Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Maybe you saw the Disney version? The one I saw had one scene of two characters having sex. Another scene had the two characters talking, both buck naked for no reason I could fathom. The other was a sort of "dream sequence" with the actress totally naked and grinding on the guy's lap.
Was any of that necessary to develop plot or character? Nope. Every emotional / psychological beat could have been done just as easily without any nudity involved. The nudity was a choice made by the director, because studios like to put skin on screen.
In fact, the very same concept was done later in the movie with one line of dialogue. "Her husband never knew." Totally filled in every blank. We didn't need three scenes of Oppenheimer banging another guy's wife to get the point.
I'm not a prude. I don't object to nudity in movies. But 9 times out of 10, it is done to titillate and not for any real story purpose. If it is done to titillate ... ? Then yeah, it's porn. Softcore porn? Maybe. But if there are naked people onscreen having sex (simulated or otherwise) simply to excite the audience, it is porn.
|
I agree with you, those scenes were not needed to tell the story of Oppenheimer. I read the book first and just recently watched the film and thought the book was better.
The movie was somewhat interesting, but one thing I didn't like was the electric, bright light scenes in the first half and no mention of the environmental consequences from blowing up the test atom in the desert.
I did like Albert Eisenstein in the film.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
