Annons
Annons
Over the next few decades, several other European films followed suit, whether it be in Denmark (Gift, 1966), West Germany (Hotel by the Hour, 1970), or Sweden (They Call Us Misfits, 1968). Misfits came close to being censored until the minister of education stepped in. Scandinavia really had the market cornered for a while there, with many such films (most notably the seven-part Zodiac series) essentially receiving normal treatment: reviews in national newspapers and only a few cases of censorship and/or banning. Jens Jørgen Thorsen, whose 1970 adaptation of Henry Miller's Quiet Days in Clichy lived up to its source material by featuring hardcore sex, nearly received official support from the Danish Film Institute on his next project until Pope Paul VI protested its blasphemous religious content.We haven't been so accepting here in America, though. As with many other things, we have John Waters to thank for bringing scenes of unsimulated fellatio to domestic screens. Pink Flamingos, in addition to making Divine a cult hero for generations, was also banned in such usually open-minded locales as Australia, Norway, and Canada. When it was re-released stateside in 1997 to celebrate its 25th anniversary, the MPAA gave it the NC-17 stamp of disapproval. Other than the whole eating dog-shit thing, they weren't too pleased with the close-up of Divine giving an actual blowjob. Go figure.
Annons
Annons
None of these directors made as questionable a decision as Vincent Gallo, whose controversial The Brown Bunny climaxes with a scene in which his character receives a blowjob from Chloë Sevigny (who happens to be Gallo's real-life ex-girlfriend). The film was pilloried upon its world premiere at Cannes in 2003, leading to an escalating back-and-forth between Gallo and Roger Ebert, who deemed the filmmaker's pet project the worst film ever to screen at Cannes. Gallo responded by calling the critic fat; Ebert retorted by paraphrasing Churchill; Gallo put a hex on Ebert's colon; and Ebert claimed that watching a video of his own colonoscopy was more entertaining than The Brown Bunny. Point: Ebert.[daily_motion src='//www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x2wonb5' width='100%' height='360px']Not everyone was as unkind (and even Ebert responded favorably to a shorter, re-edited version), but the film has continued to be defined by this one scene—which may be the biggest argument against featuring explicit sex in movies. It can become a distraction, a way of pigeonholing something. The real challenge, then, may lie in not letting this aspect alone shape a movie's legacyAs for whether explicit sex adds to cinema, it's like anything else: It depends on the film itself. Starlet fares best among recent examples; Sean Baker's low-key story of a porn actress living and working in the San Fernando Valley benefited from its cleverly edited shots of the eponymous star in the act. (As Lars von Trier did in Nymphomaniac, Baker also opted for body doubles in these sequences.) When it works, it fells incidental to the plot, yet essential to the overall tone. There is never any question of shock value or exploitation, which to say: The sex serves the narrative, not the director.Follow Michael on Twitter.