racing after Frederick and ends-up just missing him and having to run all the way back; that’s why she’s out of breath…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6YH44vXkXg&feature=PlayList&p=392B031D9718DE4F&index=9

I love, love, love how long he takes to lower his mouth. And once they’ve kissed, the expression then on Anne’s face in the scene immediately after, as she raises her gaze to stare right at you and quietly share her victory. BRILLIANT!

I don’t care for porn, I don’t like chick flicks, I didn’t like American Pie. I’m disappointment 99.9% of the time by everything I see when it comes to sexuality. For it simply not being sensual enough. I do not possess a poverty of imagination and I resent filmmakers who do when they waste my time with theirs. Whereas Jane and Shakespeare do anything but. :)

Ebert: Since you mention it, why is there an "18 to 35" demographic at all? If I had not been a different person at 35 than 18, all would have been lost.

The Second love scene in "Jesus' son" between Samantha Morton and Billy Crudup has such a real sweetness to it. They are lying in bed in their underwear when she whispers, "Like we're new." FH responds "we're crashing like trains"
It seemed so tender, the interaction between these two damaged souls, and while not erotic in the traditional sense, I've always found it moving. That film is, I think, my favorite film about junkie redemption.

I always cite the french film from a few years ago, The Girl on the Bridge. (quick synopsis: a knife-thrower finds a new target in a suicidal young woman) I don't think the two main characters ever even touch, but the knife-throwing scenes are incredibly sexy. It's not used as a substitute for sex but something quite similar to it: it portrays risk-taking, trusting someone absolutely, the sense of serendipity you get when you're falling in love with someone. The woman has actual sex scenes with other men and they're nowhere near as erotic - they're prefunctory in the way most movie love scenes are. You really believe there is a connection between them in the knife-throwing scenes that isn't in the sex scenes. The movie makes me think about how incredibly lucky people in love really are.

Ebert: Patrice Leconte is incomparable.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030514/PEOPLE/55010305/1023

The title of this piece puts me in mind of Jerry Lee Lewis' advice for young lovers:

"All you gotta do honey is kinda stand in one spot
Wiggle around just a little bit"

More eros than caritas, but still a good idea.

--And don't you tell a story in your Book of Film about Marcello Mastroianni being asked about his favorite romantic movie scene, and he describes Mickey Mouse kissing Minnie, and "little hearts go pop-pop-pop over their heads"?

Ebert: Yes. And...the way that he said it!

For me the film is "Damage", staring Jeremy Irons and Juliette Binoche. The most erotic scene is when the characters are introduced at a party. There's no touching, no conversation full of innuendo or flirting, no plans to meet later. It's all in their eyes. There's plenty of sex later in the movie, and the movie as a whole is fantastic as it deals with their obsession for each other, but the scene when they meet is so electric that the sex pales in comparison.

Ebert: Yes. A remarkable scene.

Roger,

I wasn't that taken by 'Cinema Paradiso' as a whole, but I have to admit I cried at the end when Salvatore plays the reel that Alfredo made for him of all of the 'censored' 'sex' scenes from the movies he watched when growing up. I almost find that movie leading up solely to that one brilliant idea. Kind of like how 'An American in Paris' is mostly about the extended 'ballet' of the conclusion. This almost inevitably takes your mind to that Edison 1896 May-Irwin kiss. The look on the woman's face goes to a nervous-desire, to pleasure to exuberance... Jean-Luc Godard begins 'Contempt' with a Bazin quote that ironically is far from characterizing his own movie 'cinema is better than real life'. Yes, perhaps it is. That's the point of it sometimes. Walker Percy thought movies were condemning the failures of society where preachers had stopped doing so. I agree, but also think the reverse is true. Movies perhaps celebrate what makes us beautiful more than any other source. While it is important for the movies to present the complexities and dilemmas of sex, Bergman in displaying the carnal desperation to heal a spiritual alienation, Scorsese in the way men see women as either Madonnas or whores. (There are bad examples here. Though I like David Lynch I think it's fair to say he just wants to make fun of the way sex is complicated. His cheapness is more mature, but I would say equally tending towards exploitation.) There's also this recent movie 'How the Garcia Girls Spent their Summer' that does a great job of showing how the reality is that oftentimes sex is more complicated for women than it is for men. If anyone brings these elements together best it's Fellini, especially as it comes to a head in 'Juliet of the Spirits'. Fellini's wife plays out the heights of the contradictory elements of love.

The most tender love scene though? That would be the end of 'City Lights'. 'You?' Walker Percy also has this great line in 'Love in the Ruins'. 'Come here' 'I'm already "here"'.

For my money, the best sex scene in a movie belongs between Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie in Don't Look Now. Sweaty, erotic, energetic, and banal.

Harrison Ford drinking the lemonade as Kelly McGillis stares at him in Witness. I find this gives a greater charge than the dancing scene and the embrace in the wheat field scene, and just as much as the more obvious sponge bath scene.

Yes, nice scene. But I'd disagree with you about the dance scene. Muuuuuch better! ;-)

What I do remember is that my female friends thought the scene where Redford washed Streep's hair was the most intimate/sexual.

Absolutely. What seems to turn us women on is potential. Thrashing about in movies is done for the male viewers, not the female ones. I think of nearly all sex scenes in movies as being made by men, for men. Women like little moments - someone mentioned Darcy in a wet shirt, for instance. Women like hands, and lips. So much potential.

1. Aside from the topic of the thread, I was stopped most by the title "Medicine for Melancholy". What an awesome title.

Yes, Ray Bradbury has a way with words. ;-)

"That's what the movies are losing. Modesty." Too true.

I felt that Before Sunrise had a number of really well done 'sex scenes', even though they never have sex. Let's see how my memory is. Weren't they in a Ferris wheel car, or perhaps a gondola of some sort? Anyway, that doesn't matter. What matters is they had a quiet moment together standing side by side. The conversation stopped and a chance happened by. Would they have that first kiss right then and there? They both wanted to, and we watch them try and muster up the courage to do it. I thought the movie did a great job of 'suspending' us in that moment in time, in the same way that the characters would have been suspended in time by their own romantic inertia. My brain was screaming 'kiss her you fool, kiss her'. I think I may have even leaned forward in my seat an inch or two.

Oh now I'm really testing my memory with Shakespeare in Love. I don't remember the particulars but it's the dialogue from Shakespeare's plays voiced-over the Gwyneth Paltrow character laying in bed with the morning sunshine streaming over both of them. We get to see her as a Muse in this man's heart. The poetic language connected to an actual character.

I consider these scenes as both Modest and powerful.

To SM Rana-"Could one forget Vertigo, the Lolita of movies?"

Have you forgotten Lolita, the great Kubrick film of the 60's? Or Lolita, the greater Adrian Lyne film of the 90's?

1. Aside from the topic of the thread, I was stopped most by the title "Medicine for Melancholy". What an awesome title.

LOL! Just looked it up and it turns out that Bradbury was a borrower, too...

Ebert: Who from?

Anne Parillaud & Jason Scott Lee have two amazing and unique love scenes in Map of the Human Heart.

And what about Daniel Day-Lewis kissing Michelle Pfeiffer's exposed wrist (gasp!) in The Age of Innocence?

1993 was a great year for movies, wasn't it?

Roger,

I don't know how much this applies to the discussion, but one love scene that always sticks out in my mind is the one from John Sayle's "Lone Star". I felt that the characters had been building up to it for years and years, and it felt like a cathartic release for the audience. I also thought it epitomized the classic romanticism in movies very well.

Before people can make love, they first have arousal. Filming the arousal is both so much more interesting and also more engaging than mere physical intercourse. The latter becomes almost like rutting; we could just as easily be watching a Nature channel documentary instead of a film or a work of cinematic art.

Ebert: As a veteran observer (me) once wrote, it is more erotic wondering if you are about to be kissed than being kissed.

This thoughtful article could not have appeared at a more fortuitous time. You have served as my muse today, helping me through a rough patch with my writing, and I thank you.

Roger -- I'd be curious of your views whether non-U.S. films do a better job of capturing the types of intimacy you describe than U.S. films.

I think there is at play here some of our Puritanical, repressed heritage. I often laugh when watching something on tv where someone swears. Basically, the person on tv says the f-word, but it's bleeped. The bleeping is usually done in the most minimal way possible, so everyone still knows the person is using the f-word and the entire context in which it was said. And we typically react as though the person has indeed said the word. We laugh, or are shocked, or have whatever reaction we would have had but for the bleep. Similarly, readers of this comment know exactly what word I mean when I say the "f-word." If I say, "I'm so f-ing tired of bad movies," you know exactly what I mean, but I'm required to take out the uck. We've simply arbitrarily decided that the "-" is acceptable even though using the "uck" is taboo. Kind of absurd.

I think a similar thing happens in U.S. films with sex scenes. There are far fewer respectable outlets in the U.S. for nudity and exploration of the more graphic aspects of sex than in other countries where sex and nudity are treated as more natural. We get all worked up about a brief flash of a piece of boob during the Super Bowl. It forces this stuff underground. So, we are perpetually in-search of a proxy. We are looking for the equivalent of the "f-word" -- a non-taboo way to represent the taboo. Somehow, mainstream films blessed by the MPAA get a pass. It's like a safe-haven where it's acceptable for even the most repressed to watch writhing bodies that in other contexts would be taboo. So the result is to jam these 5-minutes soft-core segments in the middle of a movie, because it is one of the few respectable outlets for this sort of stuff. We got to watch something dirty, but, like the "f-word," it's an acceptable proxy. As a result, we get these ridiculous 5-minute scenes that stick out like a pig in a parlor.

One other interesting point that occurs to me after reading your piece is that true movie intimacy is often much more actor driven than director, cinematographer, or dialogue driven. I think all of those things are important. And the "Don't move" line is obviously a counter-example of what I'm saying. But I just don't think it's possible to hit the mark on true intimacy on film without the right performance.

On an entirely unrelated noted, this journal entry made me think how cool it would be to have a future journal entry piece on your views of humor in films -- its role, its uses and how a skillful filmmaker uses it.

Ebert: On average, foreign films by far. American pop culture is juvenile in its approach to sex.

This discussion immediately reminded me not of a specific scene, but of the voice of Anthony Minghella on the commentary track from "The English Patient" where he observes on his decision to have the actors clothed for sex and nude for intimacy.

How about the scene in "Far and Away" in which both characters peek through a curtain and catch a glimpse of each other?

Ahh, sex in the movies--it's so unusual to find a scene that's genuinely erotic/tender/meaningful that it's sometimes embarrassing to be in a theater with other people. You all end up sharing something with the screen and each other, and you don't even know them.

I have always loved the sex (really foreplay) scene in The Big Easy. Dennis Quaid and Ellen Barkin go beyond the crude term "chemistry" (which sounds like something you buy in a drugstore, sold right next to the fake roses in cellophane and bad chocolate) to a genuine, excited, terrified "ohgod ohgod ohgod, this actually may mean something" build that's incredible, with minimal nudity (you see Quaid's rear for a minute or two) but so much heat the bed nearly melts. When their pagers go off a few minutes into it the combination of snarling rage and relief at not having to fully commit to where this was going is palpable.

Another favorite moment is near the end of The Fabulous Baker Boys, where Michelle Phieffer is telling Jeff Bridges about her new job singing commercials. He's listening to her, really listening, with a small, regretful smile on his face, than reaches forward and gently tangles a lock of her hair in his fingers for a moment. It said more, and meant more, than the most passionate kiss.

I can't help but think of two films when discussing this debate over sex. The first is "Eyes Wide Shut", a film marketed by the studio as one of the sexiest movies ever but upon watching it we realize it is something quite different. For one, there's really not a lot of sex going on. There's foreplay in the fact that sex is possible around every corner, but very rarely does sex occur. And when it does, as in the orgy scene, is it stimulating? No. Up to that point the film rides on such an erotic wave of mystery that when the act does occur it's very distant and cold. The fact that everyone involved in the orgy is wearing expressionless masks helps get the point across. I would never describe "Eyes Wide Shut" as "sexy" but it is certainly "erotic". This is one of the most recent films I can think of that clearly separates that difference between sexy and erotic. (And a fun fact: Sydney Pollack starred in it!)

The other film that comes to mind is "Zack And Miri Make A Porno". In a completely different genre than "Eyes Wide Shut", the one scene that gets me is when Zack and Miri finally film their porno scene together. The sexual tension between the two characters have been rising since the beginning of the film and the act of sex is inevitable, but when it does happen it is surprisingly intimate. No nudity, no kissing even, but just Zack and Miri's expressions for each other. What's even better is that Kevin Smith writes two different scenes in one: the quiet, romantic session between the two lovers and the subtly humorous scene of the rest of the camera crew cut out of the romantic moment. Now that scene is sweetly sexy but not erotic.

Both films play with the titillation of sex but change the expectations into something quite different. I can't say if the results make the film better, wiser, more tasteful, etc. but I'll leave it to anyone reading this to decide.

Ebert: That scene also stood out for me. The last place you'd expect sincerity, and there it was.

I am reminded of a scene in Some Kind of Wonderful. It's not a love scene, but an endearing and fully-clothed sensual scene that works because of the lack of understanding on the main character's part. This is the scene where Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson) "teaches" Keith's character (Eric Stolz) how to prepare for the big kiss on a later date, coaching him with a practice kiss. The reaction Watts has to the kiss is priceless, but the buildup to it is handled in a way that seems genuine.

The source for the phrase "medicine for melancholy" comes from a collection of ballads published in 1628 (perhaps written by Ben Jonson) with the title, Robin Goodfellow His mad Pranks and merry Jests. Full of honest Mirth; and is a fit Medicine for Melancholy.

It took me a while, including a phone call to a colleague, who advised I check Literature Online. (Thanks, Gina.) Glad to be of service. Veritas!, as we say down here at Knox College.

@Dave RE: Lone Star

Yes, yes! A wonderful, and, if you ask me, a Great Movie (hint).

Would it be proper to say that a "good" movie sex scene should leave something to the imagination, whereas say, a porno, the mind is too occupied by what the eyes are seeing to wander about the participants' feelings?

To me a good sex scene, whether main stream or not, must have something that entices the viewer to imagine himself a participant. After all whenever we think what a character must be feeling in a particular scene, that need to understand the feeling denotes the desire to experience it for ourselves. Yet when that feeling culminates in sweat and fluids the viewer is somehow disappointed? Perhaps it makes sense. Foreplay is exciting, but after you fall off the plateau all you can think of is "where's my damn cigarette."

In a way pornoes are just movies where the whole story is about people wanting to have sex and succeeding. Is there anything more fundamentally human (though surely not exclusively so) than the sex drive? Then how come no one is making such a movie for the main stream? The sex always has to be incidental to some vague ideal like love.

Ebert: Who from?

I see that your question has already been answered. I might add that Shakespeare used the Robin Goodfellow character in Midsummer Night's Dream - he was called Puck. And he may have borrowed more than the Goodfellow character - he may have borrowed some of the story too.

But it's all good.

"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal." - T. S. Eliot

Reply to: Ebert: Since you mention it, why is there an "18 to 35" demographic at all? If I had not been a different person at 35 than 18, all would have been lost.

More advanced systems have more than four groups. The primary distinction in Men vs. Women. You could create a different demographic for every year. ie, this movie scored will with 33 year-olds. But that's more info than you need.

Screenwriters avoid writing sex scenes. If you're trying to target some hidden memory, to pull up an emotion in the audience's mind, then women will respond to a graphic sex scene in a completely different way than men. The more powerful the scene, the more it polarizes the response.

When Hugh Jackman used a bucket to give himself a shower in "Australia," my thought was, "That's aimed at the other half of the audience. I wonder how it's working?" And then I stopped watching the screen and turned around to watch the faces of the women sitting behind me.

Not one of them noticed me. so there's your answer.

If you write a really great scene from a man's POV, women are bored. "That's just sex," they complain. Well, yeah.

On the other hand, if you focus on the Relationship, both groups feel involved.

Ilsa: A franc for your thoughts.
Rick: In America they'd bring only a penny, and, huh, I guess that's about all they're worth.
Ilsa: Well, I'm willing to be overcharged. Tell me.

Ilsa: But what about us?
Rick: We'll always have Paris. We didn't have, we, we lost it until you came to Casablanca. We got it back last night.
Ilsa: When I said I would never leave you.
Rick: And you never will.

Reply to Ebert: Am I dreaming, or are today's audiences less interested in sex? ... Maybe porn on the web and greater teenage sexual activity has negated the appeal.

Teenagers have access to a ton of stuff on the internet. It's difficult to make a movie that... Let me say it differently. If you're sitting in a theater, and there are teenagers in the five rows in front of you, and there's a sex scene on the screen, the kids are making rude comments. A crowded theater on a Friday night is a very strange and perhaps perverse place to try to enjoy a good sex scene. Some studios release DVDs with more graphic content, and there seems to be a market for that.

I thought Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow had some interesting banter in "Iron Man." Two people who cared about each other much more than their words were revealing. I liked the idea that part of her job was dry-cleaning the clothes of Tony's one-night stands and making sure they left in the limo.

Sexy to me is the opening scene in Betty Blue. Haha!

I remember thinking "Gee, she is so sexy" and that they were so passionately wild. And for some reason, remembering the Mona Lisa on the wall.

Greatest opening scene in a movie ever (IMHO)

Reading this thread I realized how much drama is the driving element of style in my preferred erotic scenes. I am thinking of the ending scenes of the Italian film "The Best of Youth/ La Meglio gioventù", when Nicola talks a walk with Mirella in the Italian countryside. They walk comfortably side by each during a beautiful spring day surrounded by lush trees, flowers, bushes and grass. Nicola extends his arm around Mirella, who happily entwines her own arm with his as they continue to walk. Suddenly, the couple begin to look anguished somehow upset as they walk. Finally, Nicola interrupts their walk abruptly as he reaches for Mirella's face. They kiss passionately, deeply and urgently. Although its a final scene in the film, the kiss is timed so unexpectedly, the scene feels like the beginning of everything. Which is a miraculous feeling at the end of near 6 hour film.

Slightly off-topic, but I thought I'd pass it on: A few years back, I got hold of a page-a-day calendar put out by a British satirical group (I forget which one)*blurgh* Each page was a separate shaft directed at just about anything, such as a playscript for a skinhead staging of Hamlet, in which approximately every third or fourth word started with 'f'. The item that ties in here was an excerpt from a supposed "lost novel" by D.H.Lawrence. This is one very long paragraph, possibly as many as a hundred words, loaded with detailed desciption of the preparations for The Deed, full of angst, anxiety, and adjectives. The paragraph comes to an end, and is follwed by this single sentence: "Then he got on top of her, and he did it to her." /*/*/ I guess you had to be there...

There is a sequence in Day of Wrath where Anne merely walks across the room looking at Martin which is about the sexiest I've ever seen. as Marlowe wrote, :" She gave me a glance I could feel in my hip pocket"
Bridges of Madison County is a perfect example of how to get the feelings across, and Eastwood and Streep are perfect. Who would have thought that Clint had a little Renoir in him?

Excellent thread, one of my favorites thus far. For my money, the sex scene in "Don't Look Now" is unequivocally the best in the history of cinema. It's simple, explicit but not exploitative, banal but passionate, and about as erotic as it gets. As an aspiring filmmaker, it was one of those scenes I remember immediately taking mental notes on when I watched it. "So this is how you do a sex scene." As much as I loved the flamethrower touch at the end of the Nite Owl/Silk Spectre sex scene in "Watchmen," the sequence was little more than one of those typical late-night Cinemax softcore scenes where the actors' pelvises are so far apart that you wonder what they're trying to accomplish exactly.

This thread immediately reminded me of an SNL skit from back in the day. I may butcher the lines, details, etc, but I believe it featured Tom Hanks and one of the regular female cast members as a young couple relaxing on the couch together. The lady expresses worry that she's turning into her mother, and Hanks soothingly tries to convince her she's not. But then a topic will come up and she'll blurt something out in an elderly, crotchety voice, much to her and Hanks' consternation. The only example I can cite is this: Hanks decides to put in "The Last Detail" and they're enjoying it, but then the lady says something along the lines of "This movie has too much nudity. It's sexier when the clothes are on." Well, it always depends on context, but I remember thinking that she wasn't altogether wrong.

The past few months, I've watched three of Nicholas Roeg's other movies - "The Man Who Fell to Earth," "Bad Timing," and "Performance." While I liked/disliked each to varying degrees, the sex scenes were particularly striking. Roeg's mad, frenetic editing is on display in all of these films throughout, but the sexuality seems especially powerful. There's something about the disjointed way he films and edits people frolicking in bed together that perfectly captures the intensity of intimacy. I'm not talking just about the way he slips in shots of sex in unrelated scenes - primarily "The Man Who Fell to Earth," which certainly doesn't skimp on the Rip Torn nudity - but the general combination of loose cinematography and tight, staccato editing. Whether these scenes are "erotic" is up for debate, but I think Roeg has found a way to represent sex onscreen with more authenticity than most other directors.

To follow suit, here are a few other sex/romantic scenes I found memorable:

"Heat" - Al Pacino and Diane Venora. If memory serves me correctly, this is also the first time Pacino is onscreen. It's so close it could feel invasive, but I found it to be an effective, interesting way to introduce a protagonist (especially when the movie hinges so heavily on themes of women/personal lives vs. cops and robbers/professional lives).

"Out of Sight" - George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. The music, the freeze frames, the playfulness. Absolutely wonderful.

"All the Real Girls" - Paul Schneider and Zooey Deschanel. They're essentially consummating the end of their relationship, and it's possibly the least romantic/erotic encounter they have the entire film. What a sad, beautiful movie.

"The Big Easy" - Dennis Quaid and Ellen Barkin. Finds extreme eroticism in fumbling, awkward realism. This has got to be one of the most underrated movies of all time.

"Hustle and Flow" - Terrence Howard and Taraji Henson. I love the scene when she gives him the customized chain before he goes to meet Skinny Black, specifically the look on Howard's face when he goes outside. The camera lingers on him as he's about to leave, as we're all thinking, "Get back in there and kiss her, dumbass." And he charges back in and does just that. For some time.

"Let the Right One In" - Kare Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson. Whoa, let me qualify this as romantic in context, NOT erotic (no need to call Chris Hansen). I'm referring to the moment in the last scene when Oskar and Eli are communicating via Morse code in the train. It's such a sweet moment to cap off such a dark movie - even more so if you realize what they're "saying" to each other (Eli misspells "kiss," or "puss" in Swedish, and Oskar gently corrects her). Of course, you could endlessly speculate as to whether this is a "happy" ending in the long run, but it was the perfect way for the film to end.

Roger,

I didn't read any of the comments so that I could write without being influenced by your other excellent respondents! Years ago, Age of Innocence came out, and as I watched Daniel Day-Lewis kneel and kiss...the hem of Michelle Pfeiffer's dress? her shoe?, I almost dropped my popcorn, it was so erotic. To this day, I have to stop and ask myself, was it her shoe? did he kiss her dress? I taught high school students at the time, and several of them remarked, "Oh, that was the most boring movie--they didn't DO anything." And I felt so sorry for them because the few kisses, the touch of a hand on another were so sensual and so loaded with emotion that the two characters had "done" much more than a pair of thrashing bodies ever could. I also remember The Piano with the eroticism of the scenes where Ada plays and delights in her power over Baines--and the scene where they finally make love. That scene is so tremendously powerful not because of body parts or sounds, but due to the way he looks at her, even in profile. In A Room With a View, the young blond girlfriend of the Italian driver is made to get down and the look she fixes him with as he drives away is drenched in such erotic frustration. Humphrey Bogart's kiss with Ingrid Bergman following, "I tried to stay away. If you knew how much I loved you, how much I still love you..." The scene in The Girl With the Pearl Earring where Vermeer wipes the tear down Griet's face across her lips and she turns to him as he pulls away--far more compelling than the scene of Griet and her young man having sex standing up.

Thank you for reminding all of us that it all begins in the mind--and it's much sexier, much more erotic, much more seductive to keep most of it right there in our imaginations.

Re the question are movies less interested in exploring sex now than say 35-40 years ago - perhaps this results from the industry, as the society in general, is much more conservative now. My impression is that movies in the `70s were generally much more provocative and exploring than any period since. It was a much more aware and striving time politically.

This reminds me of an interview Frank Zappa did with on Crossfire concerning censoring music lyrics, and the question was raised about the "amount of sex on tv" as an example of declining social morals. Zappa commented that what was shown on tv was not sex, but titillation; that perhaps actual sex rather than titillation ought to be shown on tv. Anyway, generally, the sex we see in movies goes through the motions of titillation; cliche.

One exception of a recent movie I think of is Penn`s Into the Wild, the love making scene between the aging hippie couple. I thought it was very powerful. It appeared to be performed by people in mourning, which of course she was. Her life was drenched in mourning and I am sure her love making was depicted quite accurately. The depth of her sense of loss was likely something she sought to reach and perhaps transcend, at least share somehow, with her love making. Did her boyfriend know this of her, that in love making she felt, perhaps most deeply, the abandonment of her husband, and so their bond of sadness and desperation completed and wordlessly expressed?

Love making onscreen feels intimate.

Film noir had some of the best sex scenes ever, even though there was no sex. The bookstore assignation between Bogart and Dorothy Malone in The Big Sleep is a good one, not to mention the wonderful "race horse" dialogue between Bogie and Bacall. And The Big Combo, with Richard Conte kissing Jean Wallace's neck and shoulders and then dropping gradually downward and out of the frame, leaving one to wonder...

I think my favorite is in Pickup on South Street, with Richard Widmark and Jean Peters. He steals her purse, knocks her cold when she tries to seduce him to get it back, and then pours beer all over her to bring her to (well, whaddaya expect from a low-life pickpocket, a two-bit tramp, and Sam Fuller?). And then, THAT KISS. Maybe it's his voice when he whispers, "Sometimes you hit a gusher..." Widmark did have a very sexy voice.

Or anything with Gloria Grahame.

I'm reading a book by Ernest Becker called "The Birth and Death of Meaning", and I'm at a part where he talks about it, which I will quote a little:
"For most people it is simply a joining of exteriors. The insides melt only in the moment of orgasm, but even this is brief, and a melting is not a communication. It is a physical overcoming of separateness, not a symbolic revelation and justification of one's interior."

If it hasn't been mentioned, which I doubt, I think the king of erotic movies would have to be "Belle Du Jour."

But there is an explicit sex scene in Roeg's "The Man Who Fell To Earth", that is considered very erotic.

Here's a quote from your review of the film, which was not seen in the original British version: "The film's cinematography is sensational at times; as he did in "Don't Look Now," Roeg once again presents sex scenes spectacularly intercut with contrasting, contradictory material..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32_zGmgSLms&feature=related

The moaning that you referred to in the blog entry happens offscreen.

The one movie that I am surprised no one has mentioned is Vincent Ward's great masterpiece "Map of the Human Heart" from 1993 with Jason Scott Lee, Anne Parillaud, Patrick Bergin, and John Cusack. Let me just quote some great insights from Mr. Ebert's review:

"This sort of romantic triangle could easily have collapsed into soapy melodrama, but Vincent Ward is too intelligent to go for the obvious treatment of this story. He doesn't allow his characters cheap sentiment, and indeed as Avik and Albertine renew their love from so long ago, we see two of the most astonishing romantic scenes I've ever seen in a movie - one on top of a barrage balloon, the other inside the hollow ceiling of the Royal Albert Hall...One of the best qualities of "Map of the Human Heart" was that I never quite knew where it was going. It is a love story, a war story, a lifetime story, but it manages to traverse all of that familiar terrain without doing the anticipated. The screenplay, by Louis Nowra, based on a story by Ward, deals with familiar emotions but not in a familiar way. The best movies seem to reinvent themselves as they move along, not drawing from worn-out sources, and "Map of the Human Heart" is one of the year's best films."

Having only seen the film once in the cinema 16 years ago, it is amazing how many of its images have burned in my mind especially Albertine dropping her stocking from the ceiling to the orchestra pit and probably the most original love scene in cinema history on top of inflating barrage balloon. I always felt so bad that Jason Scott Lee and Anne Parillaud did not explode as megastars after that film. Hopefully, we will get a "Great Movies" revisit soon from Mr. Ebert.

“Since you mention it, why is there an "18 to 35" demographic at all? If I had not been a different person at 35 than 18, all would have been lost.” – Roger Ebert

Quite possibly, yes. :)

I went looking for a Variety article I’d read a while back and found it. It’s about you - by Barbara Scharres, the director of programming at the Gene Siskel Film Center…

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117971373.html?categoryid=2666&cs=1

Something tells me, that if you’d stayed 18 years old inside your head, you wouldn’t have been able to “hold the table with your stories” let alone get Chaz’s number that night in ‘89. You guys wouldn’t have been on the same page, so to speak. She’d have been this elegant, collected, confident beautiful woman, and you’d have been the equivalent of “cookie dough” - not finished baking yet. Side note: that’s a Buffy season 7 reference; chuckle!

How did you mature? What were you looking at, reading, listening to? We all know about your friendship with Russ Meyer and this may surprise you, but I genuinely like “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” because the lunatics did indeed take over the asylum and it made me laugh! My favorite character was Z-Man; Shakespeare on Acid. We also know that that was then, and this is now, and you’re not the same person; but then you weren’t living in a bubble, eh?

What was happening culturally between 1970 and 1990? And conversely, what’s “not” been happening between 1990 and 2009?

Business got bigger and greedier while at the same time, the youth culture exploded. What’s the face of Corporate America? Homophobia white guys. Who did they target? Teenagers. What were they selling, feminism? Nope. The same applies to corporate Studio suits.

And is it possible to sell “House of the Sleeping Beauties” for example to Roger Ebert? NO. It is not. He’s older and wiser now and tends to think about stuff more. Could you maybe sell it to a teenager? Yes. Why? Because he’s been raised to like it. Why? Because the supplier wasn’t a woman interesting in pandering to other women.

I think you’ve been exposed to more than one point of view, Roger. I think you’ve been exposed to the Petra Joy’s of this world, too; ie: more than one way of looking at human sexuality. And that’s how you were able to understand why Marcello Mastroianni liked Mickey Mouse kissing Minnie - the "little hearts” going pop-pop-pop over their heads. And why you can write “it is more erotic wondering if you are about to be kissed than being kissed.”

You weren’t born in 1989. You met your future wife there instead, and as the product of a different culture - a smarter and more patient one, for being less about teenagers and selling everything to them with sex from an adolescent boy’s point of view.

That said, there’s a wave building out there and it’s being driven by women. Not in America so much, but across the pond. I’m finding tons of stuff that’s really interesting and engaging. Maybe it’ll eventually reach here too, and start influencing American filmmakers?

Lost in Austen is a four-part 2008 British series for the ITV network, and loosely based on Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen. PLOT:

Amanda Price, a keen Austen fan, discovers the Pride & Prejudice character Elizabeth Bennet in her bathroom one day. And Amanda steps through a secret door hidden in the wall that Elizabeth had showed her, and soon finds herself in the Bennet’s house in Longbourn. She’s trapped in that world and Elizabeth is back in 21st Century London. Mr Bennet is welcoming and believes that Amanda’s lie that she is a “friend” of Elizabeth’s - enabling Amanda to stay as she tries to ensure the novel progresses as it should – which of course leads to all sorts of complications…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WOCU7eHzeI&feature=related

And an erotic post-modern pop-cultural moment with another version of Mr. Darcy in a wet shirt.

No nudity, no vulgarity, it isn’t crass or juvenile. It’s a wish fulfillment fantasy that manages to keep the “human” in sexuality. It plants itself like a seed inside your imagination moreover, and YOU not the director now, can take it where you like. And isn’t that books do?

Ebert: Maybe the point is to grow out of teenage culture and grow up. As the average age of our society as a whole is going up, the pop media media seem to be growing down, perhaps because there is a tangible "teenage market," and then people develop more specialized interests.

Lots of adults tell me, "We never go to the movies anymore." Assuming they ever did, why did they stop? Maybe because they never discovered that the movies for them are playing at art houses and festivals. Maybe because there are no art houses or festivals in their town. DVD, cable and on-demand are the hope.

IFC and South by Southwest are collaborating in a Festival On Demand program starting tomorrow in which this year's SXSW premieres are available simultaneously and for 90 days on-demand. Assuming the filmmakers get a cut, this is an important break for them.

By the way, the Brits say (or at least Monty Python says) "naughty bits." Only members of Puritan countries where they are ashamed of their bodies call them "nasty bits."

Ebert: Who do you think founded this country?

The character's played by Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe are dancing to celebrate the end of the war in the "English Patient." Her lover, played by Naveen Andrews, is sitting on the windowsill, watching. Come dance with us, she says. And he lifts his eyebrows, smirks slightly and says one thing: later.

Hot hot hot hot hot.

Hitchcock finessed erotic scenes better than almost any other director, IMO. His films are full of sex, but it is always about the anticipation, the crescendo. No nudity is required-- in fact, Janet Leigh in her bra may be as naked as anyone ever got in a Hitchcock film. He understood the voluminous power of the tease, and, like the master that he was, continues to tease us all with it, to glorious effect.

Russel:Have you forgotten Lolita, the great Kubrick film of the 60's? Or Lolita, the greater Adrian Lyne film of the 90's?

Thanks. I'll look for the latter version. I was wondering how anyone could capture that magical prose in a film.

Dammit, Taylor beat me to the punch on Zack and Miri.

Roger writes "It is more erotic wondering if you are about to be kissed than being kissed." Back in early 2006, when Brokeback Mountain was all over the place, the Chicago Tribune did an interesting piece on straight women who were finding themselves incredibly turned on by the film. Most of them had taken their reluctant husbands on dates to see it, and by the end they found they could barely wait to get home. It's easy to see that the eroticism of the film came from the longing of the two characters who can never truly be together, and it's one of the only instances I can think of in my lifetime (born in 88) that has had that effect on such a mass audience.

I twist Roger's quote slightly to say that it's more erotic to see clothes on that clothes off, most of the time. And if you're going to show nudity, make it fleeting and brief so the imagination does the work for you. Angelina Jolie stepping out of the tub to reveal her backside for two seconds in "Wanted" was infinitely more sexy than the 10 plus minutes she spent topless in "Gia."

Ebert: I was pleased with a line I wrote once, to the effect that two people "seemed to be trying to apply unguent beneath each other's clothes."

The over-concern and discussion about sex in the movies and media in my opinion is a purely American phenomenon. I speak for myself, but in terms of the media I don't think any nation on Earth is as obsessed with sexuality as our culture. In my opinion we need to grow a pair and act like grownups. Despite our cultural flaws though, people of all kinds usually find a way to function allright in the 'real world'. It’s just a matter of separating the art from reality; and those two things shouldn't be mixed up. Movies are supposed to be fun; they can be sexy and dangerous too. If you see a guy shoot someone on T.V., it doesn't mean you're going on a killing spree. The individual is purely responsible for their own actions. It is for this reason that I disagree with movie censorship. Of course, there are fine lines which cross the bounds of man and enter the realm of pure indecency and plain old common sense (we don't have mainstream films which glorify child porn or mutilation or abuse--rightfully so). Still, there is something called free speech and expression and it's deteriorating in this country.

I just recently saw a documentary about the polarization of the American political arena. Part of it dealt with how blogs are the least reliable source of information. Frankly I think those university professors and those so-called cultural or psychology experts take themselves way too seriously. Intelligent people come in all shapes and sizes, and just because we engage in harmless rants on internet blogs, does not mean we are socially deficient cretins who spend most of our time playing video games; sulking and criticizing perfect strangers as we attempt to spark some sense into our lonely or pathetic lives... But that's another blog.

I recently attended a screening of "Watchmen". A good movie, but I was frankly disturbed by the number of small children who were there (a young girl was crying her eyes out--I wanted to punch the parent who brought her). People should exercise their discretion a lot more and be more aware of the content in films. Films shouldn't be marketed to children when they are inappropriate. This doesn't mean there isn't a place in this world for movies like "Pulp Fiction", it’s just that your five-year old shouldn't watch Ving Rhames being raped by a psycho police officer and then see the officer promptly shot up in the stomach by a deadly weapon by Bruce Willis. People might disagree, but I think that for the severity of certain "R-rated movies", there should be a rule that states you can't let anyone under 12 or 13 in without a parent or guardian (You wouldn't bring an eight-year-old into The Passion of the Christ--then again, perhaps you would; I'm not you).

I read an article about the Asian American film festival in Berkeley. Ang Lee will be there showcasing his art film: "Lust Caution". I found it interesting that the brochure read: "all audiences ages welcome" for the screening. If I recall that movie is rated NC-17. I have to read it again, perhaps they meant: all college students welcome. In any case, do parents really want there kids present to see Ken Leung's waddling naked member projected on the huge screen? Maybe they should try renting the movie first. In of itself, nudity is not a problem in my opinion (just look at European films). It's the way American film treats the nudity and sex that's the problem. Take that film The Reader. It's got a lot of nudity and sex, at the same time it's one of the least erotic films I've ever seen. It goes without saying that the nudity in Schindler's List is not sexy at all. Likewise, when artfully done a love scene can succeed without any sex or nudity. It just has to have emotion and intimacy to be effective. Some of the sexiest movies I've ever seen didn't even have sex or nudity in them. In fact, it's the sex and nudity that makes it rather unsexy at times. Gotta admit though, "Bound" was pretty hot. I don't think movies get much hotter than that.

I originally intended this to be a few sentences long. Look at what happened.

Ebert: Yes. "Bound" was about sex.

I remember seeing "Remains of the Day" in the Von Lee theater in Bloomington, Indiana. I remember not breathing during the scene where Emma Thompson backs Antony Hopkins into a corner, as she's trying to see what book he's reading. That was quite a dance, those two.

Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung crossing each other in the corridors and on the staircases repeatedly, in Wong Kar Wai's "In the mood for Love". The music, the cinematography, the silent acknowledgement of desire in their furtive glances, the soft rustle of her qipao dress, ...oh I can go on and on, but let me just conclude by saying the effect is nothing short of magical. Like a haggard friend once said to me ( while holding up a box of pizza after a hard night of heroic drinking and partying ) "this, is SEX!"

regarding this from Joe Pudas above.

"Hustle and Flow" - Terrence Howard and Taraji Henson. I love the scene when she gives him the customized chain before he goes to meet Skinny Black, specifically the look on Howard's face when he goes outside. The camera lingers on him as he's about to leave, as we're all thinking, "Get back in there and kiss her, dumbass." And he charges back in and does just that. For some time.

Weird. I'm watching Hustle and Flow right now on TV. Right as I got to your comment, that scene was on my TV. Timing. Weird.

That ever happen to anyone else?

Three of my favorite erotic moments in film are:

1. The Age of Innocence - when Newland Archer and Ellen Olenska are in the carriage together and he slowly removes her glove and kisses her wrist.

2. Sex, Lies, and Videotape - the scene toward the end of the film when they physically express their affection for one another. She gently strokes his hair and when she lays her hands on his shoulders - it seems as if he might break into a million pieces.

3. A Walk on the Moon - when Diane Lane's character is in the "Blouse Man's" (Viggo Mortensen) van trying on a t-shirt and he removes the price tag with his teeth whilst she is wearing it. Her expression is priceless.

Ebert: Reminds me of a scene in the Lyric Opera production of "Camen," when Carmen (Denyce Graves), her hands tied behind by soldiers, uses her teeth to lift the hem of her skirt and inflame the young officer. If not for the orchestra pit, I would have been on stage.

Why is violence not as censored as sex?

Ebert: Puritans see nothing wrong with it.

Am I alone in thinking that the opening scene of Sin City with Josh Hartnett and Marley Shelton is immensely erotic? There's absolutely nothing explicit, just two seeming strangers holding each other on a rooftop. Somehow the raw emotion of the girl is almost tangible.

There once was a time when movies approached eroticism with some awe. Now too often it is trivialized. How did it happen that exhibitionism became confused with sexiness? When did intercourse become something to be rushed through?

Roger, I regret to inform you that my generation (I'm 27) seems to have taken to imitating the movies in this aspect. Be thankful you were born earlier...when physical passion and foreplay were things to be admired.

Ebert: In the olden days, people grew up thinking of sex as a Really Big Deal.

The Jean-Pierre Jeunet film 'A Very Long Engagement' contains a very tender scene between Audrey Tautou and Gaspard Ulliel. This is the scene in which Mathilde removes articles of clothing in the space between matches extinguishing and being re-lit. After they make love, Manech's hand slips onto her breast, and he quickly removes it. Then she gently replaces it and they sleep.

A wonderfully sensuous scene, which combines a sense of innocence with the palpable sexual tension.

I have no idea how film schools work, so maybe this is already in place. They ought to make future directors compose a love making scene that would expose no nudity, to make them think out of the box a bit. Two naked people wrestling is easy to come up with, anything other than that requires talent. While they're at it, they should make them compose a horror scene that doesn't involve severed limbs or brain matter.

Ebert: Both areas that depend on the skill of the director rather than the fact of the image.

Anyone else feel that the best part of Zack and Miri Make a Porno was their on-screen sex scene? Nothing was shown, yet it was the sexiest part of the whole movie.

oh, just read the post by "Taylor on March 12, 2009 1:48 PM"

I guess someone else DOES agree....

I'm surprised that no one has really mentioned the real difference between the alternate sex scenes commenters have brought up and the love scenes Roger originally mentioned. Every sex scene with nudity was meant to convey something through the explicit quality of the sex - using the graphic image and act as a vessel for something else. And the effective ones do a good job, yes.

But as far as I saw, no scene that used a lot (or more than a tiny bit) of nudity used it to convey love, or even deep, meaningful sensuality. So I think that the original theorem holds true - the strongest structure for a love scene is one that conceals and holds back, rather than exposes and pushes.

Sad that I only see this thread after everyone seems to have moved on.

Ebert: It's only been up a day. People are still arriving.

Your quote from Out of Africa reminded me of the scene in An Officer and a Gentleman in which Mayo and Paula are done having sex but haven't yet moved. Paula jokes that they will be found in a few months, withered from lack of food.

I have had the interesting experience of watching that scene both before I had had any experiences of my own and then again more recently (married with kids). On the earlier occasion, it was simply two good looking people doing something that was a mystery to me, but that I wanted to start doing too (desperately). On the latter occasion, the scene made a subtle statement about the couple - they are still a little nervous around one another and cannot deal with the awkwardness of the situation, so they don't move and Paula uses humour to cover her embarrassment (at least that's how it seemed to me). It is even more interesting because we know that Mayo has been with many women and yet he is embarrassed aroung this one, perhaps because he cares what she thinks.

I don't remember the scene exactly but I doubt that it was very explicit. Nonetheless, it was certainly more explicit than a 1940s "kiss, then fade" but still had more of a point to it than seeing Richard Gere's bottom.

In view of this, I think that the level of explicitness is probably less important than the purpose of the sex scene with regard to whether or not it is sexy. I'd suggest that any sex scene has to do at least one of three things:

1) Say something about the characters or progress the story, by which I mean that everything you show needs to achieve this. I am unsure how much you learn about an character by watching his bottom going up and down for 90 seconds. In contrast, a good deal of what we know about the characters in, for example, Secretary (a very erotic movie) is learned from their sexual habits.

2) Say something about sex in general, with which the viewer can identify. An example might be Annette Benning and partner in American Beauty, which nicely points out the regenerative effects of energetic sex with someone other than your husband (marital represussions notwithstanding). It is also sexy, in its way, and fulfills points 1) and 3).

On this point, I do think that a scene which would otherwise be pointless and gratuitous can be saved simply by being sufficiently well done that it manages to make you think a new thought about sex in general. (Can't think of an example mind you...)

3) Be funny.

One thing a sex (or nudity) scene should not be is an excuse to show a famous actor's naked body. I seem to remember a fuss like this was made over Halle Berry and her fee for taking her clothes off in Swordfish.

Such a beautiful thread. I always have to avert my eyes when there is explicit sex on the screen, it makes me feel like a voyeur. You and your other posters are correct, the anticipation is very erotic. My husband and I (both 2nd time arounders) were friends for many months before we became lovers and the time spent talking and getting to know each other became more charged as we realized we were falling in love.....now its better than ever. ('nough said)

Marie Haws @ March 12, 8:06AM - I enjoyed all the heightened moments in the human dance you evoked per youtube. They were superb and very familiar to me except for the particular production of "Much Ado About Nothing". There is only one instance where I could not fully empathize and that is the last scene of the most recent "Persuasion". But this scene does remind me of an alternative "slow to ignite" kiss which I found perfection in "Dear Frankie".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7lA0cEFxPM

Taken out of context, without the knowledge of their inner voices, the scenes have a reduced impact. Another proof of the mind being the erotic, romantic center. The personal histories of all four of the lovers in these two films, "Persuasion" and "Dear Frankie", were reflected in the kisses. But therein lies my problem with the "Persuasion" scene. Captain Wentworth delayed his happiness and Anne's because of stubborn, resentful pride. Given their kiss, that still appears to be somewhat in force from his unilateral hesitation to kiss. Is he still requiring further proof of her loyalty? Perhaps it was the director's choice to remind us of the reality of Captain Wentworth's character that held on to resentment for 8 years while Anne was holding on to love. If so, it worked. That is why I felt less than transported by his extended lack of participation in the kiss while he waited overlong for her to strain upward. Or do you have a more satisfying reading of the scene? I would welcome it.

On the quote "I can write faster than anybody better, and better than anybody faster" -- i think that was Gene Weingarten of the WaPo, who got a Pulitzer for his Joshua Bell in the subway piece, and just published an amazing story on parents who accidentally leave their children in a car, causing their deaths. Hard story, great writing.

Ebert: Turns out it was the immortal A. J. Liebling, who also coined something else that caught on: "the Second City."

I love the scene in "It's a Wonderful Life" where George Bailey visits Mary and they end up talking on the phone to Sam. They hold their heads close to each other so they can both hear Sam and you can just feel their attraction for each other before they kiss. It's old-fashioned and very sweet, but it kills me every time I watch it.

Roger,

Thanks for the great post as always. Like my fellow readers, I also tried to think of my favorite intimate scenes in the movies but had a hard time coming up with anything good. The first thing that popped in my head was the raunchy scene in "Wild Things" where Matt Dillon takes off Denise Richards' panties and smells them before putting them in his pocket. Is this really necessary? Secondly, and not that I was complaining at the time, but was the gratuitous nudity really necessary either? Regardless of any eroticism that may have been displayed, I thought it took away any credibility the film might have had.

The other thought that I had was your review of "Fight Club," where you said that "It's macho porn -- the sex movie Hollywood has been moving toward for years, in which eroticism between the sexes is replaced by all-guy locker-room fights." I know that's not really what this post was about, but did this thought ever occur to you while you were writing about sex in today's movies?

I thank you for the knowledge and passion you share regularly with your readers. Please keep up the good work!

Sad that I only see this thread after everyone seems to have moved on.

Matt, do what I (and many others) do, and keep checking back. There are plenty of new responses everyday.

The scene in Notorious is a favourite.
I also like the one in Mean Streets between Keitel and Robinson with several jump cuts thrown in.

By the way, I observe that you have stopped reviewing old movies (pre 60s Hollywood) in your Great Movies column. Can we expect any further entries from the 'Golden Age'?

I'd love to see you review 'Shadow of a Doubt', 'North by Northwest',
'Lolita', 'The Lady Vanishes' and several other favourites. Are any of these in the pipeline?

Ebert: By no means have I abandoned older movies.

Sex in movies has become almost obligatory today, done more out of expectation than anything else. The scenes often feel unecessary and don't even contribute to the story. The most erotic/sensual scene I can think of would have to be in "Persona." It's amazing how powerful it is given that none of the "action" being described is even onscreen.

Ebert: So powerful, some people later imagine they actually saw it on screen.

Francis Ford Coppola said violence being so unpleasant needs to be presented in a novel way to make it acceptable on the screen---sex, likewise has to be presented imaginatively, because the animalistic is razor close to the erotic.

I remember a scene, which is at the other end of the spectrum, but gets to the point. Sylvester Stallone and Sharon Stone made love in a movie, the title escapes me, in which they tossed each other around in such a ridiculously gymnastic escapade, that I was expecting a trapeze bar to drop out of the ceiling above the bed. Possibly the Un-sexiest scene ever.

I believe I touched on the subject of demographics a number of threads ago in this space. Since it's come up again, this may as good a time as any to burden you all with my all-encompassing theory of why American popular culture has turned out the way it has.(I'll put it in caps because I can't figure out how to underline or italicize on this damned device.) The Theory: ALL FORMS OF POPULAR CULTURE (BOOKS, FILM, MUSIC, BROADCASTING, SPORTS,EVERTTHING)WENT INTO DECLINE WHEN THEIR PRODUCERS TRIED TO GET "SCIENTIFIC" ABOUT THEM. /*/*/ Demographics are the product of the desire not to fail; to guarantee a favorable result, producers (and publishers and entrepeneurs and manufcturers and lately politicians) make elaborate studies to determine which people will like which actor, which story will work best with which age group, which current fashion will go over in which part of the country, and on and on (and you can mix and match the above in any combination you please). This overlooks the fact that even the most conformist among us has within some small, fugitive strain of indivduality, which can assert itself at the damnedest moments. Even among the most seemingly solid, tightly organized group of fans/followers/supporters/devotees, you can find one or more voices to say "I don't like that" or "That's not how we should go" or "This isn't what I had in mind" - but I guess that falls in the category of "sample error" or some such. If you look into the history of demographics, you will see that the standards can change on a dime; I can recall a time when the age group everybody wanted was 18-49 (of course we know that everybody in that age group enjoys the same things). As the study tech grew, these numbers wer juggled accordingly; as time passes and people live longer, you can expect to see these figures subdivided and rearranged even more. And for what? One thing we should all have learned by this time is that you can't manufacture a hit from the spare parts of others. 90% of the time they don't work, and audiences know it; the seams are all too visible. But this doesn't stop them from believing that what worked years ago - whether a few years or a few decades - or what worked somwhere else - another medium, another country - has to work again; "It has to work - we've got studies that prove that it will." Except that studies aren't people. Under all the trappings, it's all nothing more than guesswork. /*/*/ Here's a fun thing to try with a friend: Make up a list of facts about yourselves - bare-bones stuff like name, job, upbringing, affiliations, things you like and dislike - the sort of info you'd put on a survey. Then, exchange the list with a friend and study it closely. Then when a new subject comes up, try to determine what your friend will feel about it, based on his list. If you know him really well, you should score pretty high, but more than likely you'll get a few surprises - as your friend will when he does the same to you. The inherent fallacy in demographics is that all or even most persons of a certain age/gender/background/location/whatever are bound to feel the same way about this matter or that. And that's why we get remakes (oops,sorry,"reimaginings"), updates of old tv hits, bloated game shows (aka "reality tv"), rehashed musical trends, politicians who are slated because they fit a "profile", new books that you'll like if you liked (insert best-seller here) - add your own, the list is unending. To repeat: you can't make a hit from spare parts - but they never stop trying. /*/*/ About the sex stuff: My high school years were 1964-68. The high school I went to (which I won't identify to protect their reputation) had a dress code, as all schools had back then. The guys had it easy: most of them dress pretty much the same way today, only it's now called "business casual". I guess the only real change for males since the mid-60s is that the pants aren't nearly as tight. The girls had a different situation: they were required to dress as "young ladies", emphasis on ladylike. Even in a casual situation, such as the beach, the guy was allowed to show more than the girl; two-piece swimsuits for girls didn't start to get to get skimpy until the end of the decade (at least in the midwest). In films and television, which were all we had to go on for protocol, the man wore a suit (tie optional), the woman was dressed as though she was going to a meeting (dress or blouse and skirt, jewelry, hose, and undergarments that were a mystery to us), and anything really important happened during a lap dissolve. Not at all the same for today's high-schoolers: they get to go backstage earlier than we did, but whether they have it any easier than we did is doubtful. (Depressing side note: there were a few girls that I had more than a passing affection for, and I sometimes wonder where they are today. Then I remember that they would be the same age as I am, which leads to two possibilities, equally unsettling: 1) that they have aged as badly as I have; 2) that they haven't.*shudder*) /*/*/ And I hope your weekend goes as well as mine won't.

Ebert: Another bane is test marketing. A test screening convinced Harvey Einstein that the Australian comedy "The Castle" wouldn't play in America. When I showed it at Ebertfest, it drew uproarious laughter--the funniest movie I have ever shown.

Roger, this essay is positively Catholic. You have, in a sense, encapsulated John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" in secular terms. How 'bout them apples? It was a joy to read.

Ebert: I have internalized a great deal of Catholic morality, in my own way.

The mention of "The Remains of the Day" brings to mind the neighbouring topic of scenes of blunted intimacy, which in turn brings to mind the lovely final scene between Jim Broadbent and Lesley Manville in Mike Leigh's "Topsy-Turvy," in which Broadbent and Manville (as Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert, he of Gilbert & Sullivan) have a conversation at home in her bedroom after the premiere of "The Mikado." She is sitting up, beneath the covers of her solitary, canopied bed, and asks him if he "has any ideas." He returns, "about what?," and she, after a lingering and hopeful silence, escapes with "about your next play." When he sends the conversation back to her ("what might it be about"), she invents and stumbles uncomfortably through a convoluted Benjamin-Button-y plot synopsis as a diversion, but the imagined plot turns inevitably to sadness and loneliness.

It seems like, in your opinion, that the prescence of nudity in a love scene is always less erotic, mysterious and sensual than scenes which hint at nudity. Correct? And I can understand this reasoning, since the anticipation of Christmas---or the moment just before you open your gift---is always more intense than then when you actually find out what your gift is.

So is it best to leave nudity out of love/sex scenes? Can't nudity be erotic also? Movies like the foreign film Sex and Lucia handle nudity with a certain maturity. A couple in a nude scene can often be one of the most amazing things to behold in nature.

And let's be honest. Admiring a beautiful nude person for its own sake is something wired in the human psyche. Therefore, it can be really powerful in the hands of the right director, and shouldn't take a back seat to innuendo, suggestion, or other non-nudity love scene techniques as a sign of inferiority.

Ebert: Nudity is quite acceptable. It's all in the context.

This reminds me of the 2006 movie 300. There are some soft-core scenes between King Leonidas and Queen Gorgo, but the most erotic shot in in the movie is her hand on his back.

Less is more.

Roger,
Claire's Knee....
au revoir
kerry of inframan

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the North By Northwest train scenes with Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint. Those were amazing. Just the way Saint delivered her lines was erotic in itself.

Oh, snap. Of course it was Liebling. Hope you've read the Library of America collection of his WWII writing . . . thanks for the correction.

Funnily enough, I was thinking about this a few days ago after seeing the Indian film "Jodha Akbar", about the 16th century Mughal ruler of India Akbar and his marriage to a Hindu princess. I had been planning to see this film for a long time because it has music by A.R.Rahman, was directed by A. Gowariker, the same guy who made the Oscar-nominated "Lagaan" and stars Aishwarya Rai (who looks way more beautiful here than in the recent Pink Panther movie).

The scene where they consummate their marriage is a wonderful sequence, a love scene rather than a sex scene, with some beautiful music by Rahman. There's no nudity, as you would expect in an Indian film, but it's a very passionate scene nonetheless and there really is no need for any nudity.

Continuing with the less is more theme, the same film also had a scene where the emperor orders his soldiers to kill a traitor. We see everything happening from a distance from the perspective of Aishwarya Rai's character and we see her reacting to what is happening. But although we see almost no violence at all, the scene has a much, much bigger impact than the kind of gratuitous violence we see in torture porn like "Hostel". Not to mention that the scene also gives us more insight into the emperor's character, a man who can order his soldiers to do something so horrific.

“….Lots of adults tell me, "We never go to the movies anymore." Assuming they ever did, why did they stop? Maybe because they never discovered that the movies for them are playing at art houses and festivals. Maybe because there are no art houses or festivals in their town. DVD, cable and on-demand are the hope.

IFC and South by Southwest are collaborating in a Festival On Demand program starting tomorrow in which this year's SXSW premieres are available simultaneously and for 90 days on-demand. Assuming the filmmakers get a cut, this is an important break for them.” – Roger Ebert

DVD, cable and on-demand are the hope – yes. Absolutely. However…

While we get the IFC channel up here in Canada, I can’t actually afford it owing to how it’s bundled by my cable company. And NetFlix has no distribution deal outside the United States. Moreover all your major networks “geo-block” foreign ISP’s and ITV and the BBC also geo-block.

I mention this because it’s hard for us up here too, Roger. We get stuff, but it’s all based on the foreign distribution deal. We’re at the mercy of middlemen; be it for TV or Film. But there’s now this thing called the Internet! And because of it, I can see the world uncensored. And find work I never would have otherwise. And it generates an interest in work I can now support; for until Anderson showed me a clip off You Tube, I didn’t know what I was missing…

“…That is why I felt less than transported by his extended lack of participation in the kiss while he waited overlong for her to strain upward. Or do you have a more satisfying reading of the scene? I would welcome it.” – Anderson

First, allow me to say that I am mentally HUGGING you right now, Anderson! As I’d never heard of “Dear Frankie” before and immediately intrigued, I tracked down the film trailer for it and OMG. That is so my cup of tea with Scottish scones! But then, look who made it - Shona Auerbach and screenwriter Andrea Gibb: WOMEN. Grin. Not to say that guys can’t make films like that too, but… well, when given the chance they often don’t. Not over here at any rate. And my local video store has it in stock. Score! Note: as much as they complain about it, there’s a lot of free advertising going on, over at You tube.

As for Frederick taking his sweet time about things…

I understand how it can seem as though he’s holding onto some lingering resentment, and oh those English, eh? But I actually thought it was because Frederick had waited sooo long for Anne, he wants to prolong the moment now of “boy finally gets the girl” so to speak. Like climbing Mount Everest and pausing on the very last step. Why? Because the view’s gonna sweet, and part of the stick used to measure that is how much effort went into the climbing of it, no? And there is a delicious tension to be found in waiting for something you ache for.

The director’s intention as I imagined it in that scene, seemed to be confirmed for having Anne basically run all over Bath in order to find Frederick; I thought it was an intentionally ironic juxtaposition of eagerness and prolonged desire. I found a longer clip of it; it’s in English but with foreign subs, chuckle…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Sm85x7CI0

She gets his letter and it’s a reprieve from spinsterhood! She starts running, run, run, run…heart pounding, desperate to find him and as if her very life depends upon it. And then bang, there he is! Struggling to fill her lungs, Anne finally manages to tell Frederick that she loves him, that nothing will ever again have the power to sway her; she is his. She’s handed him the top of Mount Everest. He’s waited so long, she’s suffered so much – and we’ve suffered too for having to wait this long to see the kiss… and the director knows it. “Let’s not scarf that chocolate truffle down like it is fast food from McDonald’s eh?” He seems to be saying. I could show you them kissing for a whole minute, or I could make the ache last for a minute – which is sweeter?

Sometimes the British are bastards in a good way; smile.

Roger, you are brilliant. That sex scene in "Out of Africa" is one of my favorite scenes in one of my favorite movies. It is very erotic, but it also amuses me. When I watch it, it makes me smile, thinking that perhaps he is telling her not to move because he is trying to think of baseball or else he will finish too soon! A moment in that film which is even more romantically appealing is where they are camping in Africa and he finally enters her tent to be with her, after she has has longed for him for so long.

Another scene I love is from "Reds," where Warren Beatty's character and Diane Keaton's character see each other from afar when he gets off the train, they walk toward each other and embrace. I believe that in "Reds" in later sex scene, he also asks her to be still while making love.

And what about Al and Ellen in "Sea of Love"? The sex scenes were passionate and very erotic.

As I was reading this blog I tried to remember what sex scenes really worked, on a sensual or erotic or whatever level, so that I could chip in with my opinion. I could not think of one for the life of me.
The closest I came, and the scene is far from sexy, is the Gundersons in bed at the end of Fargo. That scene, about Norm's three-cent mallard, concludes Fargo on a message of hope despite the cruel fates suffered by nearly every character. Margie and Norm together, waiting, is what makes Fargo a truly great film.
It was much easier to remember the scenes touching on the darker side of sexuality. Recall Marion at the end of Requiem for a Dream, Patrick Bateman's flexing in the mirror, or the closet scene in Blue Velvet. Filmmakers seem to do a better job of expressing the sordid side of sex rather than the beautiful. What that implies I'll leave to people smarter than me.

Y Tu Mama Tambien - that movie is filled with frank and realistic depictions of sex, but the most erotic scene is when Luisa dances towards the camera with the music playing from the jukebox. In the New Yorker's review of the film, it said something akin to "the movie begins with sex and ends in death-in short, all of life is here." Luisa understands this and I think that that scene is so erotic because we feel that she has become spiritually liberated.

In response to my first post on this article, you wrote:

Ebert: I agree that violence has now replaced sex as the most effective content to exploit. Am I dreaming, or are today's audiences less interested in sex? You would be amazed how many people went to see "Blow Up" because of one or two alleged frames. Maybe porn on the web and greater teenage sexual activity has negated the appeal. And stars themselves are being drained of their mystery by b celeb-gossip and snark.

You may be on to something here. Why pay $10 to see feigned sex at a movie theater, when you can see real sex for free over the internet? As a culture (here comes a big generalization) we seem to view sex as little more than a recreational activity. We see nothing special in sexuality. I'm not here to argue about how we should view sex, but I do believe that we have placed a lower value on it as time has gone by. Maybe in this ideological setting, it's easier for people to get laid, and less interesting to see others getting laid on screen.

I recall that Woody Allen went to see Bergman's, "Summer With Monika" around the tender age of 17 just to see the nudity. I can't imagine that today. Most teenagers wouldn't even have much use for "Boogie Nights".

Violence has indeed become the item to exploit. But think about it: Most people (teenagers included) understand that they ought not step on to an "L" car and punch someone in the face. But, we are allowed at the movies to feel the visceral pull of violence without any real consequences. On the screen it's acceptable, and it's obvious that American studios are starting to grasp that concept.

Ebert: Recent generations have no idea how much sex has been devalued. The Catholic weekly Our Sunday Visitor ran the Legion of Decency ratings, and I religiously devoured the titles under the "Condemned" rating. The very title "Summer with Monica" seemed erotic to me. Summer! Monica!

Sometimes, even if the actors in a scene do a great acting job, something still seems missing....I thought the Jackman / Kidman pairing in Australia would have had more "chemistry" than it did....I wonder if a director can get the actors pupils to dilate or something so that we can see that there is some actual underlying physical interest, beyond talented actors really getting into their roles on a "technique" level....a little hard to articulate what I mean...but when you see Tracey and Hepburn look at each other (or Bogart and Bacall) you can see the spark of interest in their eyes that isn't just the interest of the characters, if you know what I mean.

I wonder if the the feeling of importance about giving away one's body is a reflection of society's changing views, or if movie's were a part in changing this view. Maybe there is no distinction.

As a young man I hated old movie musicals. Even though I loved music, I thought they were dumb films in which a character, in the middle of a line of dialogue, would jump up on a table and start singing. They seemed quaint and corny.

I was fortunate to marry a lovely and patient woman who took me deliberately to the good/great ones. I grew to love them! Then, at a local theatre, there was a screening of "An American In Paris." I already loved Gershwin, but was unprepared for this widescreen celebration of color, composition, and yes, SEX. The Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron dances were incredibly sexual. I fell in love with Ms Caron immediately, looked at choreography in a new light, and enjoyed musicals ever since.

It opened a new world for me. You can't talk about sex in the movies without mentioning those Bob Fossee dance numbers in "All That Jazz"....

Yes, I'm still married to that patient woman 32 years later!

Roger, I meant to add this to my first comment as well:

In reference to Joe's comment (...but when you see Tracey and Hepburn look at each other (or Bogart and Bacall) you can see the spark of interest in their eyes that isn't just the interest of the characters, if you know what I mean.), I'd have to cite the fantastic scene between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly in "To Catch A Thief" when she kisses him at the door of her hotel room. The looks on both of their faces were just priceless. Now that's hot!

The Brown Bunny. Endless longing punctuated by a much-anticipated and wholly unsatisfying act. And it's Chloe!

Last Temptation, where Willam Defoe watches a string of clients achieve some sort of climax that he knows will always be beyond his reach. Later he is told that all women are the same woman. Strange, I thought, that Satan had to be the one to say this, in that there's more truth to that little observation than the Devil might normally be tasked with.

Body Double, with the Frankie Goes to Hollywood music video scene, in which we learn that Melody Griffith will not be happy to miss the money shot.

For me, the difference between pornography and sexuality is that in porno, at least one of the characters is fulfilled. In life, that is very, very seldom the case.

Marie Haws @ March 13, 8:05PM

Hello Marie, thanks for the mental hug! And I hope that "Dear Frankie" is a well and true SCORE.smile
The entire film is a fond memory and the kiss a beautiful balm after some distress.

Your reading of Frederick's feelings at the end of "Persuasion" was very satisfying. So, Anna is Mount Everest and Frederick was enjoying the view before planting his flag (kiss)? I'm persuaded.

I'm 33 and I still go to movies that specifically promise to be erotic and have nudity. Sure, I can call up whatever I like on Internet porn, but I have no interest in that. The context is often what makes something sexy and pornography rarely has context.

I'm not some film philistine, either. I see "arthouse" movies regularly and own (and cherish) Criterion's Late Ozu box set. But I also love naked women and on-screen sex, and wish there was a lot more of it! What a shame that in modern cinema getting intimate with a woman involves slicing her open more often than caressing her.

My question is how the writer of "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" justifies that with lines like: "There once was a time when movies approached eroticism with some awe. Now too often it is trivialized. How did it happen that exhibitionism became confused with sexiness?"

I think "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" is a wonderful film, but isn't it a perfect example of blurring the line between exhibition and sexiness?

Ebert: If you attend it carefully, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" considers sex with some awe. Truth.

Reply to: Ebert: I say that having just seen three films back to back that contain powerfully erotic passages.

Three films back to back? Don't they have Warning Labels on those things? Like, Take in moderation. Do not watch while operating heavy equipment?

There's one story in this week's headlines. Call it "the economy." Or, a small segment of the economy called The Newspaper Biz.

Time Magazine warned us:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1883785,00.html

The Boston Globe is losing ~$1 million a week. One investment bank said the paper is worth only $20 million. The Globe's parent, the New York Times, has substantial financial problems of its own.

The San Francisco Chronicle lost as much as $70 million last year. The online version of the paper could be the only version by the middle of 2009.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has filed for Chapter 11. It made $26 million last year, about half of what it made in 2007. It could lose money this year if ad revenue drops another 20%. There is no point for creditors to keep the paper open if it cannot generate cash.

The Miami Herald has been on the market since December, but no serious bidders have emerged. Newspaper advertising has been especially hard-hit in Florida because of the tremendous loss in real estate advertising.

The disappearance of major newspapers deserves... the kind of respect that James Cameron gave the people who died on Titanic.

Reply to: His films are full of sex, but it is always about the anticipation, the crescendo. No nudity is required-- in fact, Janet Leigh in her bra may be as naked as anyone ever got in a Hitchcock film. He understood the voluminous power of the tease.

Reply to: Ebert: The Catholic weekly Our Sunday Visitor ran the Legion of Decency ratings, and I religiously devoured the titles under the "Condemned" rating. The very title "Summer with Monica" seemed erotic to me. Summer! Monica!

I swear there are times when I can smell the Oscar. Now we have the title.

Our intrepid owner of a Chicago newspaper has been fighting bankruptcy for years. But the end is near. He decides to write a story about a pricey escort service and promote it. He's handed a business card with a phone number and

PRICE LIST FOR ESCORT SERVICES

Summer $2,000
Natalie $2,000
Yvonne $2,000
Monica $2,000
Chrissy $2,000

Summer with Monica $3,000

And instantly, he has his headline. As you said, Summer! Monica!

OH HOW I agree with you. Most films today seems to think the viewer needs to have a more visceral experience in sight and sound rather than leave that experience a bit more to their own imagination. I know that mine can be a bit more ambitious that most of what I see in some of the obvious just-let-me-show-you-my-representation-of-how-I-see-sex way of filming a shot. Please. Have they forgot that most of sex is really in the brain? Sterilizing it to crashing and gyrating bodies on the screen does about as much for me as watching Animal Planet. And really, it isn't so far removed if you really think about it. I miss the Desmond Morris Human Animal special on PBS where he would compare the mating rituals of animals with the ones of people and show you how similar they were. Yea, a lot of people get really riled up at that, but hey. It was entertaining. A lot more so than the sex scenes I saw in Eyes Wide Shut, Miami Vice and a phethora of others.

I will say that there are few scenes that I think were done really well. The Big Easy scene between Ellen Barkin and Dennis Quaid where he was mostly off camera and she was on camera was pretty charged with erotic emotion. I can't forgive him for the accent -- but the scene was charged for me. And one of my favorite movies of all time.

Another one, which I didn't particulary like as a movie on the whole, but the scene in Proof of Life, where Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan kiss before he leaves I thought was very charged with eroticism and didn't leave with them slithering around on the floor as it could have so easily done. And of course, it had me when it ended with a Van Morrison song. That probably raised it a half star for me in itself. Throw Van in and hey, I'm there.

And I have a lot of others that have odd eroticism that haven't been mentioned in the comments yet. Cat People and In The Company of Wolves. The latter is one that few people have probably seen, but I think is really good as far as speaking to the awakening of a young girl. The symbology in it is subdued and for me, highly erotic. Of course, Cat People. That is pretty easy to figure out. ;)

Once again Roger, great topic and great blog. We really appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us.

I believe it was Grace Slick who said about pornography, "After fifteen minutes you want to screw like crazy. After two hours you never want to screw again."

First, I'm 20, and have been used to sex scenes for as long as I can remember. They are desensitized and are kind of annoying. It's essentially the same every time, and could be cut without changing the the plot or emotional resonance. To my mind, kiss in the bedroom, then cut to the morning. Not a moral issue, just an interest one. Eroticism is rare and hard to make work. When it does, it is a beautiful thing. But I could do without the sex.
Second, unrelated to the topic, but have we entered a new age of movies? There is no longer a definitive version of a movie. We have an unrated cut, deleted scenes, directors cut, premiere cut, festival cut. Sometimes films change during a cinema run, or from Cinema to standard DVD edit. DVDs can be paused and skipped so much easier than video. It's no longer a set piece of art, like a painting, but is actually far more flexible and variable. I quite like it. The true benefit of this, I hope, will be seen with the DVD of Watchmen. Like the comic book, we can skip back and forth, and re-read it. On the other hand, we don't see the perfect untouchable copy of film, like Casablanca or any other classic movie you'd care to name. Suddenly there are these back stories we can get from different places, be they the internet or deleted scenes. Characters exist outside of movies.
P.S. Got that comment of yours about it being 'more erotic to be about to be kissed' stuck in my head. Should have kissed a girl. Choked from that comment. Thanks for that. LOL

Ebert: Editing a film used to involve physical film, with a final print being struck, and that print existing as a fact. Now it's all digital files.

I couldn't continue reading this thread without adding my own favorite sexy movie moments (only one of which has been mentioned in previous posts). I am listing them and chronological order, and (coincidentaly?) in order from least to most explicit:

1. "To Have and Have Not" - In Bogie's prior films, the leading ladies would swoon when he delivered a double-entendre-filled one-liner. But Lauren Bacall gives as good--if not better--than she gets. And you can sense the chemistry between them. I swear sometimes I think I can literally see an electric current when they look each other in the eye.

2. "Vertigo" - With apologies to Grace Kelly, Kim Novak was the greatest of all of Hitchcock's "ice maidens". There is a scene where "Madeline" wakes up naked (but decently covered) in Scottie's bed, and Jimmy Stewart looks at her with an expression on his face where you can see his lust, but also his frustration as he has been told that this woman is the wife of an old friend. Priceless.

3. "The Godfather" - In every scene with Appolonia from the time the "thunderbolt" first hits Michael to the consumation of their wedding night, Simonetta Stefanelli looks at Al Pacino with a mixture of fear and desire that just slays me every time. And the fact that the nude scene is lit so that one can't quite make out the nipples on her bare breasts does nothing to detract from the erotic intensity of the scene.

4. "The Reader" - A previous poster said this movie wasn't erotic. Nonsense. If you are looking at it from Michael's point of view (which I was), you see a sexy older woman in uniform--seemingly emotionally distant--suddenly and without warning exposing her desire for this young boy (again going back to Hitchcock's "ice maidens"). First of all, it's amazing that--11 years and two children after "Titanic"--Kate Winslet still has that kind of body. And David Kross plays his role perfectly as an innocent who doesn't know why this is happening to him, but who is not about to question his good luck (at least not until law school).

Ebert: And if she awakens naked in that bed, think who must have undressed her.

There were a few posts higher up that traced the title "Medicine for Melancholy" back to Ben Johnson. I just got finished reading your review of "Race to Witch Mountain" and I was struck, as I'm sure most people were, by your unusual word choice in the last sentence. It occurred to me that you might be the first person who ever put the words "mucilaginous viscidity" together. But when I Googled it, I found this passage on page 24 of John Timbs's 1832 reference guide "Knowledge for the People, Or, The Plain Why and Because":

Why is excessive fermentation injurious to beer?
Because in proportion as alcohol is evolved, the sugar disappears; the mucilaginous viscidity of the liquor, which depends on the sugar, is lost; and, this once lost, the drink can no longer contain and envelop the carbonic acid, which imparts briskness, sharpness, and creaminess of head.

Which raises two questions 1.) Have you been reading Timbs? and 2.) Do you brew your own beer?

Ebert: Darn! I thought it was original with me.

Just visited Google.Who do you think now ranks ahead of Timbs in the mucilaginous viscidity sweepstakes? Ha!

Oh, I completely forgot about that scene in Chocolat when Johnny Depp is tasting the chocolate and states that it is good, but not his favorite. Highly erotic without a single touch.

And to the poster about The Reader. No, that wasn't all that erotic. That was sex. And yes, I agree to his point of view somewhat sexy in the mind of the character David played. As a female, I didn't find that erotic on any level. But it was sex that was at least not done poorly. But since Titantic was mentioned, let's discuss that one. That was just sex rendered awkwardly. They should have cut it that entire scene. It made me cringe.

I guess I like my sex on film left to my own mind and less to the mind of the person who is directing the actors to move here and move there and say this and say that and grunt here and grunt there.

Old fashioned, I am not. But imaginative, I am. I'd rather they leave it me and mine. I can work it out just fine.

Should have added this and can't believe I didn't mention it: Andy brought up Persona:

EXACTLY. The first foreign film I saw in college. And the most moving one I have seen to this day. I rest my case. The most erotic moment in film. And it was in the mind of the viewer.

I agree entirely. I and my brother were having a conversation about how HBO shows tend to have a lot of faux edginess that is language, violence, drug content, and of course sex that doesn't necessarily correspond the stories being told. One scene that stuck out in mind in particular was a scene in season 1 of The Wire in which two of the characters Bunks and McNulty have about a minute and a half conversation in which neither of them saying anything except 'fuck'. I'm not sure, maybe, the scene was supposed to be funny but I felt it played like a bad parity of a HBO show.

By Anderson on March 14, 2009 3:02 PM

Hello Marie, thanks for the mental hug! And I hope that "Dear Frankie" is a well and true SCORE; smile. The entire film is a fond memory and the kiss a beautiful balm after some distress.

Your reading of Frederick's feelings at the end of "Persuasion" was very satisfying. So, Anne is Mount Everest and Frederick was enjoying the view before planting his flag (kiss)? I'm persuaded.

I just finished watching "Dear Frankie".

Sometimes, someone can paint better than you and it's just easier to admit it. And then partly quote them while whispering damn, damn, damn....

"There is a shot toward the end of "Dear Frankie" when a man and a woman stand on either side of a doorway and look at each other, just simply look at each other. During this time they say nothing, and yet everything they need to say is communicated: Their doubts, cautions, hopes."

"Every once in a long while, a director and actors will discover, or rediscover, the dramatic power of silence and time. They are moving pictures, but that doesn't mean they always have to be moving. At Sundance 2005 I saw Miranda July's "You and Me and Everyone We Know," and its scene where a man and a woman who don't really know each other walk down a sidewalk and engage in a kind of casual word play that leads to a defining moment in their lives. The scene is infinitely more effective than all the countless conventional ways of obtaining the same result. In the same way, the bold long shot near the end of "Dear Frankie" allows the film to move straight as an arrow toward its emotional truth, without a single word or plot manipulation to distract us. While they are looking at each other, we are looking at them, and for a breathless, true moment, we are all looking at exactly the same fact." - from Roger's 2005 review of "Dear Frankie" 4.5 stars

There is no sex in "Dear Frankie" but like so many of the examples being noted in here, what seems to matter most is how well an arrow has managed to strike an emotional truth - and pin us with it. And maybe that's the secret, what makes for a really great sex scene and we see so few of them these days; too many have forgotten the power of silence and time.

I loved that kiss, Anderson. There's nothing in the way of it. Two people fully dressed yet standing there naked. The honesty is sensual, erotic, romantic; achingly sweet. You can feel them kissing before they do because they're touching metaphysically for being so open and yet guarded both at once.

That kiss alone was worth the rental price.

And yes; Mount Everest, enjoy the view before you plant your flag!

Onto BBC Jane Eyre 2006! Charlotte Bronte's masterpiece. Toby Stevens (note: his mom is Maggie Smith) plays Mr. Rochester in this version, and Jane has just saved him from a fire in his bedroom while clearly starting another; note how tense those small moments of silence feel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwqYw--mNK4&feature=related

Pride & Prejudice 2005 - I love the proposal in the rain. Because they didn't kiss; smile. That made it even better! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyMYkiefnwg&feature=PlayList&p=BBD05505263E6E42&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6

lastly, Tom Hardy as Robert Dudley; who knows what pleases and how to "play" Elizabeth I, soon to be "the Virgin Queen"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2gJ1tXS8FY

I like the playful nature of this scene, while underneath so much more is going on. It's very erotic but in a subtle way. I keep trying to think of examples where people are actually undressed and having sex and liked those works as much as these and you know, I can't think of any. Gosh; does ever that speak volumes eh?

Now I'm interested in your thoughts on the LOD.

Recently I presented "Black Narcissus" to my church for viewing and discussion. I'd loved the movie for some time, but when doing some preparation for leading the discussion I uncovered a complicated history that the film had with the LOD.

It got me wondering about other films that might have been under the influence of the LOD. Do you think that the influence of the MPAA even comes close to the LOD? I know that circumstances are different, but to know that "Black Narcissus" was shown in some American prints with some of it's most integral scenes missing is freighting. I've always thought of the production code as a strangely helpful device that forced directors into discreet and subtle expressions, rather than a total straightjacket on free speech (which, at times, it was). But the LOD's history with "Black Narcissus" reveals an institution interested not only in images, but ideology. The cuts that they forced on Powell and Pressburgers film are very astute, and emasculating. I know that the production code was concerned with ideology as well.

In this way I wish that there would be a little more transparency on the part of the MPAA. In most cases studios seem to be circumnavigating the ratings system by putting out "unrated" DVD editions of their films, but it would be so fascinating to read memos or hear conversations between the MPAA, studios, and directors.

Ebert: The Legion had veto power.

The MPAA has the NC-17 "veto," but these days most theaters will play an unrated film. Even a deeply spiritual film like "Silent Light" is unrated.

In Silence of the Lambs Clarice breaks free from a couple of guards to pass Lechter a file. As Lechter takes the file he runs his index finger across her hand. His eyes widen, charged by the act of touching skin. When a film knows it's characters and can get us involved with them, the simplest touch will do.

The "I want to move" "Don't move" scene has stuck with me ever since seeing Out of Africa as intensely erotic, just as the hair washing scene was the epitome of intimacy.
Has anyone else mentioned the scene in Starting Out in the Evening where Frank Langella runs his hand about an inch in the air over Lauren Ambrose's body. This showed an attraction, just barely acted upon, by a much older man towards a woman young enough to be his granddaughter that avoided the creepiness I felt watching Peter O'Tools in Venus. Sometimes subtlety is far more effective...a glance, a sigh. The graphicness in Monster's Ball was effective precisely because the scene wasn't specifically about sex, but about breaking through grief by feeling something...anything.

Ebert: Who from?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, Roger!

I haven't really seen that many films with sensual sex scenes - my generation is the one that demands everything to be as visceral and gritty as possible.

Tenderness - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Joel and Clementine on the ice, at the drive in movie, everywhere - probably the first movie not involving a dog that made me cry. Also, Wall-E. Eve with the lighter while Hello Dolly plays in the background, the final "kiss," etc. Amazing stuff.

Comedy - Judd Apatow and Kevin Smith have this down to a science.

As far as explicitness goes, how about Watchmen? The sex between Nite Owl and Silk Spectre was so explicit that the theater I was in burst into laughter.

Marie Haws wrote, "I loved that kiss, Anderson.(from "Dear Frankie") There's nothing in the way of it. Two people fully dressed yet standing there naked. The honesty is sensual, erotic, romantic; achingly sweet. You can feel them kissing before they do because they're touching metaphysically for being so open and yet guarded both at once."

Marie, Brilliant, especially the honesty part. I'm very glad you enjoyed "Dear Frankie" and Roger's review of it - transcendent. Plus, more youtube treasures, thank you!

In “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” Tomei and Hoffman are constantly shown in explicit, almost unemotional, sex scenes; yet when it comes to intercourse with the Hawke character, it is only the aftermath we witness, where Hawke expresses his love. It’s as if sincere love-making would be inappropriate to show in this movie of lust.

Ebert: Who do you think founded this country?

Ebert: Another bane is test marketing. A test screening convinced Harvey Einstein that the Australian comedy "The Castle" wouldn't play in America. When I showed it at Ebertfest, it drew uproarious laughter--the funniest movie I have ever shown.

A descendant of Albert's, or perhaps a missing leading "W" in the surname?

Ebert: That day, Einstein he wasn't.

By Sam Ewing on March 15, 2009 8:01 AM: One scene that stuck out in mind in particular was a scene in season 1 of The Wire in which two of the characters Bunks and McNulty have about a minute and a half conversation in which neither of them saying anything except 'fuck'. I'm not sure, maybe, the scene was supposed to be funny but I felt it played like a bad parity [sic] of a HBO show.

This is way off topic, Roger, but I wanted to comment, considering that (here comes another Ebert blog-related coincidence) just last week I was talking to a creative writing student about this scene--as an exceptional example of minimalist writing paired with a compelling situation and good acting. The cops were examining a year-old murder scene, making new discoveries, and punctuating each with a "fuck." Their expressions and intonations clued us in to some of their insights; otherwise, it was a private conversation between the two of them, with the audience listening in, trying to keep up. Not quite Lear's five "nevers," but not bad, either.

So. in an attempt to stay on topic, I'll conclude that there are good fucks, bad fucks, and all the rest--yes, ugly, too.

p.s. Roger, do you watch many HBO series? I'm convinced that their takes on various genres--Western, crime, sword-and-sandal--are better than most feature films'.

Ebert: I simply do not have the time. It is needed for movies. I have sympathy for people who can't see all the movies they want, because of their jobs. Jut when I'm getting geared up to watch HBO, Kino comes out with a longer, restored version of Murnau's "Faust.'

In "Love, Actually" where Laura Linney and her dark and extremely handsome friend undress each other was my daughter's first "R" rated "sex scene" experience. I thought she was doomed as she never would see a better undressing scene...Norah Jones and all that.

I also like the Johnny Depp scene in "Chocolat"--where he said it wasn't his favorite--twice. In my fantasy life, I hope he is still trying to find his favorite with her.....

Somebody put the MPAA rating system in play up there, thereby allowing me to bring up a point about your battle against it that I snagged on a long time ago. I always thought you were battling the wrong enemy in that one, and here's why: As near as I understand it, the MPAA does not have and has never had the power to prevent theaters from booking any film, regardless of rating; nor does it have the power to prevent newspapers and other media from accepting advertising for the same. These entities make the decisions to not book NC-17 or whatever based on pressures brought to bear by organizations advocating censorship (though they never use the word). These groups threaten boycotts, picket lines, press wars, and sundry other tactics in order to get the theaers not to book, and the papers not to carry. The theaters and the papers invariably cave in; these decisions are made at the public-relations level. If I remember correctly, NC-17 was created and copyrighted by the MPAA to separate serious films from porn, which had appropriated the unprotected X. It was the pressure groups, working at the grass-roots level, that encouraged the confusion between NC-17 and X, using all the classic propaganda weapons at their command. If your A rating were to come to pass, it would meet the same fate, and for the same reason. The pressure group don't care about art or even morality; they're all about power. I can just see the "A=X" bumper stickers. You used the word "enforceable" but you never explained how that end would work. If you meant that the theaters wouldn't sell a tickets to the underaged, that would be one thing; however, the rise of the multplex would make this into the ultimate dodgem game. Screen-hopping in plexes is incredibly easy; the more screens, the thinner the staff is spread. To "enforce" the A in a plex, you'd need security at every screen. Would you like to endow them personally? As to carrying ads for the adult-only pictures, again it's the papers themselves that make that call, bowing to the threats by the pressure groups. The MPAA ratings board has a history of bonehead calls on films and deserves criticism for that; to blame them for shutting out adult-oriented films is a little like blaming Poland for World War II: I mean, all they had to do was not let Hitler invade them, right?

Ebert: Many films are simply being released unrated.

For me the most fundamentally erotic moments I've seen on film come in The Dreamers. Admitedly, the fact that I find Michael Pitt insanely attractive helped. :)

Anderson wrote: “Marie, Brilliant, especially the honesty part. I'm very glad you enjoyed "Dear Frankie" and Roger's review of it - transcendent. Plus, more youtube treasures, thank you!”

Hey, Anderson!

Yeah, “Dear Frankie” …what a jewel of a film! And Roger cuts facets equally as lovely in his review of it. That you found something by me also sparkled in the post, was therefore flattering to hear. So thank-you right back!

“The process of painting is one of constant self-criticism – is this the truth or not? Truth is beauty and beauty is truth.”

Just now, I have literally just heard that, and its made me catch my breath! My tv’s on in the background, and the Knowledge Network in BC is airing an old documentary and upon looking it up now, I’ve learned it’s “Robert Motherwell and the New York School: Storming the Citadel”.

What’s it about? “The rich artistic milieu of New York in the 1940s and '50s is brought to life in this story of artist Robert Motherwell and the Abstract Expressionists, who challenged artistic conventions of every imaginable kind to create a new breed of art.”

“You don’t have to paint a figure to express human feelings...” Whoa. Twilight Zone music.

Motherwell (who died in 1991) is talking about a series of paintings he worked on over the course of his life called the “Elegy to the Spanish Republic” based on the Spanish Civil War. And reports that a lot of people told him that they found them erotic in nature to which he conceded yes, but then sex is a part of life and death. Let me find one for you…

http://slate.cse.ohio-state.edu/dbyron/elegy_LXX.jpg

I’m hardly an expert on Motherwell. I was always more into Post-Impressionism. But I do understand what he means when he says he aims “to paint not the thing, but the effect it provides". And therefore why I’m so STRUCK by the irony - that of all the things to stumble upon, it would be THAT film while in here thinking about what we both enjoy re: those clips we’ve been sharing!

For don’t these filmmakers take a similar approach? Namely, to show not the surface of the thing but the feeling inside it; the honesty at the heart of those moments, and conveyed with the help of what Roger described as silence and time? They’re akin to silent abstracts of human sexuality. They express human feelings without having to literally show them to you in graphic terms. Could it be that the one of the reasons graphic sex is so popular these days is because people find it easier “ to get it”? Whereas when it’s subtle, it requires more time and effort? And teenagers, by nature impatient, react more to the surface of something and thus Americans in the wake of having their impatience marketed to them, now prefers “realistic portraits” of sex? It’s EASIER for being quicker? Is this all a byproduct of intellectual laziness on some level?

They’re showing Motherwall working on a canvas now… and it’s amazing to see. It’s so erotic and sensual. It’s like he’s distilled the essence of a feeling into just a few brushstrokes. It’s like the kiss from “Dear Frankie”. And it’s making me wonder if that accounts for why so many of these treasured clips originate from films created overseas? Or from older or more “European” sensibilities?

This is going to seem like a bizarre segue now, but earlier this evening, I was watching “Gossip Girl”. No, I’m not on crack, chuckle! I watch it because – and this will surprise many but Wallace Shawn is one of the supporting characters on the show now! And he’s brilliant in it. And it’s because I was watching that I heard a reference to… are you sitting down? Martin Scorsese! One of the characters laments that her boyfriend only wants to watch ESPN. Whereas she’s more literary minded and prefers to watch “good films” you know, like “The Age of Innocence”. And remarks to her boyfriend that “Scorcese calls this his "most violent film" because of the brutality under the surface of it”. Ie: the power of the unspoken, the subtext in play.

In the end, she catches him actually watching it, and all he could say was “it’s…it’s so heartbreaking!”

Given how the series started and who it was aimed it, teenage girls, to see the writers being so subversive and slipping in all these film references makes me smile for giving me hope. As maybe all is not lost, after all? And the trouble lies less with Americans and more with the suits and all their stupid marketing research. That in truth, everything we’ve been discussing in here is a genuine reflection of what people really want. To see not a thing painted for them, but the effect it provides. Like waiting for a kiss.

By Mike Doran (aka Lowbrow Crank) on March 16, 2009 5:56 PM

Somebody put the MPAA rating system in play up there...

Ebert: Many films are simply being released unrated.

Which prompts a question from me to any lawyers we might have on this blog: Was there ever litigation challenging the newspapers' right to refuse to advertise NC-17 films?

By Marie Haws, "Given how the series started ("Gossip Girl") and who it was aimed at, teenage girls, to see the writers being so subversive and slipping in all these film references ("The Age of Innocence") makes me smile for giving me hope. As maybe all is not lost, after all?

Hey Marie, It makes me smile too because it is double reverse subversive. As you know, this novel was Edith Wharton's rebellious portrayal of her family's restrictive culture in New York society. Now, this novel has become a boring part of conventional culture, a must read in high school literature courses. So it is anathema to some teenagers and has to be smuggled into the heart of teenage rebel land via "Gossip Girl". Now I'm confused. Who is subversive?

I think your findings reflect real life, and is also partially the fault of porn. In my experience, men in their twenties and early thirties these days seem to think that "sex" is meant to unfold in the following way: woman dresses up in a slutty costume (Catholic schoolgirl, French maid, etc.), strips, then performs one act after the other, exactly as seen in porn films (or, to your point, even regular films). That's it - that's the whole experience, every time. According to the last guy I was with, two people making love without costumes, toys or props is "boring" and "not hot." The guy before him, I asked "when I'm old and wrinkled, will you still want to have sex with me?" To which he responded "Probably not - gross!" Is there a way to teach these men about sex through film? Do you think they'd even get it, or would they find these films boring? This whole thing is really frightening!

You know, I think that "full-steam ahead" approach to sex in film might actually be a reflection of how prudish and retentive America has become - a diluted version of all the rape and violence so prevalent in Japanese cinema.

For many filmmakers, particularly in comedy, the trick is often knowing how far to go before things START getting sexy! Actors with chemistry are routinely denied the chance to explore that chemistry by scripts that don't know when to shut up. That pivotal moment of action on attraction is buzzkilled by a handy quip, and the movie flees headlong from it's own sensuality.

Maybe that fine moment is like the sound barrier. Maybe Americans are afraid to dawdle there, and either blow through it or stay the hell away.

Nice little one-line dismissal of my comment. You ought to have also mentioned that releasing a film unrated is like putting it into witness protection: the chances of anyone outside the maker's immediate family ever seeing it all but vanish. WHERE THE TRUTH LIES cme out without the dreaded NC-17, or any other rating; it was in and out of one theater in about the time it's taken me to type this sentence. Face it, pal, as a journalist, you blew this story; instead of going after the pressure groups, you concentrated on the MPAA. NC-17 failed because you and others like you did not call the groups on their deception about what it really meant. "How was that MY job?" you may well ask. I may well answer: you were the one who had a national TV show and a syndicated newspaper column and books in the stores and entree to any and every interview venue in the nation; all of that made it your job to set things straight. At your peak, you could easily gone one-on-one with any pressure group reps and shown them up as decivers - and the time to do that was a decade or more ago. Now it's way too late - and I'm not referring here to your health problems; the plain fact is that the other side has long had control of the existing media, and with that control of the argument. Now anyone who tries to take them on is at an automatic disadvantage: their turf, their rules (which they change at will) - and it's only going to get worse.

Ebert: Now, now. It is better to go out unrated than NC-17. And cheaper not to have to pay the ratings board fee. I fought the ratings system from day one, and have arguably spent more time complaining about it than any other film critic.

Actually, as I have reported, the #1 pressure group is the studio system. They write a movie's required rating into contracts, and force re-editin.

By Anderson – “….So it is anathema to some teenagers and has to be smuggled into the heart of teenage rebel land via "Gossip Girl". Now I'm confused. Who is subversive?”

Hi Anderson! Did you see it? I’m not 100% sure what you’re confused about, chuckle!

Gossip Girl ep: “The Age of Dissonance” was written by Jessica Queller, who was a co-producer on the ‘Gilmore Girls’ back in the day. Here’s what the story entailed…

FYI: the kids on this show attend a private school on the Upper East Side in NY. And in this episode the senior classmen are appearing in a stage production of…drum roll…"The Age of Innocence".

One of the girls, Serena, has a crush on the play's director Julian - the sort of pontificating theater & film aficionado that Roger & Gene likely used to beat-up back in the day. :) And Serena can’t drop Bon Mott's like Tom Stoppard smiling smugly to himself at a cocktail party. Her life instead consists mostly of self-made melodramas. And so she enlists Vanessa, a friend whose academic knowledge far exceeds her own, to help her gain his attention. “I may not know anything about the theater” she says, “but have you never heard of Cyrano..?” And thus with a wireless ear piece and her cell phone on so Vanessa can hear the conversation, Serena is fed insightful & profound observations while attempting to hold her own and more importantly, score points. And it goes well! He’s intrigued.

It all falls apart though in the end, when during the actual performance, each character with his or her post-adolescent axe to grind strays from the script. And speaking with their own voices now, openly take issue with one another and the play itself in front of a live audience; which includes a critic for the New York Times. The director is incensed. They’ve ruined his play! His career!

It turns out however the critic is impressed, for thinking it was an intentional deconstruction of "The Age of Innocence" and a witty and clever twist! Only too happy to agree, a relieved Julian takes credit and in doing so saves face, but loses whatever appeal he held for Serena; “I can’t believe I ever had a crush on you!” Only to be informed then by a bemused Julian, “Serena… I’m Gay.” And what set them off in the first place?

Vanessa’s boyfriend Nate. He’d overheard her on the phone and thought she’d been flirting with the director when she was only feeding lines to Serena. And Nate was jealous, believing she preferred another for his being more cultured and sophisticated. Nate’s more into “guy stuff” – you know, like ESPN. And thus wounded not to mention angry, as the director intentionally pushed Nate’s buttons prior to him taking the stage, he’d thus ripped both him and the play apart; inciting everyone else to add their two bits. And ironically voicing aloud some of the very complaints held by their characters. While collectively trashing “what has become a boring part of conventional culture, a must read in high school literature courses.”

Unaware of what prompted Nate’s outburst, words are exchange and Vanessa discovers he’d overheard the “Cyrano conversation”. She sets him straight. But he’s not content; they have too many differences! And leaves for home. Where she shows up later, armed with a bag of his favorite munchies and the willingness to watch ESPN if that’s what he truly prefers – only to catch him watching Scorsese’s “The Age of Innocence”. And in having taken the time to see it, Nate finally discovers what the fuss is all about. WHY Edith Wharton's novel is so prized and why it caught Scorsese’s eye.

Gossip Girl didn’t start out this way; quite the opposite. But slowly, steadily over this past year, the writers have been dipping their pens into deeper wells, and injecting what I consider to be wonderfully subversive elements. For what has Jessica Queller done? She’s written an episode wherein a group of kids who hate a play for not understanding and thus appreciating the novel upon which it’s based, end up paralleling the actions of the characters they’d found so boring! And by creating what it was supposed to evoke; the desire to reject roles that have been foisted upon them by others and to rebel against the expectations & restrictions of convention, ie: the law that says you’re supposed to follow a script, not change it. And in the end, one of them comes to understand now why the novel is still being taught. It’s actually about something.

And gosh – how sneaky and subversive is that! You don’t want to read the book? Fine, watch this instead. I’ve no idea if that’s how it played out for the viewer, but I still admire the effort. Queller is akin to Motherwell painting not the thing, but the effect it provides.

I think the reason many would rather not see two naked bodies thrashing around on the floor is because what we really want isn’t to “see” it, but rather to feel the emotion that gave birth to wanting to thrash around in the first place. And when filmmakers focus on the surface of a feeling, they often fail to convey it; for failing to recognize how little a surface can hold. It’s like the ocean; the surface may stretch for miles but what’s underneath it is way deeper.

I see Roger’s made mention of Mrs. Gaskell in his most recent blog entry! I assume he’s speaking of Elizabeth Gaskell, who in addition to “North & South” also penned “Wives and Daughters” another treasured adapated by the BBC. Note: Roger and Molly can't kiss because his nephew has scarlett fever and her father, a doctor, made him promise not to go near her as she never had it and he doesn’t want her to get the infection…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBktMEQnIc&feature=PlayList&p=435E45F72ABCFFAE&index=17

In fact, there’s not a single kiss or even an embrace between them in the ENTIRE film. But no less satisfying for it. In the same way Alan Rickman’s character just remembering the first time he kissed Juliet Stevenson in “Truly Madly, Deeply” resonates like a perfectly struck note…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj1BlyOcmBs

It’s there in how he says “and when we kissed…” Sigh.

Ebert: Yes. That Elizabeth Gaskell. I have no idea why she is so often referred to as "Mrs. Gaskell." It may be from affection, in the way that Jane Austen becomes "Jane." There was little domesticated about Elizabeth Gaskell, who saw the industrial revolution and knew what she was witnessing, and was an outspoken Unitarian.

Strangest thing. When I saw the title and the picture I started thinking something like "Wasn't there a film by Nicolas Roeg, something named like this ? ". I then remembered it was Don't Look Now only to find Roeg's name mentioned in the beginning. Coincidence ?

Marie, I didn't see "Gossip Girl" but now I know what I've been missing. I hear Scorsese is a producer on the upcoming "Young Victoria".

Now, now yourself, Roger. This is the ultimate chicken-or-egg question: where did the whole business start in the first place? We can go back as far as we like: the Legion Of Decency, the Hays Office, the Breen Office, the Moral Majority, and all the various descendants therefrom. When the studios stage their content crackdowns, it is always in response to an external threat from forces like the above. It's an old scam, and it works like this: The Company decides to publish/produce/distribute "That's Questionable!!". Whereupon the Citizen's Committee rises up and declares that they won't stand for it - they will boycott the Company! Then someone from the CC announces that if the Co. withdraws "TQ!", they'll reconsider the boycott. Now the Suits at the top of the Co., concerned mainly with public relations (i.e.,looking bad in the press), give in and withdraw "TQ!", and the CC announces its triumph in the name of Our Way Of Life. It's basically a cleaned-up variation of the protection racket, with the advantage of being legal. It's a kind of power that is always given out of fear. The true weapon is not the boycott but the threat. The problem we have now is that this has been the way of doing things for so long that now the higher-ups at studios (who mainly come from fields other than entertainment) try to anticipate the pressure groups and avoid possible protests; thus the contractually mandated rating. Of course, the pressure groups make a point of never being satisfied; just when all their demands seem to have been met, here come a fresh batch of even more "suggestions". And the cycle of abuse continues. Blame seems to be the true national pastime, and here I am indulging in it, but to me the line is clear: what the studios do is a reaction to threats - direct, implied, or anticipated. The pressure groups usually always win because they assume a pose of widespraed power, which no one ever challenges. That's how the 50s blacklist happened: a guy who owned three grocery stores in Syracuse NY was transformed into "the owner of a chain of supermarkets in the Northeast", lending credence to a threat of economic sanctions over the possible employment of "radical performers".(This particular man had previously tried to get the Syracuse City Council to stop a public performance by the Weavers at a municipal venue; they laughed him off, and the concert went ahead - and happy 90th birthday to Pete Seeger.) The "powerful entertainment media" caved in to a force that wasn't nearly as widespread as they believed - and they've done it every time ever since. Let me put as snarkily as possible: in this situation, the pressure groups are Al-Qeida, the MPAA Rating Board is Saddam - and forgive me, Roger, but you are Bush, waging all-out war against the wrong target.

Ebert: Could be.

Yul Brynner putting his hand on Deborah Kerr's waist in The King and I...Julian Sands kissing Helena Bonham-Carter in A Room With a View...Maria Grazia Cucinotta and Massimo Troisi with the foosball ball in Il Postino...

Yes, the sex scene between Zack and Miri for the first time is awesomely sexy. Couple that with the '80s tune, "We don't have to take our clothes off/To have a good time" and the point is well-taken.

I agree with the Reader being quite sexy at times as well as Roman's Polanski's Bitter Moon from back in '93 or '94.

It is interesting to note that not many movies are released any longer that are NC-17. More of those NC-17 movies seemed to arrive in theatres the first few years the rating was created, the only ones I can even remember are Martin Lawrence's "You so Crazy", "Wide Sargasso Sea", "Bad Leiutenant", "Man Bites Dog" and that's roughly it. All of which can out in a five-year period. When did the last NC-17 rated and released movie arrive in theaters?

Roger, what did you think of "La Belle Noiseuse", sexy and/or erotic.

Ebert: Funny you should ask. I have a Great Movie on "La Belle Noiseuse" already written.

On sexuality in Hitchcock:
Vertigo. Remember she was faking! So she was awake while he undressed her. Also, as Robin Wood points out, when she yields to Scottie and dresses up/wears her hair like Madeleine,she's surrendering to him.
Notorious. The justly-celebrated terrace-to-door scene is only the first of two. The climactic scene in Alicia's bedroom is the twin of the balcony scene, but this time he loves her and he's saving her life at risk of his own. Rear Window. the crosscutting between the men looking at Leeza's negligee and at each other. You can see what they're not talking about.
Strangers on a Train. The grappling murder struggle distorted by the broken glasses.
Topaz. the death of Juanita. Her head snaps back in a spasm as she is shot. there is a side shot of the gun being withdrawn, then an overhead shot as her dress opens like a flower, or spreads like a bloodstain.
Marnie. From Mark's eyes to the porthole, with the gray( or rather grey) sea and sky beyond.
Frenzy. After 37 years it's hard to sum up everything in the murder scene. But note the firelit glimpse of Babs' nude body, warm in the soft light, contrasted with the same body, broken and rag-doll, under the harsh, dead, neon on the highway. The sense of desolation and loss in that movie is Shakespearean.
North by Northwest. The vaguely menacing way ROT's hands close on Eve's ( Eve!) head in the stateroom scene, nicely emphasized by the somewhat low, but not too low, angle.
All of these moments depend to varying degree on both psychological and cinematic nuance.

There is series on IFC called "Indie Sex" that are documentaries about explicit sex in film. It's a good series.

Not much to add, I'm sure we can all think of erotic, sexually charged sex scenes, but I did want to add Coming Home to the list. I saw that movie for the first time in a class in college, and people were shifting in their seats. Its still one of the most erotic scenes I've ever seen.

Mr. Ebert,

I have watched "Medicine for Melancholy twice today and was blown away both times. I love this movie for all its charm, integrity, sweetness, sense of history and environment, and tenderness. The "sex scene" in the film is very erotic and the director, Barry Jenkins, does an amazing job of creating this montage of their first sexual experience with sound both natural and musical punctuating each movement, each stroke, each kiss. It is one of the most powerful love scenes I have seen and to have this happen with black bodies at the center is very important to and moving for me. I knew very little about this movie, its title encouraging me to view the trailer. I was intrigued and decided to take a chance on the film. I am so glad I did.

I've just seen Silent Light and was left speechless (please take my word that it was an occasion worth noting).

If it wasn't mentioned, Miriam Toews is an award winning Canadian author from the Winnipeg area and well worth the time if you were looking for something to read. A Complicated Kindness is listed as her breakthrough novel but I would recommend Summer of My Amazing Luck and A Boy Of Good Breeding as well. Her novels are filled with... humans, for lack of a better way to put it.

If you didn't have one of her books at hand, there are five letters that she wrote (anonymously at the time) to the long absent father of her firstborn son. They are still found online, the first at:

Open Letters: Inheritence

She is one of my favourite writers. You're one of my favourite writers. Life's good today.

I just adored the last scene of Pride and Prejudice (2005).
"Mrs. Darcy...Mrs. Darcy...Mrs. Darcy"

*sigh*

Disappointed twice without even seeing the movie. First--when I thought it was a film adaptation of Ray Bradbury, one of whose early collections was titled "A Medicine For Melancholy." No one has ever done a decent film adaptation of Bradbury. Second--when I found that wasn't what it is. Sure wish someone would try.

If we leave the pornography industry out of the discussion, then I think there's more nudity, particularly full frontal male nudity, on stage in theater productions than in movies.

Some of it is openly gratuitous such as "Naked Boys Singing!" a production that began in Los Angeles, but has made its way to Chicago and NYC. It has been made into a movie, but I haven't seen it. I saw the live Los Angeles production twice.

As a former art major, I find there to be some troubling aspects of nudity, something covered by the Guerrilla Girls. I find this in film as well. When I think of movies such as "Realm of the Senses" and "Last Tango in Paris," the thing I remember is what happened to the woman. Maria Schneider said she was crying real tears. That she felt humiliated by Marlon Brando and Bernardo Bertolucci. Do we really need to see this?

I do feel that there is a difference in how nudity is used in American films. In the 1986 "Manon des Sources," Emmanuelle Béart dances and is naked, but her nudity doesn't seem gratuitous. The nudity in the 1985 British movie "A Room with a View" also seems spontaneous, joyous. That is men, cavorting and contrasted with the controlled emotional joy between the characters played by Julian Sands and Helena Bonham-Carter (George Emerson and Lucy Honeychurch).

In both movies, the romance is sweet and doesn't need nudity or any bump and grind. Likewise, the scene another reader mentioned from the 2004 "A Very Long Engagement" has a simplicity and a sweetness, an innocence that is touching.

Yet despite these examples of nudity fitting into a movie, you can't help but wonder if the moment doesn't detract from the magic on the screen when you have Web site devoted to people listing and analyzing when stars are naked. There seem to be people who are more focused on the physical aspects than the emotional, missing the feeling and intent of the shot. Whether the nudity is meant to portray love, innocence or tenderness. In the case of love which can so easily be disguised as lust, perhaps then all the magic is lost despite all the acting skills of the two performers performing an act or even their body doubles do it for them.

Moral issues aside, perhaps nudity has now become more of a distraction than anything else--in film and on the stage. It was sort of surprising that so much fuss was made over a film actor such as Daniel Radcliffe appearing in a 2007 revival of a 1973 play, "Equus" because of the nude scene.

Ebert: Wouldn't you hope that the kind of mentality cross-indexing the naughty bits would gradually be improved by exposure to "Manon des Sources," "A Room With a View" and "Equus" and grow the (naughty word) up?

Thanks for including your URL. I don't think I knew you were a theater critic.

I rented one of my favorite movies this week - Moulin Rouge.

Not a lot of nudity, but some of the best chemistry I've ever seen on the screen. Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor. They really seemed connected all through the movie, building right up to their final song "Come What May".

I also think that the tango scene to "Roxanne" is erotic in it's own non-nudity way.

Bollywood, as an industry has truly mastered the art of conveying intimacy without nudity.

Ebert: More effective that way, most of the time.

The vast majority of scenes involving sex, even in good movies, are there because of the voyeur in all of us. De gustibus non est disputandum, as Marion Michael Morrison might have said.Or cochon a son gout, which I doubt Montaigne ever wrote, though he might have thought it. Personally, I'm a fan of well-done, or even medium rare, sex on screen , but these things ought rightly to be identified. Atom Egoyan isn't just an elegant smutmeister who likes to see girls naked, especially nymphets, but it is a part of him and definitely a part of his films' appeal.Exotica is sufficiently clever enough to hide this, with its deft excursions into Prokofiev-theme music-transgressiveness-in-theatres,and unlikely sharing of pain between rival males . But Where The Truth Lies is David-Lynch-like in its obviously hackneyed plot to get Alison Lohman interacting receptively with Alice From Wonderland. By that time, you really have to get the joke( Alice's shiny chin makes Verhoven look like Dreyer).A movie like Ararat shows what Egoyan can do when he is serious, but even The Sweet Hereafter, most of which has been justly praised, turns on the real or imagined candlelight-in-the-barn scene
which coyly creates more questions that don't really need to be answered. Lynch is upfront about indulging his (alert!-value judgement) healthy voyeurism in the scenes between Cage and Dern in Wild At Heart( soft-core at its very best), and his creepy stuff in Blue Velvet( but what could Isabella Rosselini have been thinking?).
Some of these wear better than others. Last Tango In Paris looks today like a Godard mooch with delusions of glandeur. What Kael and
Mailer both, oddly, bought into in Brando's performance looks now like a pathetic melange of Sigmoid Fraud, as Nabokov called him,and Ross Hunter movies. The chewing gum was really cool though. Godard himself would be proud.
Incidentally, Brokeback Mountain is basically a Ross Hunter movie of true love and personal expression beaten to death by the rigidity.... of society.Of course, Hunter himself was an example of someone who was able to rise above all that. This could be a good Logo movie of the week. Seriously.

Bull Durham: wedged in between the more overt acts was a little scene showing Kevin Costner painting Susan Sarandon's toenails. And Sixty Minute Man playing. Oh, my goodness. It is an obvious choice (at least to my generation of gals at any rate) but worth mentioning nonetheless.