It’s been a bad run of late for sexy movies.
Recent releases that have a sexual element in their concept such as F.U. and Miss March have failed to connect. The Jonas Brothers movie, noted for its attempt to titilate its Tween audience, fizzled after an initial modest premiere. And even high-brow fare such as The Reader received criticism for its subject matter.
What’s going on? Is sex at the movies dead or do we just all have a headache?
Truth is it may be connected to the economy and our reaction to down times. And it’s not the first historic period where a recession has led to the prophylactic.
In the financially booming 1920s, it was the age of the vamp and the flapper. If you study movies of the era, the Pre-Code excesses are sometimes remarkable, including full frontal nudity, and even drug references. Compare with the moral, inspirational tone of most movies in the Depression era 1930s, which not only set up film rules — that later gave us such TV staples as twin beds for married couples shown on every sit-com in the ’50s and ’60s — but a decided preference for the wholesome over the salacious. And while the booming 1980s gave us 9 1/2 Weeks and the 1990s produced pre-marital fun like American Pie, it seems that now especially these are types of films that would not play well and would be less attractive.
During down times, excess seems out of place. Safer, more moral, more wholesome, more inspiring seems to be the rule. The last film for teens considered at all sexual — Twilight — may have worked because of implied sexuality than the overt kind. Romantic yes, salacious or bawdy, no. At least now at the box office.
Perhaps too the movies are no longer the place where the steamy is best seen? Better to wait for the DVD?
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You know it’s the end of an era with a film title like “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” (which came and went).
In economic downtimes, the actually “act of sex” goes up because it is a form of escapism and, most important…a FREE activity (for most of us!). Film is a form of escapism where we want to experience something we’re not getting at home. In other words, “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?!”
I think it’s beacuse we are all a bunch of snobs. Don’t show that nipple, but give me more compund fractures and head explosions (In no way am I condemning the Horror genre, I love it!) We all need to get over ourselves.
… or the Internet ;-)!
Perhaps those movies would have been better received if they had a better story, and the sex. Otherwise, you are just left with a porno.
Wait, … is that the door bell? Hey, I didn’t order any pizza!
Based on Paul Blart being #1 at the box office for so long, I’d say people want silly not sexy.
Wait for the DVD? Or just buy porn. Schulmauchen is quite good, though a bit too much plot (map-reading, asking directions to the hotel etc) for my liking. Anyone seen Lesbian Vampire Killers? Presumably it’s sex, blood and death, but has been panned in the UK. Are they lesbian vampires who kill, or ordinary lesbians who kill vampires who just happen to be killers too? I’ve already lost the will to live, although I have been pondering whether I would prefer to spend the night with a lesbian, a vampire or a killer. I think, on reflection, the killer. Too much saliva swishing about with the first two.
I’m gonna have to disagree that the recession causes people to be more modest in their viewing habits. I think people are not flocking to these movies because they’re…. TERRIBLE. Sex will always sell, when its bundled with a solid premise/concept. It’s the message Blake sells with his books, its all about high concept.
When I saw the previous for Fired Up, Miss March, even Sex Drive, I thought wow, those look like attempts to simply cash out on stupid teenagers watching anything that involves breasts. They’re discovering that’s not gonna work. Sex shouldn’t be the main attraction, it should be a side feature. Positive word of mouth is the king of all advertising campaigns, and these films have failed at that.
Andrew – I agree it should be a side feature. It shouldn’t be sex for sex’s sake, you know? Because good story is just plain good story.
On the other hand, I think it’s quite possible that when economic times get hairy, we do react in certain ways. Book sales are faring pretty well in this climate and I think many people are looking for comfort reads at the end of the day.
The reason why Twilight works is because while there is no sex, there is sexual tension all over the screen. And for me, that tension is crucial. Without it it’s just mechanics.
Great blog, Blake. :-)
I’ve never been willing to pay to watch something we are biologically equipped and driven (generally) to do. Without getting into how good it can be with the “right” person, that’s all there is to it. If I watch a movie and two people are demonstrating the skill and willingness to have sex, am I supposed to think that’s something rare or special? Not!
A story about love or commitment, however, demonstrated by focus on another, rather than focus on self, whether it’s through an act of heroism, salf-sacrifice, a willingness to re-evaluate one’s lifestyle, values, priorities, etc., for the sake of another person or a higher purpose, well . . . that’s what I’m willing to pay to watch. Over, and over again. :)
I believe Jaci Stephen touched on it. At this point, we all have access to an unlimited amount of sexual content via the internet, so, the watered down version seen in an r-rated film no longer has any currency.
I rather agree with Donna. A love scene that advances a story is far more compelling than sex for it’s own sake. Brett and Jaci also hit on something, in that an R-rated sex romp isn’t much of a draw in the age of the internet.
A particular annoyance of mine is the modern sex comedy (or most comedies, for that matter), because not only do they neglect to to be funny, they don’t make me care about the main character. “The 40-Year Old Virgin” worked because we liked Steve Carrell. That he’d lose his virginity was a given; the important thing was seeing him grow and find true love.
On the other hand, “F.U.” and “Miss March” had cardboard characters and thin scripts that catered to the lowest common denominator. No big surprise they reached bottom accordingly.
I don’t believe there’s a new prudishness that’s turning people off sexy movies, but rather the realization by audiences that a pair of bare buns can mask poor storytelling only so far.
Poorly conceived movies can’t be retrieved by sex. And the oversaturation of what passes as sex scenes, most of them poorly done, can’t bring an audience to a movie that has nothing else going for it.
Repeated viewing of anything – sex, violence, swearing, etc desensitized people to it’s effect. And the obvious formula writing of most movies today doesn’t help.
I don’t it has much to do with the economy, I think it’s more a case of “Been there, seen that. What else have you got?”
Sex is often more powerful when it is the memory of the act, rather than the act itself that we see on screen. One of the most erotic scenes in this respect has to be between Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie’s characters in Don’t Look Now, when they are getting ready to go out after sex. Every moment is still sexually charged. My school teachers mistakenly showed the film to our class when we were 13. We thought it was a travelogue about Venice. I still remember it, though.
I guess I have to ask “How much do we need to know?” The things we can’t see are scarier, and the “implied” is often sexier. Whatever the cause, this phase in popular taste will pass. The only constant is change. Thank goodness! Otherwise life would be so boring. ;-)
Guess I better shelve:
“Big O’Sexy Better Stop Me for’ I Scratch My-Self”
Dang, and I really thought I had broken new ground this time…;)
I did a re-write for a famous “Adult” film star as a favor to a producer I “knew” (we don’t talk anymore, but the adult film star is really cool…go figure) and it flew around the International scene, crashed and burned after several “FAMOUS” producers played with it, and died a quiet death. THANK GOD I did it as a favor and NEVER put my name on it. All this from a guy (me)who’s mentor went on to be the President of World Wide Production for PEG.
Sex sucks, no pun intended…it can be a career killer if managed wrong.
Once again you are right on the money, Blake.
The numbers are in, the figures telling, the buzz is panicked, “SEX stopped selling!?”
Trembling fingers at every level lunge for copies of, SAVE THE CAT, “If there’s an answer, this is where it’s at.”
“Here it is, found it, page 55, at last: ‘The character’s need must be PRIMAL or theater-goers will pass.'”
So it is written. So it must be, “Let’s remake, THE GRADUATE, with that kid from Twilight, and Demi.”
Of course sex still sells, and it always will! But it only HELPS, it can’t save a terrible movie. Has any buddy taken into account that the movies mentioned, Fired Up and Miss March, just plain out suck? American Pie was a great teen sex film, but the story was original, and more importantly relatable. There will always been room in our hearts for the Great American Teen Sex Comedy, as long as the Writer and Director show us a story, not just T&A.
Did you actually see these movies? Miss March rivals The Love Guru for Worst Picture Ever. I refer you to the humor inherent in epilepsy.
Fired Up was passingly funny with a likable leads, more innuendo than sex and some nudity. But it was squarely aimed at cheerleaders and 12-to-15-year-old children, especially girls.
The Reader was conceived as an art film and largely succeeded as such, but many of us were uncomfortable by idealized sex between a 15-year-old boy and a much older woman, even though we knew the actor had actually turned 18. It was saved by a thoughtful point-of-view, Kate Winslet, and intense interest in the Holocaust this year. Would the film have been acceptable if the seducee had been a just-turned-15-year-old girl, I wonder?
I liked the sex in Watchmen. Looking back at my film list, 2009 hasn’t been very sexy.
When did this depression start, exactly? I looked at >900 films 2001-2005 and found sex was negatively correlated with box office (US domestic). I posted the results on Vancouver Actor’s Guide Forum nearly two years ago and most responses ignored the numbers and said I was wrong. I data on my website and a paper in press, if anyone’s interested.