Let's Talk About Sex (at the Movies)

Florence Pugh & Cillian Murphy in Oppenheimer

Elon Musk has made Twitter such a chore that I do wonder if, at some point, he'll hit the bridge too far that will get me off of the app (the idea that he's going to stop letting you block people could do it, the idea that he's going to want your driver's license to verify your ID would definitely do it), but until he does, I'm still in my Twitter addiction phase, albeit it's not as fun as it used to be, and so I am still there for most Twitter debates that hit film, politics, & gays (the three prongs of Twitter that I am a part of).  For the last year or two, one of the most omnipresent conversations on Film Twitter has been about sex in film & television, and while I'm working my way through a number of different topics I've wanted to discuss for a while on the blog but haven't had time for, we're going to get to this one today (I'm not calling these recent articles "Ranting On..." in the titles, but I'm using the tag for those of you old enough to remember when I used to lean into my blog title here).

Sex at the movies has always been a conversation that people have debated.  The Hays Code was borne not just out of regulating the behaviors of movie stars, but also out of regulating the movies themselves, as Pre-Code films like Red-Headed Woman, The Sign of the Cross, and Baby Face showed women like Jean Harlow being into BDSM, Claudette Colbert taking a milk bath, and Barbara Stanwyck being pimped out by her father, respectively (seriously-the early 1930's were a crazy time for the movies).  Post the Code, regulations about sexual depictions onscreen were highly-regulated until the 1960's, when it became more common for mainstream movie stars to appear naked in film (Jayne Mansfield was the first, but eventually actresses like Kathleen Turner, Angie Dickinson, & Julie Christie would appear nude as well onscreen, alongside men like Donald Sutherland & Marlon Brando, though nudity was never completely balanced between the two genders post-Code).  Sex was most common in film in the 1970's through the early 1990's, after which two things happened that would make sex far less common in mainstream movies & television.

First was the failure of a number of high-profile salacious pictures (think films like Showgirls and Striptease) in the mid-1990's where, whether because the films weren't good or because audiences could be titillated with pornography at home, they made the "sex sells" moniker feel off.  Second, the success of films like Harry Potter, X-Men, and Spider-Man meant that making movies that appealed specifically to teenagers (but would guarantee people of all ages going to the movies) became more profitable than trying to make an R-Rated film that just adults could see.  Never mind that from 1997-2009, the most successful film of all-time (Titanic) had Kate Winslet undressing and getting steamy with Leonardo DiCaprio in the back of a CB Coupe de Ville...sex became rarer in modern movies in the new millennium.

Which makes the latest bout of converesation so bizarre.  Sex is not common in movies, but there's this complaint, specifically from Gen Z film & television-watchers, that it's everywhere...when it's not.  While there are still shows/movies like Bridgerton or Oppenheimer (the most recent film to attract this controversy) which feature sex scenes, it's far rarer than it's been since the 1960's to watch a Hollywood production and see nudity.

I want to establish a couple of facts here that frequently come up in these conversations.  First, sex scenes in movies and television are highly-regulated.  This has not always been the case (the making of Last Tango in Paris is a good example of this), but with intimacy coaches, agents & stars getting full approval (frequently even employing body doubles), and the script being specifically spelled out over what to do, the risk of unknowing exploitation is not what it would've been decades ago.  Even in scenes where the characters are being exploited, the actors are not (sometimes it feels like modern audiences can't tell the two apart, but more on that in a second).  There are plenty of protections for performers going into a movie over what they will and will not do, and they know going into it what is going to be expected of them.

Jonathan Bailey in Bridgerton

Secondly, not everything that happens in a movie is supposed to be about the plot.  The most frequent complaint in a film or TV show is that "the sex scene didn't advance the plot" but that's not something that should matter.  Films & television shows are not just plot-delivery systems, and having something that gives you some aesthetic look at the lives of the characters (or just something that looks interesting within the movie or show) is a good idea.  Oppenheimer got this criticism, which was weird as the sex scene did, in fact, advance the plot (it gave us a look at the most human side of a mechanical man, which gave us character growth & informed his marriage), but even if it didn't-this is a movie that frequently focuses on motifs, on different cuts in his life.  No one is complaining about random comic side moments within a TV show or a film, even if they don't deliver more to the plot other than a one-liner...why should sex scenes be any different?

Which brings me to what this really is-it's censorship.  People don't like that word because it's ugly...but that's still what this is, and it is ugly, this conversation at its root is reprehensible.  Defending a world where you regulate what is and isn't seen onscreen is no different than Republicans trying to ban queer literature in Texas & Idaho, or conservatives wanting to regulate what teachers are instructing students in Florida.  They're all in the same conversation.  Artistic expression needs to be protected, and that includes sex scenes.  If you're an adult not comfortable with seeing sex scenes in a movie, that's for you & your therapist to discuss, but the world should not be built around what you find comfortable.  If you don't want to see sex onscreen, don't go to PG-13 or R-rated movies.  I'm not a big fan of the MPAA, but they're definitely giving you the solution to your problem on this one if you're actually offended and not just complaining.

Because I've got news for you-the Hays Code, which is what you're supporting, didn't just stop at sex scenes.  They also regulated what type of people you see onscreen.  This is also something that I've seen Gen Z specifically embrace on social media-saying that we should only see depictions of "good people" onscreen.  Arguing that morally ambiguous or antihero figures shouldn't exist onscreen, and villains & heroes should be struck in shades of black-and-white solely  This isn't real life though (in real life, people are messy & make mistakes), and what happens when you espouse for that, what happens when you espouse for the removal of sex scenes in film & television, is that other things that people object to in real life start to become fodder for the same arguments.  The Hays Code didn't allow interracial relationships onscreen and they didn't allow for queer people at all.  When you're talking about removing sex scenes onscreen, keep in mind that for a few of the people cheering on your fight, they also include any depictions of queer life at all (even if it's just existing) as being part of that "objectionable" umbrella.  For Gen Z, a generation that has lived with gay rights being part of the conversation their entire existence (even if it's not where it should be), this might feel alien, but I promise you-it was not long ago that any depictions of gay people in relationships on TV was forbidden or mired in controversy.  Once you start to embrace censorship to get rid of one thing...it'll definitely start coming for the rest.