comment #1

Bishop Price says ...

Hey Jeff, does NSFW mean anything to you?

comment #2

T. S. Idiot says ...

No Orchids was remade by the great Robert Aldrich in 1971 as The Grissom Gang. It tries too hard to be depraved and is merely boring.

comment #3

Intense Guy II says ...

"Hey Jeff, does NSFW mean anything to you?"

Indeed!

comment #4

Kristopher Tapley says ...

Boobies!

comment #5

tholl-yung says ...

I didn't, but I do now. Love the bloomers. The lighting's to die for.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nsfw

comment #6

NYCBusybody says ...

I can't view it either (I'm at work); damn corporate censors!

comment #7

Zac Bertschy says ...

I was under the impression that this is a website for adults who could tell the difference between pornography and simple everyday nudity.

Apparently though Jeff has a large number of readers who are children, since they apparently can't handle seeing a totally pedestrian screenshot.

comment #8

NYCBusybody says ...

Oh Zac, you condescending sophisticate, you. I don't think anyone posting was actually giggling or offended.

I think that's actually a picture of a rape-in-progress. Is that really "simple everyday nudity....a totally pedestrian screenshot" to you? That's rape, man!

Of course, all heterosexual sex is by it's very nature rape, actually...

comment #9

Nouvelle_Vague says ...

If I'm going to fired at work, I would want it to be over those.

comment #10

tholl-yung says ...

I love these reference pieces, I collect them for use later when I don't know what to rent. Sure beats any damn list AFI puts out -- leave it to the Brits to put out a good one.

comment #11

Edward says ...

Good list and article. I'm amazed that I've seen most of the films on the list. Good old America ... letting kids see all that violence, but sex...no, no, no. The ratings are a joke. I can't tell you how many times I've seen parents bring their young children to R-Rated films. How does that "protect" anyone.

comment #12

Ju-osh says ...

Allow Jeff his boobalicious screengrab. If nothing else, it's a sure sign his arm must be doing better.

comment #13

tholl-yung says ...

Where can I get that screen grab? It looks like something entirely different to me. Maybe scanned from a Taschen book or something.

comment #14

docpotato says ...

That's not rape, that's someone stealing a bicycle.

comment #15

berg says ...

No Orchids for Miss Blandish was released in the US as BLACK DICE ... the film's director and star never made another film ... The American artist John Baldessari took a black-and-white photo from No Orchids for Miss Blandish and manipulating the image (photographically transferred to an etching plate) divided it into nine different prints that heighten or obscure certain details of the original photo ... I want to see this film ...

comment #16

MAGGA says ...

The strange thing is that mainstream American cinema is much more up-tight now than thirty years ago, which makes some of these run-downs of milestones a little sad.

comment #17

NYCBusybody says ...

The thing about sex in movies, and how it pertains to Americans, though, is more complicated than that.

Sure, there's a certain Puritanical streak that runs through the Christian community, and makes them hesistant or outright hostile to seeing nudity and sex depicted in the media. That is what it is; I disagree with that, because I'm not religious.

But I think there's also a large percentage of people like me who aren't offended at all, MORALLY, by sex in the media, but turned off by it. Bored by it. If a sex scene pops up in a movie, I'm usually just...bored.

I'd rather be having sex than watching it, and to me, there's nothing that ruins the beautiful and mysterious nature of sex than constantly harping on about it in the media. This is also why I have such an aversion to a large part of gay culture; it is hyper-sexualized, and I dislike it for the exact same reason I dislike Man Show frat-boy culture. Ok, you like sex. We get it. Is that all there is to you?

The repression of all sexual openness led to the bacchanalia of the 60's and 70's. This led to another pendulum swing among Christian conservative backlash in the 80's, 90's, etc. This tendency to fight extremes with extremes leaves people like me out in the cold.

comment #18

Edward says ...

To add to NYC's observations ... There is or was a tendency to go overboard with scenes of sex and violence. When are sex scenes of scenes of violence appropriate and when do they go overboard? We can argue all we want about freedom of expression, but there are times that a sex scene brings a film to a halt, because it does nothing to move the story. The same goes for violence. I think we can become desensitized by seeing violence and sex. I'm not blaming the ills of our society on filmmakers, but sometimes restraint is a good thing.

comment #19

NYCBusybody says ...

This is my point exactly, well said Edward.

Yes, we should have a RIGHT to portray and view sex and nudity in the movies. If a conservative Christian or radical feminist supports censorship of sexual imagery/pornography, I couldn't disagree more with that view.

However, is this REALLY the reason sex scenes should be put in movies? Just 'cause "we can"?

It cheapens sex, and I'm tired of it.

comment #20

tholl-yung says ...

Does anyone know the significance of the title "Straw Dogs" in the movie?

comment #21

tholl-yung says ...

I get it, I get it.

The title of the movie is drawn from a common translation of the Tao Te Ching, an ancient Chinese philosophical treatise. Verse V reads:

Heaven and Earth are impartial;
They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs.
The wise are impartial;
They see the people as straw dogs.

Many ceremonies in ancient China, during the time of Lao Zi, incorporated the use of dogs woven out of grass. These effigies were revered and respected during the ritual, but afterward, discarded and burnt.

comment #22

MAGGA says ...

"I'd rather be having sex than watching it" Agreed, and I´d rather play football than watch it, or have my house renovated for free than watch it. Joking aside though, I believe American cinema sensationalizes everything, which is sometimes a cool thing, but in terms of sexuality it reduces a sex scene to something that i discussed by kids (you see Xs tits in this film) and made a selling point whenever it is used. I would say Six Feet Under is the only modern US entertainment I have seen that treats sexuality as a natural logical part of daily interaction. I think the ratings system and religious interest groups prevent this element to be a part of most movies, as when you cross that barrier it limits the audience and is usually capitalized on to draw crowds instead (a tactic that almost always fails, BTW)

comment #23

MAGGA says ...

"This is also why I have such an aversion to a large part of gay culture; it is hyper-sexualized, and I dislike it for the exact same reason I dislike Man Show frat-boy culture. Ok, you like sex. We get it. Is that all there is to you?"
Again I think this is a media problem, as the more noticable and attention-grabbing images are what gets people watching or talking. When I lived in Paris last year we hung out at gay bars from time to time, and I must say the atmosphere is very different to what one would think from watching parades (although I find that pride and the right to show the world who you are is celebrated more than the actual sex act) and television. I think a lot of gay people are not too happy about that singular focus either.

comment #24

NYCBusybody says ...

I happen to think, Magga, that hyper-sexuality is a part of gay culture because it involves two men. Men are naturally more sexually aggressive and desirous. Put two of them together, whoa nelly!

comment #25

Cadavra says ...

GRISSOM GANG is a terrific movie: you just have to watch it as a sick, twisted comedy, which was Aldrich's trademark. But even if you don't accept it on that level, I don't know how anyone can consider it boring!