When it comes to art and entertainment, a naked body can cause quite a stir.
But is nudity ever justified? Is it ever OK to bare it all?
Amanda Seyfried seems to think that we “Americans” make much too big a deal over nudity in film.
“It’s just a naked body,” she told US at the Hollywood premiere of her latest film, “Lovelace,” a porn biopic in which Seyfried plays the part of Linda Lovelace. “You don’t think too much about it. It’s a costume really. It’s just a naked body. I mean, in America it’s something, but most other places in the world, it’s just a naked body. We all look the same.”
I think Seyfried’s overuse of the phrase “it’s just a naked body” says she’s trying to justify it a bit too much. In fact, when asked about the sex scenes she shot with actor Peter Sarsgaard in an interview for GQ, Seyfried said, “Yeah, I keep trying to, like, justify it in some way, and I can’t anymore.” Sarsgaard agreed, saying, “It’s a bizarre part of our jobs, no doubt about it.”
It’s interesting how easily Sarsgaard and Seyfried can just wave their hands at portraying porn without a second thought and call it just “part of the job.” So what’s the difference between pornography and art? Would one argue that it’s another? Is there a difference?
And what about art PORTRAYING porn. Is that the same thing?
How come the statue of the David is considered a classic masterpiece, but a modern picture of a naked man would be considered porn? I tend to disagree with Seyfried: I think a naked body is much more sacred and shouldn’t be shown to millions of people. I’m glad we crazy Americans (some, anyway) think that a person’s own unique body is still “something.”
Pornography is obviously much, much more than just a depiction of a naked body or bodies. In fact, it’s the root of so much evil: Many crimes stem from pornography addiction which can become extremely and even deathly addictive and can cause terrible pain and suffering for the viewer as well as his/her family and associates.
I’m surprised that Seyfried, especially taking on this role, cannot — or refuses to — see that in the name of art.
I understand that the job of actors and actresses is to take on different characters and sometimes, if they immerse themselves enough, find themselves getting “lost” in the roles. But I wonder if there’s ever a line that should be drawn. I wonder if an actress can truly separate herself from her character or role without taking a small part of that character with her or leaving a small piece of herself behind.
Especially if that character is required to reveal the most intimate parts of herself on camera.
Do you think art and pornography are two completely different things? Are we Americans too “old-fashioned” when it comes to covering up?