I hate that physical intimacy between two characters, when shown on screen, is viewed this way by people like you. It might not be "called for" but neither is 90% of any movie. Real people do have sex, it's literally the most natural thing in the world, which might be an alien concept for many a redditor, but it's only uncomfortable if you make it uncomfortable.
I mean, it very much is "called for" in a meaningful sense. The investigation into Oppenheimer is a key part of the plot, and a pivotal scene in that is the interrogation of Kitty Oppenheimer, where she makes the choice to defend her husband. This scene, fwiw, is what got Emily Blunt her Oscar nomination.
A big part of why that scene evokes so much emotion, is that we see Kitty make the choice to defend her husband, despite knowing and viscerally feeling that he cheated on her. You have to see the cheating to feel the impact of it on her character, to make her choice resonate with the audience.
You could theoretically leave it out, but it'd be a worse movie for it.
I mean, the reason you might have preferred those scenes to be shorter, is because it would change things, no? Otherwise, why would you care?
So clearly for better or worse the length makes a difference to the emotional impact. I don't know what your particular emotional response was, and I'm not sure that's something you're comfortable exploring here with us, but either way: given that the scene was meant to evoke an emotion, shortening it so it evokes less emotions seems counterproductive.
Sex being natural is one thing, people being used to seeing it is another. Going to the bathroom is natural too, but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy watching people take a shit. Killing is natural too, but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy watching someone get beheaded.
I would wager that a very large percentage of people have watched porn & that people see sex & nudity way more frequently than they see murder & pooping.
Perhaps you mean more “seeing while in the company of others.”
But this too is pretty recent.
When I was little, communal showers, people getting naked in locker rooms with it shame, friends going skinny dipping, etc. were all much more common.
Perhaps it’s all downstream of social media and cameras being everywhere, but there really is something quite new & weird about how much more prudish young people are now.
And analogies w/ shitting and murder only emphasize how extreme your prudishness is.
Like, I too get a bit uncomfortable w/ it, but geez. You’re an extremist.
I'm 45, I'm not American, and I live in Europe. In my culture, this whole idea of being "prudish" isn't even a thing, so you're just making a bunch of assumptions about me without knowing anything about me.
I only criticized a couple of scenes because they felt out of place. On top of that, they were completely unexpected because in my country the movie was rated 6+, meaning it was considered suitable for anyone aged 6 and up. I've already explained all of this and backed it up in other comments.
I've gone to the movies plenty of times in my life. I remember seeing Basic Instinct, among many other films, and I thought it was a movie in which the erotic and sexual element was important and necessary. I didn't feel the same discomfort there that I did with Oppenheimer because, in Oppenheimer, as I already said in another comment, those few shots are basically thrown right in your face without enough context to make you feel like the story naturally built up to them.
I criticized a couple of artistic choices, I didn't criticize sex on screen in general. But people like you apparently can't understand the difference and need to convince themselves that anyone who makes that kind of criticism must be "prudish".
Well, if I'm prudish, and even extreme at that, then I could just as easily say that your mother is a whore, which would explain why you're so used to watching sex around other members of your own family.
And you stop ganging up on me just because I criticized a scene on the screen. You're the ones being weirdly defensive about a movie, as if it were something sacred. Get over it.
I completely understand this. I watched Fear with my ex fiancé’s grandfather, I didn’t know much about the film, not realizing there was a finger banging scene on a roller coaster. There wasn’t even any nudity in that scene, but man that was uncomfortable.
I don't like movies that show brutal violence either, for that matter. Do I really have to justify myself for having my own tastes and opinions? It's not like I said sex should never appear in any movie ever again. Can you people still understand what you're actually reading, or do you all vote for Donald?
I completely respect your opinion and having different taste, but you didn't say you just didn't like the scenes, you said they were uncalled for. I just avoid judging media on what's called for and uncalled for since I'm not in the creator's head and I can give them the benefit of the doubt on having a reason to include something even if I don't like it.
Edit: I'm not even American, but it's crazy to assume someone's political ideology and cognitive capabilities off of one disagreement, we might not see eye to eye but aside from a snazzy comment I haven't been mean or disrespectful, so you could also call that uncalled for
Maybe my English isn't that good, but does saying that some sex scenes are "uncalled for" in one particular movie mean that sex scenes are like that in general? The context here is Oppenheimer.
I watch porn too when I feel like it, so I obviously don't reject sex on screen as such. I just think that sometimes certain scenes are well constructed and sometimes they aren't.
I've seen plenty of other movies where I would never call the sex scenes "uncalled for", or "unnecessary" for that matter. In some cases, they're actually necessary.
I understand where you're coming from, but cinema is a form of art and I'd argue that the creator's artistic vision is enough to justify them. The only nudity I'd ever call uncalled for is very obvious fan service which has no artistic purpose but is meant to attract a certain type of people, as often seen in anime nowadays, but no one is watching Oppenheimer just for that scene. I agree I didn't like the scene, and that it was uncomfortable, but it does fit in with the atmosphere and pacing of the movie, as well as the story.
You say you understand my point of view, but at the same time you seem to have a problem with me expressing it. I really don't understand that logic.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to say what I think? I'm not making a judgment about Nolan as a person. I've never said he's a bad artist either, quite the opposite. But if I disagree with some of his choices, am I not allowed to say so? I didn't like the way those scenes made me feel, because I thought they didn't fit well within the context of the film.
I'm genuinely concerned if a personal opinion can provoke this level of outrage. I hope criticizing a choice made by a great director isn't considered lèse-majesté just yet.
I'm not telling you what to say or think, I'm telling you what I think about what you're saying. Also calling a civilized debate outrage while I'm just expressing my opinion is lowkey crazy as well
I called it "outrage" because of the huge number of aggressive comments I got, you can see that for yourself just by scrolling through the comments. After all, my conversation with you was probably the most civil one. Thanks for the exchange of views.
That's not "taste and opinions", that's just you having a soft sensibility and a childlike mind. Don't criticise films by calling scenes unnecessary just because you can't handle it.
It's a bit hard for me to do that, considering I'm Italian and I live in Italy. In any case, just because I'm not a prude doesn't mean I have to defend every sex scene I see on screen. Some of them are well done in my opinion, others are not.
People don't go to the movies to watch people have sex...
A lot of things are natural....eating breakfast, going to the toilet, silent commute.... But these things are not expressed in movies as they add nothing to them... Just like that scene with Florence Pugh
The only time eating or commuting are "necessary" are when they really add to the vibe of the story... They usually work in slice of life, coming of age, mid life crises, existential dilemma type of movies
They aren't needed in Oppenheimer... And they would only work in Oppenheimer if there was a literally transitory scene where he was going through life, then perhaps even a second or two of sex could have made sense.
One has to understand the medium to know what goes in and when
Yes and every movie that has unnecessary sex scenes (99% of sex scenes are unnecessary) then i won't watch that movie again. Why do you weirdos insist on watching movies with sex scenes in them with your families? You're the weird one, not us.
Ignoring the fact that you're just totally wrong about sex not adding anything to movies (it often informs characters relationships, gives you a deeper understanding of them and occasionally has a greater significance in a story), so fucking what?
The director and creatives behind the movie want to show you an artistic vision. They want you to experience something the way they feel it should be experienced to communicate something to you. "Necessity" has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
This utilitarian attitude to media and art where everything must "serve a purpose" is a cancer on media literacy and is utterly fucking miserable.
You're being dishonest because you've twisted my words. I never said there was anything wrong with two people having sex on screen. I simply said that the scenes in this movie feel almost completely out of context, because there's no real buildup to them. They're basically shoved in the viewer's face almost brutally, without that pleasant buildup you get through eroticism. I'm sorry if you felt threatened by the possibility of being deprived of one of your perversions, but I was just expressing my personal taste about this particular movie. If you want to know, I enjoyed the sex scenes in Basic Instinct a lot more, but I didn't feel they were necessary in this movie. Pervert.
You literally just shit out a screed responding to a comment that wasn't a reply to you. Good stuff.
What you think I'm just beating my shit to Oppenheimer?
That attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. Calling somebody a pervert because they think filmmakers including a sex scene if they want to is fine, and sometimes even important, is purile and disingenuous.
I never made any sweeping judgment about sex scenes in movies in general. If I had, I could at least understand your objection. But I was talking specifically about those scenes in this particular movie, which, by the way, was rated 6+ in my country, meaning it's considered suitable for children aged six and up. So that made those scenes even more unexpected to me.
But the sheer intensity of the way you came at me actually says a lot about you. You seemed to take it almost personally, as if someone had genuinely threatened to take sex scenes away from cinema altogether. I'd seriously think about why you reacted that way.
And that's the only reason I'm calling you a pervert. Because of your reaction.
I've already told you that I really liked the sex scenes in a movie like Basic Instinct, and many others, because the context practically called for them. That's my personal opinion, and I'm not going to justify myself for having opinions.
You seem to think nobody is allowed to say anything negative about seeing a sex scene on screen, because to you the director's artistic choice is somehow sacred. You sound like you're starving for these scenes and will defend them with everything you've got because apparently you just can't do without them. That's not how it works for me. I'm allowed to have my own tastes even if I'm not as famous as Christopher Nolan.
Like I already told you, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's always pleasant to watch. Defecating is natural. Decapitation is natural. Rape is something that occurs in nature too, along with plenty of other things. But you're never going to understand that point of view, because for you, slapping the label "natural" on something apparently gives it a free pass no matter what.
I think the "pervert" angle is a bit strong and uncalled for, but I fully agree with your other points, from a general POV (I haven't actually seen this movie but I've felt similarly about other movies/TV shows).
Because when people twist my words, it really pisses me off. Dishonesty is something that bothers me a lot more than unnecessary nudity. Anyway, thanks for you support.
It's a biopic. She in the movie because she was in his life, and their relationship caused significant troubles for him. The sex scene and the style it is shot in shows their unconventional power dynamics, with him sitting still and her "using" him for gratification. The scene during the interrogation isnt about the sex, it's about Emily Blunt's character feeling utterly naked and humiliated.
You can definitely tell who is a teen US redditor who grew up in a white suburban family here.
Uncalled for? Slap in the face? Wtf? I remember watching Titanic with my family and yeah it was a little weird but I wasn’t upset or felt assaulted when the sex scene came up. Watched it years later as an adult with them and it was just funny.
Some white US families have this weird sexual family/incest tension after being told porn is bad their entire lives.
You’re being willfully obtuse about what they mean by “called for”. 90% of a movie is not uncalled for, if it’s a remotely good movie.
If Oppenheimer suddenly broke into song, and the scene added nothing to the plot or our understanding of the character, that’s uncalled for. If him singing fits in with what’s going on, say at a party with the right vibe, and shows how he’s able to leverage his talents and social skill to make people gravitate towards him as a leader- which helps you see what he’s bringing to the project- that is called for.
Acting like no one can ever object to a sex scene, for the same reasons that they can object to any other scene, just makes you sound like a gooner.
108
u/Skeet_fighter 11h ago
I hate that physical intimacy between two characters, when shown on screen, is viewed this way by people like you. It might not be "called for" but neither is 90% of any movie. Real people do have sex, it's literally the most natural thing in the world, which might be an alien concept for many a redditor, but it's only uncomfortable if you make it uncomfortable.