silly hollywood - sex isn't for kids! (8)

Hollywood and the rest of the motion picture industry know that in a lot of instances sex sells. This is extremely unfortunate. I'm not exactly sure if it is because the public wants it or because Hollywood thinks we want it and we are taking it for what it is.

It began the moment motion pictures began. In the beginning movies were extremely crude (in form, not content) and were extremely regulated. The industry didn't want to do anything that would put their careers in jeopardy. Then someone, somewhere, decided they would maybe just push the limits. And that worked! It worked so well that since then, they have been pushing limits. The limits are being pushed so far that really, there are no limits anymore. I believe the public has become desensitized and doesn't really think much of violence and sex anymore. Especially in the adult audience. Yeah the PG-13 is for 13 years and older, but in the early 1900's the world would have shunned those who made these movies that are now rated PG-13. Yeah sure it's a changing world, but we are the ones who are changing it.

During the summer my Catholic best friend went to go see Tropic Thunder. Honestly I thought it looked like a funny movie. Especially when it featured Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr, and Ben Stiller. But anyways - she saw it and said that they dropped the f-bomb like every 20 seconds... now who thought that was mandatory? Who decided that that was absolutely essential for the script? Script writers, producers, directors, and most likely even the actors. Hollywood moves fast and if you don't move along with it you get lost in the mayhem.

I think in some cases it has turned into the "artistic expression" fight. Like nudity, car crashes and gore. My mother didn't allow me to see Titantic because of the painting scene. Now obviously I knew what happened and what was seen, but I still wasn't permitted to go. I remember freshman year when I got into a little debacle with one of my friends about a painting where some woman was naked. I'm not sure exactly what painting or whatever it was but I'm sure I was justified in my position. Anyways -I asserted my position that the nudity of the woman wasn't essential. My friend had a differing view. She believes that artistic expression applied. She thought something wouldn't work or wouldn't be right if she wasn't naked. She believed it was part of the art. She believed it to be the artists right to expose the viewer to amazing creation that is the human body (yeah - she didn't say that, I just kind of flourished it a bit). But this applies to Hollywood. If anyone calls indecency - they yell back "artistic expression!". Not much of a fight.



<-- It really is Robert Downey Jr. on the right. I promise.