Advertisement
Forget trying to maneuver your way through all the mixed reactions to Watchmen crowding the interweb today. There’s only one question you need to answer, apparently, in order to make up your mind whether or not to see the highly anticipated adaptation: are you okay with a massive blue penis in an R-rated comic book movie, or will you be offended and demand an apology from the MPAA? Over at the site Movieguide, which is partnered with The Christian Film & Television Commission, organization chairman and “spokesmen” (is he multiple people?) Dr. Ted Baehr is quoted as saying Watchmen should have received an NC-17 rating for its constant display of male anatomy, and he claims the MPAA has agreed to bring the complaint to their ratings board. And finally, with the defensive against nudity being necessary to any film, Baehr says, “After all, would ‘Casablanca’ become an even better work of art if the script contained a bunch of “f” words, or if Ingrid Bergman appeared completely nude? Definitely not!”
Well, personally I wouldn’t have a problem if Bogie cursed a lot, though I agree that Bergman was always great despite always having her clothes on. As for the blue penis issue, though, I have to remind folks that blue-skinned nudity is not the same as realistic flesh-colored nudity, and that whether it’s Rebecca Romijn in the X-Men films or a digital replica of Billy Crudup in Watchmen or the eagerly awaited Smurfette shower scene in Sony’s upcoming Smurfs movie, the ratings board will likely be okay with it. As will most anyone else that doesn’t have a lame obligation to excessively puritanical groups like the CFTVC.
Sample quotes and links from those internerds who disagree with Baehr, as well as some who actually agree, after the jump:
Surely there has to be a difference between just seeing sexual organs and watching them in action. That very difference separates a movie like Last Tango in Paris from a skin flick like Yank My Doodle, It’s A Dandy. It seems like since the ‘50s, America has been embroiled in penis prohibition.
The Baehr brethren:
Water’s wet, the sky is blue, and “Watchmen” is marketing to kids.
Sure there may be the rare straggler every once in a while, but you go to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and it’s like opening a hothouse filled with hungry baby chicks. For or against a film, they all sound alike because they all think alike. When it comes to film, Debbie and I don’t always agree, but I like her style, and love that she’s out there. Score one for diversity.
The problems with R ratings, is that they’re “Adult supervision required”, and are usually applied when only one of “graphic sex” “full frontal nudity” “realistic sadism” “exploding bloody messes” “attempted rape” “adult language” or “soft-core porn” exists. _All_ of these exist throughout Watchmen, so it really should have been rated NC-17 “No one under 17, ever”.
In the last 20 minutes of the film someone has seen fit to cut the movie like a 4 year old on a sugar-rush– The problem? A giant glowing blue penis of a certain character (who just happens to be a main character); this means that any full-body shots of him are cut (along with any narrative/audio) which in turn leads to a highly confusing last 20 minutes.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
What’s the big deal? It’s a penis. All us guys have one. Yes, this one is computer generated, and generous, so what’s the problem? It’s about time we got over our puritanical ancestors and got with the 21st century. John did not engage in gratuitous sex with it, or use it as a weapon. So, my take on it? Get over it.
get over the penis, hell i liked checkin out, for once someone isn’t affraid to show a male nude. you wouldn’t be saying this if they showed full frontal nudity of a woman would you. Or were you first in line on Fatal Attraction. Have you never looked in the mirror. or are you ashamed of your own nudity. A film is art, leave it at that. if you don’t like it dont watch it.
The Watchmen was amazing. Leave it the way it is. Casablanca was never made to contain the “f” word. The watchmen was made how it was for a reason. It was an act of art, if you don’t like it…then don’t watch it.
I wouldn’t disagree with giving it an NC-17… on the basis of its violence! Honestly, really… you’re watching that degree of graphic, sometimes sadistic, violence and it’s a PENIS that offends you?? Where are their priorities?
What gets me most irked about these kinds of complaints are the underlying gender issues in them. We see movies with naked women so frequently - even in PG-13 films - but how often do we see these groups appealing to the MPAA over that? It’s this inherent idea that A) women’s bodies are something for the public taking, and, B) we must remain vigilant on preserving a young woman’s “purity”. Even though, in this context, it was completely within context and utterly benign, heaven forbid a young girl take a glimpse of male genitalia belonging to an otherwise flattering physique. This might ignite sexual arousal! Oh no!
This movie is another example of the double standard against males in reference to frontal nudity. Male genitals are spewed everywhere these days in movies, plays, HBO newer series, and now even in video games. The problem thus becomes why is America afraid of displaying the vulva ? This piece of garbage of a film could have shown female frontal nudity in the sex scenes but again choose not to. All these directors/writers/producers did was to continue the double standard bias against males. It is long past the time for males to demand as much female exposure as male exposure when it comes to frontal nudity and I am not speaking of just showing breasts. So, why is everyone afraid to show the vulva but yet they seem to enjoy showing the penis ?
Eh, I think that the rated “R” thing should have been enough of a warning for the parents. I think it’s ridiculous that parents are ok with taking their kids to see films rated R to begin with. It’s even more ridiculous that people are more up in arms over the nudity & the sex than they are with the extremely gruesome violence in the film. It’s ok to watch a guy beat the snot out of another guy & kill him, yet it’s not ok to view nudity & a sex scene?
Also, as far as the “toys” go… I’ve seen those. They’re more marketed to the fanboys & fangirls than to kids. They’re about as much a play figure as the action figures of Kill Bill were. (And yes, they made them.) They were made to be collected, not to be played with. If the toy stores wish to purchase them in bulk & market them towards kids, that’s the choice of the toy stores. At no point was this film ever marketed in a way that I would consider aimed towards children. It’s just that the parents saw “comic book” & “superhero” & assumed that it meant “kid friendly”. Those are the same parents who probably sat with their kids to watch Family Guy or South Park, then got upset that it wasn’t appropriate.
Tim1974,
“All these directors/writers/producers did was to continue the double standard bias against males.”
What?
It wasn’t the fact the the penis was in the movie that bugged me. It was that it was in scene after scene after scene. Some scenes, the character wore a suit, other he wore a codpiece. I simply don’t understand why the character didn’t wear covering more often. It was simply a strong distraction.
As for the comments about it not flailing about or whatever - there is a specific scene where the character runs up a flight of stairs, and it bounces around. So there.
And if he could have manipulated all matter in the universe, why not give himself a bigger one?
As for Tim1974 - yeah, I want to see more vulva! (NOT)
I wonder if it would have been a more or less controversial issue than the penis if they had left in all of the smoking that was in the graphic novel. And after the afore mentioned list of “graphic sex” “full frontal nudity” “realistic sadism” “exploding bloody messes” “attempted rape” “adult language” or “soft-core porn” why not just leave the smoking in as well???
The fact that people get more upset about a blue penis rather than the graphic violence in the film says alot about our culture and its priorities.
Ha! Couldn’t agree with you more Christopher. This is typical cynical puritanical nonsense. It also rather makes a mockery of their campaign to attack a film like Watchmen purely because it’s a high-profile piece of filmmaking. There are surely numerous smaller films released every year with penis shots, not to mention the deluge of female nudity on tv and film every day. It just smacks of desperation to complain about the Watchmen flick, simply because they know they will get publicity as a result.
I just thought it was ridiculous. The question is: Is it necessary? Is it necessary to show any nudity, be it male or female, in a major motion picture? I suppose that we have to break taboos in thisculture. I suppose that we have to remain high-minded and say it’s no big deal. I suppose we have to labor through the ‘everyone has one’ lines that inundate our culture when someone complains about the latest block being pulled from the foundation of our culture. Is it necessary in a major motion picture that involves super heroes though? When do we stop shrugging this stuff off and say enough? When do we say, you can save all this for a drama where we enter with the expectation that this may occur, but leave certain movies out of it…for the enjoyment purposes of those of us who aren’t into breaking down the culture. We just want to see a decent action flick. At the end of the day, I don’t think this movie was great, and I think it may have been the distraction that caused me to think that. I think that that people of this film knew this, and they hoped that the distraction would generate enough publicity that no one would talk about the fact that it was merely decent.
Dr. Manhattan walks around nude because he’s lost his humanity. While he dresses up at the funeral and when he’s on camera (probably because Laurie tells him to), clothing and modesty are things he just doesn’t consider important. Just clearing that up for the people who were wondering why.
I liked the fact that the filmmakers had, if you’ll excuse me, the balls to put everything from the graphic novel up on the big screen. Yep, they could’ve taken out this aspect of the character. They also could’ve cut out the sex scenes and the heavy violence and the swearwords… or those who are whinging about it could just go and see Madagascar 2.
In my mind, the one failing of the filmmakers was the promotion for the movie. It came off in the ads as just another superhero flick, another Spiderman or X-Men, and therefore people were expecting roughly the same level of sex and violence. Rilaly - it wasn’t just another action flick, just as the graphic novel wasn’t just another comic book.
For those who are not aware, one of the things that made the original Watchmen comic series so popular (if not, notoriety) was the less than sensible and “traditional” depictions of comic book superheroes: Moore and Gibbons did not hold anything back in their series, including the violence, and yes, the graphic nudity– all in all, to depict comic characters that were more human (flawed, fallible, morally incorrigible) in a universe that was darker than your sunshine-laden Metropolis.
That’s one of the primary reasons why the series received such critical acclaim. Zack Synder got it and anything watered-down would be an insult to the original vision. To the nay-say critics who were up in arms about the nudity 30 years ago and to the ones still holding on to their rigid moral compass today — PLEASE think outside of your boxes and GET OVER IT.
It really isn’t a big deal. Not to anyone sane, that is. The only reason that I’m so surprised myself (and thus, found this article) is that it’s totally unexpected, coming from american cinema. I’m european myself though, and over here this kind of thing is nothing. (ignoring the English. they are whiners. just kidding. but not really)
So yeah, I agree with many other commenters here: Get over it!
I thought the blue wang wasn’t all that bad. Heck, they show female frontal nudity pretty often, and not even CGI! Why so much offense at a blue computer generated penis?
I don’t understand the shock-its based on a graphic novel.
I think its high time that penises are shown in movies.the female genital has far gone been exploited to much.Give male full frontal nudity equal coverage.Naked is naked.There is nothing wrong with an animated penis.now bring in the real ones ,and stop cutting male full frontal nude scenes!
Sorry Bernard but you are way off. Apparently you haven’t seen many movies in the Cinema lately or watch much HBO. It is the other way around. You see nothing but penis these days and very little female frontal or even female backside. Directors only want to show penis and boobs these days. Go watch “The Reader” there was more actual flesh penis in that movie then I’d rather see for the rest of my life.
If I can further add something to where I was quoted above…
IT WASN’T SEXUAL. It’d be one thing if it were part of a graphic sex scene. It was not. Instead, it was a statement about the character — an IMPORTANT statement — that he was beyond such petty concerns such as whether the sight of a penis would offend someone.
What irony.
Get over the whole PENIS thing, the movie is rated R. Yes it was made after a comic book series. However, I’m pretty sure the series was just as graphic. Parents can’t say they weren’t warned… Hello it’s rated R. Would you bring your kid to see 300? Also why do so many people get bent out of shape when the male anatomy is shown? How many movies flash a woman’s boobs or give a quick crotch shot? (pretty stupid question most movies do) What makes showing a male’s penis any different from a woman’s chest or vagina? The saying goes if you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all, they just come in different colors and sizes. The one in the movie happened to be blue and probably above average. Makes me wonder if all the straight men are getting a complex about size and that is the real issue. Well guess what… someone is always going to have a bigger one than you get over it. The movie rating was fine for what it showed. And why isn’t the sex scene a concern and the graphic nature of the climax? I personally feel that could be consider much more offensive than a naked body.
Having sat through the lengthy CGI and full-body-suit opus of “Watchmen,” I was surprised it was not …worse. The nude Crudup was as much a distraction as it was a novelty, which I think is what got the pundits wagging: Short of soft- or hard-core visits to ’scratch theatre’ venues, most filmgoers are just never confronted with male anatomy at all, even for a fleeting shot or so.
But for all the hoopla, “Batman” was far more pretentious and high-flown philosophy and less satisfying on a number of levels than this amusing animation of a cartoon/comic acne-faced classic. The sex scene between Silk and a non-Dr. Manhattan ’superhero’ seemed entirely gratuitous, however attractive Laura/Silk was, dressed in Spandex or not. She is very comely, though acting in a different genre than the rest of the characters seem to be.
One kept comparing this greenscreen, stuntman-studded opus (the credit roll at the end was massive, on a par with “Star Wars,” with no fewer than three dozen stuntpeople listed) with the electrifyingly real, warts-and-beauty-all unhomogenized films of Ivan Passer and Jan Sikl, masters of the Czech New Wave, and the gritty Russian and French films screened at the Walter Reade French cinema series just completed.
Hollywood spends profligately, secure in the certitude that US audiences are but a patch of worldwide potential audiences, most of which will go to this film because of the “Flash Gordon”-update of glitzy set designs, nearly ludicrous costumery, and the massive, scary, destructive radiation and brimstone and nuclear blasts that rend the screen with char-broiled regularity. Crudup keeps his cool, as does Rohrschach (the ink-stained moving mask of one of the more intriguing characters).
The nub of it is, nude organs or no, familiar Bob Dylan, Simon/Garfunkel and Philip Glass soundtrack or no, the key to the film is not the actors or even the performances. The chosen watchkids of “Watchmen” will be–R or NC-17 rating or not–teens all over the globe.
For $180 mm, the deft director of “300″ has created a one-size-fits-all fantasy that closely follows the graphic novel it portrays fairly faithfully. Though it will necessitate at least $400 mm to make a penny back on its initial investment, smart money is that the hype generated beforehand, the years of waiting, the ample anatomical endowment of the protagonist on view, and the undeniable sci-fi bang for the movie buck it delivers to teen targets is probably a good bet. Even if it takes anachronistic leaps, the occasional script line-readings are bottom-drawer, and the celebrity look-alikes don’t, really, resemble their eponymous originals. Richard Nixon’s prosthetic nose, for instance, could pass for Cyrano in drag, and the villain, Viedt, is really too much the pretty-boy to inhabit his nemesis evildoer self properly. Here, ‘Kissinger’ looks fairly accurate, though after a major diet has carved off his girth.
A revisit to the film is probably a good idea, so one may concentrate on the cohesiveness –or otherwise–of the script and fabricking of the plot.
One can hardly wait for the next animated feature from the halls of graphic derring-don’t.
I saw the “dick” and it gave me a chuckle..and made me envious. LOL
I did pop over and read Debbie Schlussel’s review and some of the comments on her blog. If you get a chance go through and read her responses to the posters. She is one of the most vile and hateful cunts I have ever seen. Fucking right wingers, if they’re offended then you have to be offended.
ABOUT TIME! look at american pie! there are nude girls EVERYWHERE breasts and vagina’s. Men you see torso up, and their butt. no one was offended by THOSE. now a penis is on screen OMG!
Within the last year in American mainstream movies, there has been much more male frontal nudity than female frontal nudity. I don’t care about the male nudity, but I think it is time for equal amounts of female frontal nudity. I am so sick of hearing that since breasts were shown then that equals showing a man’s genitals. Noooooooooooooo Genitals are equal to genitals. And, this film displays the double standard. They have a naked man walking around exposed for much of the film. They could have at least shown a female frontally nude ,during the sex scenes, and chose not to. That is a double standard that has shown itself in American mainstream movies. Pathetic !
Yes!!!!! I thought Watchmen was great. The big blue Penus was awesome. I have been sitting through movies for years with my husband while he drools over gorgeous nude women. The tables have finally turned my friend. IT IS MY TIME TO DROOL!!! lol
Seriously, it is R rated so I don’t think anyone should be surprised or shocked or offended, the ratings clearly state nudity. As far as kids seeing it? My son knows what his Penus looks like and unless we are taking about little kids that shouldn’t belong there in the first place…what is the big deal, besides the big blue deal?
Okay, first of all, “The Big Blue Cock” is purely gratuitous, it doesn’t even show up that much in the graphic novel, it was “inserted’ (so to speak,) just for shock value and to drag out commentaries like this one.
Secondly, if you’re an atomic guy, reassembling your corpus from a bunch of molecules, what would you even need a cock for? You don’t have to pee, it would be an environmental disaster! And you’re not going to procreate the “old fashioned way”.
Finally, “The Big Blue Cock” and the overly long sex scenes (and I’m not complaining when it comes to Malin Ackerman!) were put in to please the under-sexed, hairy palmed Fanboys who went so ga-ga over Watchmen in the first place. What other movie of this type, (or any type not starring Evan Stone and Stormy Daniels!) has sex scenes in it as drawn out as this? Again, even the novel left more to the imagination, which is where it was meant to be in the first place.
Dr. Manhattan, keep it where it’s supposed to be, in the tachysphere!
I saw the movie and watched as adults came in with several children ranging in ages 10-14. The movie starts out with violence, rape and the “F” bomb. This did not seem to effect these parents, but when the penis showed up they immediatley stood up an left. What does this tell you. The sight of frontal male nudity is forbidden when all the rest of the action is tollerable. Give me a break.
I have no problem with male nudity on the screen, I was just shocked at how big it was. I may be on the smaller side of average but that thing looked like it was 5 to 6″ long, making his thing bigger than mine is hard. Look I’ve seen plently of guys in the lockerroom and maybe 1 out of 100 has one that big. I think it gives a false impression of what an average scholong looks like. In the comic book he was much smaller.
mmm i dont mind it but its kinda understandable that some people would get mad especially becuase comic book movies attract children. and true its the parents fault if they let them watch it but kids always have found ways to get around their rules.
always the same people who catch themselves focussing on genitals.
they just can’t handle their own feelings
Why is it that only americans stumble over these things?? GROW THE FCUK UP!!
When they start showing the vulva as much as the penis, let’s talk again. The double standard continues to exisit against males. Why are people so afraid of showing and seeing the vulva ?????
Female nudity has always been shown but it’s usually breasts and not a vagina. I’m sorry ladies that the world views a man’s chest differently from yours but breasts do not equal a penis. There will be no equality until Hollywood starts giving vaginas equal screen time. With that being said, the real problem here is how America views nudity. Europe is way more open to showing it all for men and women. That also includes explicit sex scenes folks. I think the MPAA is attempting to desensitize Americans so they can take things even further. The future of movies should be quite interesting.
Anyone asking why is there no nude full frontal nudity (labia/vulva/clitoris) in movies (at least none rated R)? Are women embarrassed of their bodies or is it just simply a double standard (my guess is both)?
thanks
i just saw the movie on dvd. perhaps some full frontal female nudity in the movie would have been nice to see as well. it’s like the only nude women you see these days are in something illicit or just boobs. Does America have a fear of the vagina monologues? Watchmen used male nudity because it’s the “in thing” for bringing in the bucks, just in case the plot sucks.
Look there was more penis scenes then fight scenes thats fudging disturbing. if they would have done it sparingly yeah but that shit was all over the place. 4 penisis at a time.
[...] Manhattan’s penis sent many conservative critics and movi… into a rant-filled panic. Never mind [...]
[...] one of the most necessary uses of nudity (fake flesh at that), Manhattan’s penis sent many conservative critics and moviegoers into a rant-filled panic. Never mind the fact that he’s a full-stop superhero who is naked, [...]
Enough’s enough, we don’t need to see male genitals in movies!
Note to directors….
Contrary to what you seem to think, most of us women do NOT want to see a penis when we go to the theater to see a movie. It’s gross and disgusting and it needs to stop already!!!
It is about time we have a man exposed throughout a film, doesn’t happen very often. Don’t get me wrong, I love boobs, but that is what porn for. Women don’t always need to be exposed in dumb “comedy” movies. A movie can be great with out nudity. This definitely should have been rated NC-17.
It is crazy how you can show women named but not men. I feel that this is because men are so crazy about the size of their penis that they don’t want their wife/girlfriend to see any other penis and be able to compare. Right this makes complete sense to me. what do you think?
People who complain here that most movies don’t show female nudity anymore, go watch a porno.
And those who complain about general nudity in movies, don’t watch them and go back to your boxes, pray at your church.
A woman here said that male nudity is disgusting…
That’s why most men are becoming gays… you women don’t like sex and then you complain when your husbands find another woman or man to fulfill their needs. Check in the mirror, my friends.
I think Gays and they maker ‘Feminism’ successfully bring a man sexual exploitation era… Dont’ give me wrong I have this simple concept “MAN IS BASTARD” and “WOMAN IS BITCH” BECAUSE “Man Have Balls”, “Woman Have a Breast”!!!
so keep it that way its a healthy gender concept of creation!
Cause if you all following this “Feminism Culture”(you know, a desperation movement ,of understanding that womanhood is something weak and ugly, and manhood is something strong and good so “you girls must be like a man!, do what they do! mimic their habit!” and finally make them boys taste this ugly womanhood weakness!).
Then freaky eventually “girls would grow a balls, and loosing their breast (by cancers??)” and “boys would grow a breast and loosing their balls (by culture??)”! Mark that words! and try to look around if you don’t trust me.. It’s very logic isn’t? That is why i NEED TO said to you all “STOP SCREWING WITH NATURE!!!” Gay and Feminist should be wiped out from this dying blue earth, cause, logically it would damage the both side of gender! make them become a mutan freaks!
And finally stop screwing the cinema by injecting a nude and sexual culture, cause it would make much more bitchy and slutty potential for the next generation,.. born with fucked up genetically code inheritance…! ‘written by our generation.!!
You know, poorly it would be hell on earth for them…. born in a fucked up condition already. OOOKAY!!
Cecil-
Why should males be forced to see porn in order to see female genitals when females can see male genitals all over the screen in mainstream films these days ? That is a blatant double standard. It is long past the time to start seeing equal amounts of female frontal nudity in mainstream films.
Why does a movie that shows a mans frontal view deserve a NC-17 rating when woman are shown nude exposing breast and even sometimes frull frontal or behind and they get R ratings. That’s pretty sick if you ask me. Where are morals at????
Well kristy, males are exposed much more than females. When you start seeing the labia in close up and in movie after movie then you will start to understand the double standard that has been going on now against males. Showing breasts or bare behinds is partial nudity. Once in a great while they might show a female’s pubic hair. However, that IS NOT the same exposure as having your labia shown. That would equal what they are showing of males. And that kristy, is what is sick !!!!
What the hell.
I wasnt a fan of this movie at all but to be honest reading this i feel persecuted for having a penis.
Why is it so hated and why when just a few loosers complain about it are their feelings and comments upheld. Why is there such a terrible stigma attached to it all. Personally I makes me not only ashamed to be a man but actually pretty sickened that what is given to us naturally is so terribly persecuted its all a very twisted and wierd world that has been branwashed into all of this over centurys. Ohh to be a cat or a dog or a lion or a shark. But please if theres an afterlife dont let me come back as a human man ohh the shame of it all.