Sex Scenes In Movies Are A Total Waste Of Time. Time Fillers, Nothing Else

January 31, 2012

Chris Gray writes from Hollywood: You know what I think? I think sex scenes in movies are just a waste of time.

Name me a single movie that had improved with two people rolling in bed in it, doing all that insincere moaning and groaning. I bet you wouldn’t be able to name a single bloody one. And you know why? Because sex in films is introduced to lure complete idiots with an attention span of five seconds, who find it hard to follow the plot but would watch on anyway if they know that there’d be something resembling intercourse or nudity in it at some point.

Remember Basic Instinct? Well, if you take out Sharon Stone showing off her fanny and the supposedly intense bedroom scenes, it would not get any worse. It would be shorter, which would be an improvement, but it would lose absolutely nothing when it comes to the plot that was not particularly strong anyway. Especially as the so-called chemistry between Michael Douglas and Stone was not even visible anywhere. Maybe they had something going outside the script, that I don’t know and don’t want to know. But once the cameras started rolling, there was just bad acting and nothing else.

Just like it happened in the Sea Of Love with Al Pacino and Ellen Barkin. I mean, they tried really hard to show some passion, but because they were both short and odd looking, it just didn’t work out.

And I can give you hundreds of examples when films did not benefit in any way from the steamy stuff in them. In fact, if you took out all the badly simulated sex scenes, the kissing and the groping and the hugging and the nipple licking, there’d be more time for some plot to develop. Yes, and a bit of intrigue thrown in. Who needs to watch two people imitating intercourse when it moves the story nowhere. Like that 9½ Weeks, that supposed erotic drama, with Mickey Rourke before he had a face of some sort and Kim Basinger, that would have benefited greatly if all that supposed passionate shagging was replaced by a bit of storyline. But no, it had be endless sex, with all those fruits and vegetables from the fridge thrown in.

And another thing: if sex scenes in movies would have been cut to the bone – I’m not talking here about porn, porn is sacredfor millions of its fans  and can’t be altered – scriptwriters would have been forced to come up with some proper story lines – to keep us interested. You know, develop the plot, invent some unusual situations, give us a bit more on the character side. They wouldn’t have been able to just put in a five minute ‘love scene’, as they call it, and then another one and another, throwing in some nudity – may be even frontal – for no apparent reason, to make it easier for themselves. People want to see things happening on the screen. They can have a shag at home and look at full frontal nudity by standing in front of the mirror.

But there’s another side to all this insincere steaminess: how come we’re forced to see average looking broads playing stunning beauties? This is becoming a major problem for Hollywood. I realise that some of the actresses are chosen because someone somewhere pulled some strings and the studio or the director just couldn’t say ‘no’. I mean, you can’t really say ‘no’ to a mobster who is funding your film or to a short bald guy from some bank, who wants his hideous looking daughter to play the part of a hot chick. But how could it be that practically in all the films we see women playing stunning beauties while not being stunning or beautiful in any respect. There have to be at least some cases of hot chicks slipping through this vicious net and getting a role of a, well, hot chick.

Sex and everything around it has no in place in mainstream movies. It’s a waste of time, pure and simple. Leave it to the porn industry to grapple with. Give us some gritty plots to chew on and some decent acting – at least from time to time.

– End –