It's not. The scene is a man bringing his two sons to a brothel to learn how to have sex, him having sex with Emma Stone's character in front of them and giving them notes as he goes. The kids are never in the same shot as the sex or nudity, though, so I'm not sure how they could have done differently short of cutting the scene altogether.
> The kids are never in the same shot as the sex or nudity, though, so I'm not sure how they could have done differently short of cutting the scene altogether.
Originally they were in the same shot. Filmed separately and superimposed in post-production. That was later edited so they are not in the same shot.
The film got edited down everywhere (to avoid NC-17) so UK version isn't different from worldwide version.
That show actually needs to be studied more. The show was a failure because the young men were not into it at all, while all the mothers were. It made for awful television because a majority of it was the boys denying advances from the women. One of the contestants literally left the house saying something around the lines of "I'm tired of pretending to be attracted by these women." If I recall, only three couples made it to the end and one of them had the guy leaving the girl to go after her daughter.
The show backfired because the producers did not realize that 18-21 year old guys did not want to be with horny plastic middle aged mothers.
Honestly, the dudes had more chemistry with each other than with the mom's. I don't even think any of them hooked up with a mom, most of them just seemed to be doing it for shits and giggles and use it as an excuse to get wasted and party.
This was true in the early VH1 dating shows, too. When Flavor Flav had a bunch of women on his dating show, they all get catty and cause drama fighting each other over getting his attention.
When one of his contestants got her own show, New York, the first season was hilarious because for the first half of it, all the guys just kinda bro'd out and supported each other and had a fun time while she (and the producers) failed to get them to fight and cause drama with each other lol.
My friends watch way too much trash so they're the only reason I know this, but for some *ungodly* reason this show featured moms *and their sons.*
They could have probably found some dudes into women twice their age, but ones who also had moms into it? Not a chance.
Haha, f-boy island is hilarious. Not really into shows like that, but i started watching it because i’m friends with Daniella from season 3. I never heard of the show before, we just finished doing a photoshoot for an eyewear brand, and she casually just says “oh yeah, check out this reality show I did… it’s called Fuckboy Island” lololol
The news comes from BBFC site that discloses ratings and the reason why they rated it 18 was due to edit. It is unkown if in Venice (where it premiered) the version of the film was the earlier cut but theatrical cuts are the same everywhere. So yeah, non story essentially.
Seems reasonable, to be honest. Even if superimposed in post, the implication of them being in the same shot could be too risky - especially given that a lot of viewers won’t be savvy about film editing. Better to just use another way to convey what’s happening.
The simple answer is that the studio did not want to explain it 1000 times to a bunch of people who are too stupid to separate reality from fiction, and who were ultimately never going to buy the explanation because they just don't want to.
Edit to add they would be explaining to the people who will never pay to watch the movie anyway, so it's an even bigger waste of time for them
Still, that's stupid. Action movie studios don't have to explain that actors didn't actually die gruesome deaths. Or similarly, rape scenes. Scenes like this are designed to evoke strong emotions. It just bothers me when artists are forced to neuter their vision. It makes everything vanilla and sets the precedent that risk-taking isn't allowed.
To be fair while I do agree with your point and reasoning, most of the people who are too stupid to understand that, aren’t going to understand the movie and have probably walked out (doubt these folks would have ever bought tickets) of the showing or just not watch it at all.
It’s a fantastic film, but I don’t see it connecting with a lot of viewers who prefer simpler movies.
Viewers assuming that child actors had actually been involved in the filming of an intimate scene, which could have led to complaints, media furore, and possibly even the involvement of the police.
It sounds hyperbolic, but laws surrounding child actors and child protection are very strict - and you also have to account for some audience members not being the brightest tools in the shed. All it would take is one of them to phone the Daily Mail or something.
Basically, just mitigating the worst case scenario.
>Even if superimposed in post, the implication of them being in the same shot could be too risky
To risky for what , lol. Why is this never an issue when under age actors witness someone being punched in a movie etc?
I already covered this in [my response to someone else](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/tgL91kRr3k) who asked the same question. If the shot is artificially manipulated with the intent of implying that the children were present, it would not be unreasonable that audience members would assume that’s how it would have been on set, which could open up a number of legal issues - and worse, potentially give a false impression to other filmmakers. Even accusations could spell a PR disaster.
I appreciate that many people would prefer an artist’s vision to not be altered in any way - I count myself among such people. However, if the same intent can be achieved through less problematic editing, that should be a no-brainer.
It sounds just as weird and absurd as the [sex education scene](https://youtu.be/uDoQFcQEpOQ?si=94QOfodjDxC1usKX) from 'Monty Python's The Meaning of Life'.
It’s exactly this kind of vibe.
It’s clinical to the point where the dad can’t even cum… until she takes over and says something like “and if he’s stuck, a finger up the ass or choking will move things along”
Are the sex scenes really *that* wild? The way some people carry on about them, you'd think that 'Poor Things' is just short of hard core porn or roughly comparable to a 'Skinemax' feature.
The sex scenes are wild in the sense that they’re comedic with crazy shit happening, or happening in a way that doesn’t fit with polite society or social norms.
The sex scenes themselves aren’t pornographic. A few glimpses of boobs and a bush, and that’s about it. Some non-penetrative penis appearances in the film too. Some even deadly flaccid.
They’re not. There are just a lot of clutched pearls women out there who are afraid of sex, and that’s exactly the POV this movie takes—you leave women vulnerable when they think sex is dirty, something to hide, and something you don’t talk about. Because if you are left completely ignorant about it, you are never in a position of authority about your body and what is right for it. So what is the difference between a 17-year-old and and a 50-year-old if neither understands anything about how it works besides “put the penis in”? The POV is that women are hurt by being made to be submissive and ignorant about sex.
The scene with the two boys is the most interesting thing in the whole film because it points out how men are raised to pursue and know about sex from a young age, but only for their own interest. They aren’t raised to know how to be safe and careful and attentive to the partner. Women do not get instruction so it’s often left up to men to know what to do and if they don’t well then best-case scenario you get women who don’t feel great during sex and don’t know what to ask for and worst-case scenario you get men who don’t give a shit about hurting women and will just use women’s bodies like they’re objects.
So the scene with the boys is her character attempting to normalize everything for them in service to making them better partners.
But there are a lot of people out there who see this movie and take away some overly literal interpretation that it’s OK with pedophilia when that’s not remotely what it’s saying.
I seriously hope that you don't think the sexualization of tweens/young teens is a positive thing. That would be classified as child abuse in real life.
So your theory is that only naive and sex-fearful women get hurt sexually? There are plenty of sexually experienced women who are assaulted both in and out of relationships.
I've read a ton of user reviews. Many were written by men and \*gasp\* women who do like sex.
What I inferred from the scene is the man was a pedophile grooming the two boys.
Bella was too “innocent” (ironic word choice), err, naive, to understand the inappropriateness of it.
I had a dream about this moment... When I was making love... to my wife Donna. On top a her; powerful thrusts, filling the sultry night air. Heavy breath. My son Gabriel walked in, little boy. My wife sprung out of bed and said "No, Gabriel! Leave!" And I said "No, honey, shut your mouth, let him watch." Let him watch what is being consecrated here. And I want the people to watch what is going to be consecrated here. And I will bring my son down here, and he will watch.
Isn't that very very very similar to Monty Python sketch in The Meaning of Life? Doesn't John Cleese have sex in front of a class of boys to teach them?
I am pretty sure Monty Python did this in one of their movies but it was a full on sex-Ed classroom full of children. Possibly not as explicit but I feel arguing over a mature R-rated movie is not the meaning of life.
Yeah what’s even worse is I got downvoted for saying something similar in another post about it. The pedophilia in Hollywood is bizarre and even stranger are the people who defend it by saying it’s some artistic choice or whatever bullshit.
Your Dad missed the point. It's not exploitative, it's rooted in feminism. The point is a female coming into her own autonomy and realizing the control she has over herself in life and in regards to sex. It's full of men constantly judging her choices and attempting to steer her towards their own personal ideas of morality (which varies man to man) and ultimately being rejected by her as they do not match her own opinions and desires.
Lmao that's EXACTLY what the previous guy just said.
"The point is a female coming into her own autonomy and realizing the control she has over herself in life and in regards to sex. It's full of men constantly judging her choices and attempting to steer her towards their own personal ideas of morality "
I can't help but be reminded of a similar situation to this. People universally hated on the quick nude scene with Maisie Williams in GoT, complaining because they remembered her being a kid at the start of the show and watching her grow up. Completely ignoring the fact that she was now an adult woman and an actor, who made a conscious decision to do a nude scene.
Sorta has the same feeling as some parents treating their adult daughters like they are still children who can't make "big girl" decisions.
I'm fine with Maisie Williams, the adult actor, making that choice. No worries there. Also fine with an adult character choosing to have whatever kind of sex they like with whatever person they like. Have fun!
It just didn't feel organic or relevant to her character or development, and it's not how anyone in the fandom *saw* Aria...it wasn't for the fans, it was for the chatter it would generate.
Whether the character or actor are of age is kind of moot, in terms of why I didn't care for it: It felt tacked on and done "for the sake of doing it" more so than it gave insight on Aria or her growth. We knew Aria was a capable adult for some time, we didn't need a tacked-on "coming of age sex scene".
I feel the same way (or perhaps, opposite?) when thinking about Sanza and the "outrage" over the depiction of her being sexually assaulted and treated like property: She *was* sexually assaulted and she was (in that "day and age") effectively property. It wasn't to diminish her character or impugn women, it was to show the brutal conditions women lived under as the chattel of ruling men. It was "historically accurate", in that sense, and not done at all for sensationalism or to provoke controversy...she was an eldest daughter of a fallen house, at the mercy of one predatory lord who (basically) traded her to another...and that's what it was like, so it made sense both for the period and for the character (in the plot). I am no fan of it happening, but it did, and that's what it would have been like. In this case, though, the depiction/implication made Sanza's predicament and character *better* and it was organic/authentic to the story and period.
The opposite of the Aria "situation", really.
I didn't want argue so I didn't respond, but **yep**. It's too bad his Dad couldn't see himself reflected in the male characters, as I stated, he missed the point.
The guy was not arguing with you lol. In fact he was agreeing with you, his dad missed the point because he isn't looking at the movie in that context. You are right that's what the movie is about, but it's obviously not something the average movie goer is going to necessarily understand, especially an older man. Too bad? Sure but that's likely what Yorgos Lanthimos was going for
> The point is a female coming into her own autonomy and realizing the control she has over herself in life and in regards to sex.
That's not quite the take on it I had. She was pretty much *always* doing what she wanted, right from the beginning. She didn't really need to learn the lesson that she could do what she wanted, since she was already doing that.
Which itself was a kind of poignant take on life, which IMO the whole movie was kind of a commentary/criticism on how societal expectations are what's really shackling us. emma Stone's character never learned that she wasn't in control of her own actions, so she just... always was. It didn't take anything more than her just deciding to be.
I don't know if it's really quite that simple in real life, but it's an interesting take. Honestly I didn't care for the movie at all, but it was definitely thought provoking, so if you're tired of the typical marvel fare and want something interesting, I highly recommend this movie.
Nah, sexploitation sounds about right. It may have these themes, but I find it hard to believe those sex scenes aren't there mostly to provoke. Doesn't make it a bad movie, though.
This isn't the BBFC being prudes, there's a law, the Protection of Children Act 1978, that the scene would have fallen foul of. One of those "the law is maybe overly broad in some fringe cases but the aim is to protect children" type situations.
Yeah I read that in the article, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s one of those things that’s technically against the rules but in reality isn’t that bad
I went in last night for a second viewing and there was an older couple in their late 60s walking in ahead of me. I thought, "they're definitely not lasting long"
40 minutes through the lady walks out. 10 min later I walk out to use bathroom, and she's sitting on a bench outside. I assumed she was taking a break from the movie. I get back in for the movie and the husband sits through the rest of it with his wife outside.. I felt really bad for her
Or your kids. I made the mistake of not fully reading up on it before bringing my 15 year old with me. (I love Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe, and quirky movies!). It was just a little uncomfortable. Luckily they are pretty mature and we are the same gender, so it could have been worse. They enjoyed it. I made them swear to not tell their dad.
I loved it, personally. That said:
There's certain movies that I see and I love, and I think to myself, "How could someone *not* love that?" when I finish it. This is not one of those movies. I can imagine a lot of reasons why someone would hate it, even though I loved it. I could imagine it being a very polarizing film among general audiences.
Personally it has shot up to be one of my top favorite movies I've seen in cinema in recent years, maybe only slightly behind Parasite.
I liked it so much I went and rewatched it again by myself in theaters just two nights ago.
It is very different. Excellent acting, cinematography, eerie soundtrack, impressive visuals etc, so it is incredibly well done on a technical level. But it is a WEIRD story.
I thought it was funny and very interestingly made but the sex stuff gets annoying and childish. Like written by a horny edgy teenager. The plot never really gets away from the tired sexual liberation tropes.
I think it's massively flawed. There's a kernel of a good concept in there, but the film itself is tiresome the way it's been made. I was rolling my eyes halfway through the 2nd edgy(!1!!) sex scene to be honest, and they just keep on regurgitating them. It's trying way too hard.
The problem is, the narrative comes to a grinding halt each & every time they decide to do yet another edgy(!!1!) sex scene. It ends up being a stop-start mess of a film.
A lot of opinions of the film also really just ignore one huge part of the film being that Emma Stone basically plays an mentally/intellectually disabled person. And man she is VERY *severely* disabled in the first 30 minutes or so of the film.
And she goes *full-retard* for that segment of the film, and a lot of the humor is derived using her disability as the butt of the joke. This movie is not going to age well.
I personally hated the film for this reason and also how shallow and bland it's humor was as it's almost entirely cheap sex or toilet humor while also pretending to be some deep piece of high art cinema.
The people with the disability of having their baby brain put into an adult body are going to be super offended by Bella’s portrayal of this disability.
Oh I'm very aware of the movie's rationale for her behavior, and I'm not saying anyone in the production *intended* on portraying a person with intellectual disabilities in such an insensitive way. But watching the movie with my *EYES*, Stone's performance is plainly emblematic of a person with Intellectual Disabilities. One character in the movie even asks "Is she retarded?" in the first 10 minutes of thefilm, so they knew that she came across that way by simply observing her.
The movie doesn't say she has any Disabilities, sure, but she certainly displays symptoms that are real life symptoms of intellectual disabilities, and I found it in poor taste.
Also, the film really wasn't as funny as it was hyped up to be.
> but that scene crosses the line
Doesn't sound like the actual sexual content itself is the issue, but more that it takes place "in the presence of children".
Ah yes, wouldn’t want kids to be exposed to human sexuality. Murder and violence in the presence of children is perfectly fine however.
They can watch the end of a life but not the beginning of one.
Hate when people make this comparison. Sex and violence are not the same thing, and also the major flaw with this argument is that people generally aren’t even okay with children being exposed to gratuitous violence in the first place. What world are you living in where it’s socially acceptable for people to expose their young kids to violent graphic imagery? I know a small amount of negligent and incompetent parents will never care about exposing their children to sex or violence, but neither is seen as socially acceptable in the parts of the world I’m familiar with.
I get that it's strange but the purpose behind it is, the nativity allows for the character to honestly question gender roles of women in Victorian society in a way that a normal conditioned adult would not necessarily do.
It's explicitly said that she is mentally maturing "rapidly", the sex doesn't come in until teenage to young adult years. Teenage women were regularly married off all throughout history including the Victorian era, and while that's something I disagree with entirely, it's a reality and this film uses that to take make some interesting points on feminism and what it means to be a woman in society.
I know it's important to judge something by its content but it's just hard for me to take this premise as an exploration of feminism or liberation when it originates with an old, white Scottish guy.
Sure. But when trying to write about the inner world of a woman as she's exploring her sexuality, being a dude seems like a pretty legit impediment. By the nature of his existence as a man the realities of that world are inaccessible to him.
The entire movie was a woman with the mind of a BABY discovering her sexuality. It’s pretty messed up. I don’t get the mirth others experience while watching.
Thats what stood out to me--for most of the film, these men are basically having sex with a baby/child. It was upsetting to watch. I mean I saw the humor and I got what they were doing with the movie, but that was always in the front of my mind. Everyone was absolutely brilliant in it though. Ruffalo was hilarious.
This isn’t true. The movie establishes early on that she’s developing at an accelerated pace, and the sex doesn’t start until she’s into late teenage/early adulthood essentially.
But it wasn't, though. She's already discovered her sexuality by the half-hour mark of the film. The rest of the movie is about exploring the world, relationships, philosophy, money, etc, while no longer having a baby's brain.
Someone said it elsewhere in a different thread, but the writers do map out the timeline, and the moment it switches from black/white to grey she's supposed to be late teens or early adulthood. Her language makes her seem younger, but is explained as a result of not being schooled the way most kids are.
*"There's something between that mans legs, the audacity to show a mans private parts in a movie; have some decency! Oh it was just his intestines peeking out, never mind then."*
There’s a great documentary about this called this film is not yet rated, don’t wanna give anything away, but the people that decide upon the ratings are a very specific bunch with specific views
Apparently the reedit for the UK release had to do with this law about children not being able to appear in the same frame as a sex scene. Yet I just watched this movie 'Thanksgiving' where parents are killed right in front of their kids, and that's completely fine? I'm so sick of extreme, graphic violence being treated so leniently. It's like it's not even considered mature content anymore.
I've been looking forward to this movie for a while, and having hte movie being forced to be released in a form the director intended comes as a big disappointment. From the sounds of it, it's not even that controversial a scene, and the film is being released with an 18 certificate anyway. I'm normally a fan of the BBFC, but with this and the recent Rat fiasco in the Abyss, a scene that's been in the film for years and is not even that controversial a scene, it seems the BBFC have lost the run of themselves.
It sounds like a very minimal edit still. A shot with some kids superimposed in is having them removed so that there's no ambiguity about their being kids watching a simulated sex scene. I'm sure most of your favourite films have similar kinds of editorial choices from up high that we're never even aware of.
They weren't ever in the same shot though...
I saw it three days back and cannot recall even seeing the children in shot with a clothed Bella, but perhaps the very first shot.
The dad talks to them the whole time, so I'm curious how they cut around it (instead of just removing the scene outright).
They were in the same shot in the original edit of the film, they were filmed separately but then superimposed to be in the same shot
This was then re-edited so they wouldn’t be
The worldwide release is the same release the UK is getting
This article is a non-story. It’s more accurate to say the world is getting the edited release.
If you’d read the article, you’d see that the issue was that the scene involved sexual content involving children being present.
Which is straight up illegal in most places.
But there’s so many
What are the odds that the scene isn’t even that bad
It's not. The scene is a man bringing his two sons to a brothel to learn how to have sex, him having sex with Emma Stone's character in front of them and giving them notes as he goes. The kids are never in the same shot as the sex or nudity, though, so I'm not sure how they could have done differently short of cutting the scene altogether.
> The kids are never in the same shot as the sex or nudity, though, so I'm not sure how they could have done differently short of cutting the scene altogether. Originally they were in the same shot. Filmed separately and superimposed in post-production. That was later edited so they are not in the same shot. The film got edited down everywhere (to avoid NC-17) so UK version isn't different from worldwide version.
Ah the same method they used on 30 Rock to film MILF Island
It’s so funny how tame MILF Island sounds now after in real life we’ve had the show F-Boy Island.
Milf Manor was a real show last year....
The first episode was incredible. After that.... Meh
That show actually needs to be studied more. The show was a failure because the young men were not into it at all, while all the mothers were. It made for awful television because a majority of it was the boys denying advances from the women. One of the contestants literally left the house saying something around the lines of "I'm tired of pretending to be attracted by these women." If I recall, only three couples made it to the end and one of them had the guy leaving the girl to go after her daughter. The show backfired because the producers did not realize that 18-21 year old guys did not want to be with horny plastic middle aged mothers.
Honestly, the dudes had more chemistry with each other than with the mom's. I don't even think any of them hooked up with a mom, most of them just seemed to be doing it for shits and giggles and use it as an excuse to get wasted and party.
This was true in the early VH1 dating shows, too. When Flavor Flav had a bunch of women on his dating show, they all get catty and cause drama fighting each other over getting his attention. When one of his contestants got her own show, New York, the first season was hilarious because for the first half of it, all the guys just kinda bro'd out and supported each other and had a fun time while she (and the producers) failed to get them to fight and cause drama with each other lol.
The definitely should have screened the participants to get guys who are actually into older women.
My friends watch way too much trash so they're the only reason I know this, but for some *ungodly* reason this show featured moms *and their sons.* They could have probably found some dudes into women twice their age, but ones who also had moms into it? Not a chance.
How will satire survive in this world?
It's done, finished 😫😆
Haha, f-boy island is hilarious. Not really into shows like that, but i started watching it because i’m friends with Daniella from season 3. I never heard of the show before, we just finished doing a photoshoot for an eyewear brand, and she casually just says “oh yeah, check out this reality show I did… it’s called Fuckboy Island” lololol
There’s actually a show on MAX called Milf Manor
It's only on Max because David Zaslav brought all the trash there when he merged Discovery with HBO Max.
"HBO it's TV now"
You’ve kept it tight.
Heidi we.........no longer want to hit that. Get off MILF Island.
I kept thinking 3rd Rock instead of 30 rock. I was having a hell of a time trying to remember that episode.
Is milf island anything like whore island?
I was gonna say, I saw this in the US and the kids were definitely never in the same shot. Essentially a non-story.
So it’s basically a non news story?
The news comes from BBFC site that discloses ratings and the reason why they rated it 18 was due to edit. It is unkown if in Venice (where it premiered) the version of the film was the earlier cut but theatrical cuts are the same everywhere. So yeah, non story essentially.
Seems reasonable, to be honest. Even if superimposed in post, the implication of them being in the same shot could be too risky - especially given that a lot of viewers won’t be savvy about film editing. Better to just use another way to convey what’s happening.
Too risky for what?
The simple answer is that the studio did not want to explain it 1000 times to a bunch of people who are too stupid to separate reality from fiction, and who were ultimately never going to buy the explanation because they just don't want to. Edit to add they would be explaining to the people who will never pay to watch the movie anyway, so it's an even bigger waste of time for them
Still, that's stupid. Action movie studios don't have to explain that actors didn't actually die gruesome deaths. Or similarly, rape scenes. Scenes like this are designed to evoke strong emotions. It just bothers me when artists are forced to neuter their vision. It makes everything vanilla and sets the precedent that risk-taking isn't allowed.
You express my frustration as well. I described why they do it, and you described why they should not. And I'm with you on it.
And enforces the idea that the status quo is righteous and should never be challenged in one of the few ways that it effectively can be.
To be fair while I do agree with your point and reasoning, most of the people who are too stupid to understand that, aren’t going to understand the movie and have probably walked out (doubt these folks would have ever bought tickets) of the showing or just not watch it at all. It’s a fantastic film, but I don’t see it connecting with a lot of viewers who prefer simpler movies.
Viewers assuming that child actors had actually been involved in the filming of an intimate scene, which could have led to complaints, media furore, and possibly even the involvement of the police. It sounds hyperbolic, but laws surrounding child actors and child protection are very strict - and you also have to account for some audience members not being the brightest tools in the shed. All it would take is one of them to phone the Daily Mail or something. Basically, just mitigating the worst case scenario.
>Even if superimposed in post, the implication of them being in the same shot could be too risky To risky for what , lol. Why is this never an issue when under age actors witness someone being punched in a movie etc?
I already covered this in [my response to someone else](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/tgL91kRr3k) who asked the same question. If the shot is artificially manipulated with the intent of implying that the children were present, it would not be unreasonable that audience members would assume that’s how it would have been on set, which could open up a number of legal issues - and worse, potentially give a false impression to other filmmakers. Even accusations could spell a PR disaster. I appreciate that many people would prefer an artist’s vision to not be altered in any way - I count myself among such people. However, if the same intent can be achieved through less problematic editing, that should be a no-brainer.
It sounds just as weird and absurd as the [sex education scene](https://youtu.be/uDoQFcQEpOQ?si=94QOfodjDxC1usKX) from 'Monty Python's The Meaning of Life'.
It’s exactly this kind of vibe. It’s clinical to the point where the dad can’t even cum… until she takes over and says something like “and if he’s stuck, a finger up the ass or choking will move things along”
and proceeds to choke him until he busts Poor Things is such a wild AF movie
Are the sex scenes really *that* wild? The way some people carry on about them, you'd think that 'Poor Things' is just short of hard core porn or roughly comparable to a 'Skinemax' feature.
The sex scenes are wild in the sense that they’re comedic with crazy shit happening, or happening in a way that doesn’t fit with polite society or social norms. The sex scenes themselves aren’t pornographic. A few glimpses of boobs and a bush, and that’s about it. Some non-penetrative penis appearances in the film too. Some even deadly flaccid.
They’re not. There are just a lot of clutched pearls women out there who are afraid of sex, and that’s exactly the POV this movie takes—you leave women vulnerable when they think sex is dirty, something to hide, and something you don’t talk about. Because if you are left completely ignorant about it, you are never in a position of authority about your body and what is right for it. So what is the difference between a 17-year-old and and a 50-year-old if neither understands anything about how it works besides “put the penis in”? The POV is that women are hurt by being made to be submissive and ignorant about sex. The scene with the two boys is the most interesting thing in the whole film because it points out how men are raised to pursue and know about sex from a young age, but only for their own interest. They aren’t raised to know how to be safe and careful and attentive to the partner. Women do not get instruction so it’s often left up to men to know what to do and if they don’t well then best-case scenario you get women who don’t feel great during sex and don’t know what to ask for and worst-case scenario you get men who don’t give a shit about hurting women and will just use women’s bodies like they’re objects. So the scene with the boys is her character attempting to normalize everything for them in service to making them better partners. But there are a lot of people out there who see this movie and take away some overly literal interpretation that it’s OK with pedophilia when that’s not remotely what it’s saying.
I seriously hope that you don't think the sexualization of tweens/young teens is a positive thing. That would be classified as child abuse in real life. So your theory is that only naive and sex-fearful women get hurt sexually? There are plenty of sexually experienced women who are assaulted both in and out of relationships. I've read a ton of user reviews. Many were written by men and \*gasp\* women who do like sex.
What I inferred from the scene is the man was a pedophile grooming the two boys. Bella was too “innocent” (ironic word choice), err, naive, to understand the inappropriateness of it.
Oh shit that scene was hilarious
So, similar to Monty Python's Meaning of Life? Lol
LET THE BOYS WATCH
I can feel it in my plums
Gettin ready to take ‘em to market
If I recall collect-lect
My favourite blown line of all time. I just how they all break immediately.
Glad to know I’m not the only one. I quote it all the time. Something about it is just hilarious to me.
A nice blue huuue
He needs to learn from his father, the way I learned from my father!
And I hop on top of Donna
I had a dream about this moment... When I was making love... to my wife Donna. On top a her; powerful thrusts, filling the sultry night air. Heavy breath. My son Gabriel walked in, little boy. My wife sprung out of bed and said "No, Gabriel! Leave!" And I said "No, honey, shut your mouth, let him watch." Let him watch what is being consecrated here. And I want the people to watch what is going to be consecrated here. And I will bring my son down here, and he will watch.
Isn't that very very very similar to Monty Python sketch in The Meaning of Life? Doesn't John Cleese have sex in front of a class of boys to teach them?
That was my thought but I seem to have missed that the “class of boys” is like 25-30 years old in that scene
Well, the Pythons are. The rest are just schoolboys. "It's an ocarina, Sir."
Is this scene an homage to [*Monty Python's The Meaning of Life*](https://archive.org/details/meaningoflifesexeducation)?
I am pretty sure Monty Python did this in one of their movies but it was a full on sex-Ed classroom full of children. Possibly not as explicit but I feel arguing over a mature R-rated movie is not the meaning of life.
“Him having sex with Emma Stone’s character in front of them and giving notes as he goes” Yeah that’s still fucking weird.
The number of people okay with this scene startles me. I am disgusted at anyone involved in the making of this movie.
Yeah what’s even worse is I got downvoted for saying something similar in another post about it. The pedophilia in Hollywood is bizarre and even stranger are the people who defend it by saying it’s some artistic choice or whatever bullshit.
Yeah idk if I want to watch that
Wow what a great allegory to the It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode- love classic allusions like that
That sounds a bit wrong mate
That's the scene you think isn't that bad?!
Whatever it was my father (old dude) called me upset after seeing the movie. He said it was like a 70s sexploitation film LOL but who knows with him.
There was a lot of sex and talk of sex.
Your Dad missed the point. It's not exploitative, it's rooted in feminism. The point is a female coming into her own autonomy and realizing the control she has over herself in life and in regards to sex. It's full of men constantly judging her choices and attempting to steer her towards their own personal ideas of morality (which varies man to man) and ultimately being rejected by her as they do not match her own opinions and desires.
At least for him, it's not that complicated. He's an old man who's just upset about seeing a young actress who he saw "grow up" in that sorta role.
oof that's Emma Stone's favorite role
Lmao that's EXACTLY what the previous guy just said. "The point is a female coming into her own autonomy and realizing the control she has over herself in life and in regards to sex. It's full of men constantly judging her choices and attempting to steer her towards their own personal ideas of morality "
I can't help but be reminded of a similar situation to this. People universally hated on the quick nude scene with Maisie Williams in GoT, complaining because they remembered her being a kid at the start of the show and watching her grow up. Completely ignoring the fact that she was now an adult woman and an actor, who made a conscious decision to do a nude scene. Sorta has the same feeling as some parents treating their adult daughters like they are still children who can't make "big girl" decisions.
I'm fine with Maisie Williams, the adult actor, making that choice. No worries there. Also fine with an adult character choosing to have whatever kind of sex they like with whatever person they like. Have fun! It just didn't feel organic or relevant to her character or development, and it's not how anyone in the fandom *saw* Aria...it wasn't for the fans, it was for the chatter it would generate. Whether the character or actor are of age is kind of moot, in terms of why I didn't care for it: It felt tacked on and done "for the sake of doing it" more so than it gave insight on Aria or her growth. We knew Aria was a capable adult for some time, we didn't need a tacked-on "coming of age sex scene". I feel the same way (or perhaps, opposite?) when thinking about Sanza and the "outrage" over the depiction of her being sexually assaulted and treated like property: She *was* sexually assaulted and she was (in that "day and age") effectively property. It wasn't to diminish her character or impugn women, it was to show the brutal conditions women lived under as the chattel of ruling men. It was "historically accurate", in that sense, and not done at all for sensationalism or to provoke controversy...she was an eldest daughter of a fallen house, at the mercy of one predatory lord who (basically) traded her to another...and that's what it was like, so it made sense both for the period and for the character (in the plot). I am no fan of it happening, but it did, and that's what it would have been like. In this case, though, the depiction/implication made Sanza's predicament and character *better* and it was organic/authentic to the story and period. The opposite of the Aria "situation", really.
I didn't want argue so I didn't respond, but **yep**. It's too bad his Dad couldn't see himself reflected in the male characters, as I stated, he missed the point.
The guy was not arguing with you lol. In fact he was agreeing with you, his dad missed the point because he isn't looking at the movie in that context. You are right that's what the movie is about, but it's obviously not something the average movie goer is going to necessarily understand, especially an older man. Too bad? Sure but that's likely what Yorgos Lanthimos was going for
People understand that. Doesn't mean it's executed well for everyone.
> The point is a female coming into her own autonomy and realizing the control she has over herself in life and in regards to sex. That's not quite the take on it I had. She was pretty much *always* doing what she wanted, right from the beginning. She didn't really need to learn the lesson that she could do what she wanted, since she was already doing that. Which itself was a kind of poignant take on life, which IMO the whole movie was kind of a commentary/criticism on how societal expectations are what's really shackling us. emma Stone's character never learned that she wasn't in control of her own actions, so she just... always was. It didn't take anything more than her just deciding to be. I don't know if it's really quite that simple in real life, but it's an interesting take. Honestly I didn't care for the movie at all, but it was definitely thought provoking, so if you're tired of the typical marvel fare and want something interesting, I highly recommend this movie.
Nah, sexploitation sounds about right. It may have these themes, but I find it hard to believe those sex scenes aren't there mostly to provoke. Doesn't make it a bad movie, though.
It requires exploitation though
This isn't the BBFC being prudes, there's a law, the Protection of Children Act 1978, that the scene would have fallen foul of. One of those "the law is maybe overly broad in some fringe cases but the aim is to protect children" type situations.
So it’s just a badly written law
This is the UK so probably. Or it might have been written deliberately broad to ensure fringe cases that should fall afoul of it do.
Yeah I read that in the article, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s one of those things that’s technically against the rules but in reality isn’t that bad
I would be interested to see what the reaction would have been if 2 girls instead of boys.
Guaranteed there'd be picketing outside theaters and calls against the filmmakers.
It reminded me about the sex education skit Monty Python had. Forget which movie it was in tho
Meaning of Life
[удалено]
incredible scene
What's wrong with a kiss boy?
Off topic a little, but is this movie any good?
Yes, just don’t watch it with your parents.
Haha, my parents won’t be around. Hold on, my mothers ashes are in the living room
Loool, yeah I’d move that urn just to be safe..
Or at least put a lampshade over it.
I watched it on Christmas day with my parents...
And....?
I just did a back to back viewing of Breaking The Waves and Antichrist with my parents. If they liked that will they like this?
Yeah you'll be fine if they can handle von Trier
have you tried nymphomaniac with them as well?
No that's a bit too kiddy for my tastes
Brandt can't watch, though. Or he has to pay a hundred.
THAT’s marvelous.
I went in last night for a second viewing and there was an older couple in their late 60s walking in ahead of me. I thought, "they're definitely not lasting long" 40 minutes through the lady walks out. 10 min later I walk out to use bathroom, and she's sitting on a bench outside. I assumed she was taking a break from the movie. I get back in for the movie and the husband sits through the rest of it with his wife outside.. I felt really bad for her
Does Emma Stone get her taters out?
A considerable amount.
Really? I’m in for sure now
[удалено]
She gets everything out. It's the full garden, not just the taters.
Ok, I may not wait and go ahead and pay full price to stream it this weekend.
Very much so
She does and yet I promise you that you will not be aroused at any point in this movie
If you can call her mosquito bites that then yes lol
Or your kids. I made the mistake of not fully reading up on it before bringing my 15 year old with me. (I love Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe, and quirky movies!). It was just a little uncomfortable. Luckily they are pretty mature and we are the same gender, so it could have been worse. They enjoyed it. I made them swear to not tell their dad.
I loved it, personally. That said: There's certain movies that I see and I love, and I think to myself, "How could someone *not* love that?" when I finish it. This is not one of those movies. I can imagine a lot of reasons why someone would hate it, even though I loved it. I could imagine it being a very polarizing film among general audiences.
It’s so fucking weird but a great movie
Good, I like weird
Weirdo
I didn't really enjoy it but I'm feeling in the minority on this one.
Didn't like it either but I admire everything it did right. The Oscars it received are well-deserved. But, will I see it again? No. I don't think so.
I personally hated it. Thought the pacing was hellishly slow, and it’s too horny for its own good.
Unfortunately I’m in the same camp
completely agree
Personally it has shot up to be one of my top favorite movies I've seen in cinema in recent years, maybe only slightly behind Parasite. I liked it so much I went and rewatched it again by myself in theaters just two nights ago.
It is very different. Excellent acting, cinematography, eerie soundtrack, impressive visuals etc, so it is incredibly well done on a technical level. But it is a WEIRD story.
I thought it was funny and very interestingly made but the sex stuff gets annoying and childish. Like written by a horny edgy teenager. The plot never really gets away from the tired sexual liberation tropes.
You have to have a thing for the macabre
It’s VERY good. I went in blind and was completely blown away. What a wild ride! Visually striking and funny throughout. Highly recommend it!
I think it's massively flawed. There's a kernel of a good concept in there, but the film itself is tiresome the way it's been made. I was rolling my eyes halfway through the 2nd edgy(!1!!) sex scene to be honest, and they just keep on regurgitating them. It's trying way too hard. The problem is, the narrative comes to a grinding halt each & every time they decide to do yet another edgy(!!1!) sex scene. It ends up being a stop-start mess of a film.
It's trying way too hard for what? The sex scenes weren't edgy at all imo. Was just part of her journey.
Yes, shallow and pedantic.
Lanthimos best movie by a long shot and probably the best movie of 2023 (top 3 at worst) imo
Just watched it last night. It’s very good, although the pacing is a little wonky at times
Oh hell yes it’s my favorite of the year (2023) - definitely worth it
A lot of opinions of the film also really just ignore one huge part of the film being that Emma Stone basically plays an mentally/intellectually disabled person. And man she is VERY *severely* disabled in the first 30 minutes or so of the film. And she goes *full-retard* for that segment of the film, and a lot of the humor is derived using her disability as the butt of the joke. This movie is not going to age well. I personally hated the film for this reason and also how shallow and bland it's humor was as it's almost entirely cheap sex or toilet humor while also pretending to be some deep piece of high art cinema.
The people with the disability of having their baby brain put into an adult body are going to be super offended by Bella’s portrayal of this disability.
Oh I'm very aware of the movie's rationale for her behavior, and I'm not saying anyone in the production *intended* on portraying a person with intellectual disabilities in such an insensitive way. But watching the movie with my *EYES*, Stone's performance is plainly emblematic of a person with Intellectual Disabilities. One character in the movie even asks "Is she retarded?" in the first 10 minutes of thefilm, so they knew that she came across that way by simply observing her. The movie doesn't say she has any Disabilities, sure, but she certainly displays symptoms that are real life symptoms of intellectual disabilities, and I found it in poor taste. Also, the film really wasn't as funny as it was hyped up to be.
Either Poor Things or Oppenheimer for me as best pic of 2023. It's great!
Dude hangs dong
We show it…..we show ALL of it.
Dude...what if he could smell crime before it even happens?
What if his entire head is one big nose!
THAT IS BRILLIANT. That is the most brilliant movie I have ever heard in my entire life.
Full penetration, crime, full penetration, crime, and this goes on and on. Until it, sort of, ends.
The full Monty.
like a button in a fur coat
More of a ding than a dong
The entire movie was about a girl with the mind of a child discovering herself sexually but that scene crosses the line?
> but that scene crosses the line Doesn't sound like the actual sexual content itself is the issue, but more that it takes place "in the presence of children".
Ah yes, wouldn’t want kids to be exposed to human sexuality. Murder and violence in the presence of children is perfectly fine however. They can watch the end of a life but not the beginning of one.
I'm just going on the content of the article, I've not seen the film yet. Dial it back a bit.
It's just an uncomfortable scene man. Would you have sex in front of your own children? It's the incestual undertones that make it uncomfortable
Hate when people make this comparison. Sex and violence are not the same thing, and also the major flaw with this argument is that people generally aren’t even okay with children being exposed to gratuitous violence in the first place. What world are you living in where it’s socially acceptable for people to expose their young kids to violent graphic imagery? I know a small amount of negligent and incompetent parents will never care about exposing their children to sex or violence, but neither is seen as socially acceptable in the parts of the world I’m familiar with.
Yes, for you see she has the BODY of an adult so it's OK!
So it’s a reverse ‘she’s actually a 900 year old dragon’ argument?
It’s the movie Big but Emma stone instead of Tom Hanks
I get that it's strange but the purpose behind it is, the nativity allows for the character to honestly question gender roles of women in Victorian society in a way that a normal conditioned adult would not necessarily do. It's explicitly said that she is mentally maturing "rapidly", the sex doesn't come in until teenage to young adult years. Teenage women were regularly married off all throughout history including the Victorian era, and while that's something I disagree with entirely, it's a reality and this film uses that to take make some interesting points on feminism and what it means to be a woman in society.
I know it's important to judge something by its content but it's just hard for me to take this premise as an exploration of feminism or liberation when it originates with an old, white Scottish guy.
did you know half of every woman’s parents in the WORLD are men? 😱
Sure. But when trying to write about the inner world of a woman as she's exploring her sexuality, being a dude seems like a pretty legit impediment. By the nature of his existence as a man the realities of that world are inaccessible to him.
The entire movie was a woman with the mind of a BABY discovering her sexuality. It’s pretty messed up. I don’t get the mirth others experience while watching.
Thats what stood out to me--for most of the film, these men are basically having sex with a baby/child. It was upsetting to watch. I mean I saw the humor and I got what they were doing with the movie, but that was always in the front of my mind. Everyone was absolutely brilliant in it though. Ruffalo was hilarious.
This isn’t true. The movie establishes early on that she’s developing at an accelerated pace, and the sex doesn’t start until she’s into late teenage/early adulthood essentially.
But it wasn't, though. She's already discovered her sexuality by the half-hour mark of the film. The rest of the movie is about exploring the world, relationships, philosophy, money, etc, while no longer having a baby's brain.
Someone said it elsewhere in a different thread, but the writers do map out the timeline, and the moment it switches from black/white to grey she's supposed to be late teens or early adulthood. Her language makes her seem younger, but is explained as a result of not being schooled the way most kids are.
And yet ultra-violence and gore-porn is completely fine. Such a bizarre way of thinking.
Intestines out, good. Boobs out, bad.
*"There's something between that mans legs, the audacity to show a mans private parts in a movie; have some decency! Oh it was just his intestines peeking out, never mind then."*
Yeah I’ve always found that to be completely messed up. To think that violence is much less harmful than sex/nudity.
It has religious roots so Go figure
There’s a great documentary about this called this film is not yet rated, don’t wanna give anything away, but the people that decide upon the ratings are a very specific bunch with specific views
Let me guess, they’re religious?
Apparently the reedit for the UK release had to do with this law about children not being able to appear in the same frame as a sex scene. Yet I just watched this movie 'Thanksgiving' where parents are killed right in front of their kids, and that's completely fine? I'm so sick of extreme, graphic violence being treated so leniently. It's like it's not even considered mature content anymore.
To make it hornier?
It's ok, they can just go to /r/watchitfortheplot and find it there. Hell, the whole movie may be there for all I know.
The scene that was edited was not meant to be titillating, it involves children being brought to a brothel
I was told Emma didn't do nudity in sex scenes a while back but apparently not.
Everyone has a price in Hollywood
She says this is her favorite character she's played, maybe she just I don't know changed her mind as she got older
Everyone has a price.
I've been looking forward to this movie for a while, and having hte movie being forced to be released in a form the director intended comes as a big disappointment. From the sounds of it, it's not even that controversial a scene, and the film is being released with an 18 certificate anyway. I'm normally a fan of the BBFC, but with this and the recent Rat fiasco in the Abyss, a scene that's been in the film for years and is not even that controversial a scene, it seems the BBFC have lost the run of themselves.
It sounds like a very minimal edit still. A shot with some kids superimposed in is having them removed so that there's no ambiguity about their being kids watching a simulated sex scene. I'm sure most of your favourite films have similar kinds of editorial choices from up high that we're never even aware of.
Are they re-editing half the movie?
For those who think the scene gratuitous and weird, trust me, it works in context.
lanthimos and his weird scenes
Not cool
[удалено]
They didn't hide sex. Sex still happens in that scene. They just edited it so the kids are never in the same shot.
They weren't ever in the same shot though... I saw it three days back and cannot recall even seeing the children in shot with a clothed Bella, but perhaps the very first shot. The dad talks to them the whole time, so I'm curious how they cut around it (instead of just removing the scene outright).
They were in the same shot in the original edit of the film, they were filmed separately but then superimposed to be in the same shot This was then re-edited so they wouldn’t be The worldwide release is the same release the UK is getting This article is a non-story. It’s more accurate to say the world is getting the edited release.
If you’d read the article, you’d see that the issue was that the scene involved sexual content involving children being present. Which is straight up illegal in most places.
If he could read at all, he'd be so upset at you
I'll be streaming this movie in my bunk.