Talk:Alexis Dziena

Untitled
"When she's not writing or on set, she can usually be found downtown, with her brother and boyfriend, dancing late into the night."

Uhm, is she dating her brother? DoorFrame 17:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably meant "with her brother and [her] boyfriend," as in two people.

Nude scene
"In 2005, she played Lolita (a reference to Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita), a teenage girl, in Broken Flowers, in which she appeared completely nude in front of Bill Murray's character."

Not to come off prudish, but given the sparcity of information in her entry and the complete lack of any other information about either of the two roles it does mention, making a point of mentioning that she appeared completely nude in Broken Flowers gives the whole entry the feel of a pron site ad. Either beef it up overall, or remove the creepy stuff. 69.255.97.171 18:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point, 69.255.97.171, so I tried to beef the article up. The scene itself was creepy though, and notable. Adelord 06:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is indeed notable because, so far, the entire career of this actress has hinged around this 'famous' split-second nude scene in Broken Flowers, i.e. it is all she is known for. It's sad but true; this just shows how Hollywood likes to exploit young, starry-eyed actresses for their own 'purposes.' --172.131.21.202 08:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You want to delete a true fact because it "feels like a pron ad"? Maybe you should go through all the entries and delete anything you find to be "creepy". Cable2001 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a 'split-second' nude scene, in fact it's relatively long, however, it's not what I'd call sexual nudity, she's just wandering around the house naked. I do find it a little strange the way the article at the moment says that it shows her 'breasts, pubic area, and buttocks'. Do we really need an explanation of what 'fully nude' means?


 * The scene does in fact show full nudity by anyone's definition. It is not a brief or dimly lit scene either. It's in full lighting and you see her breasts, all of her pubic hair in detail and her buttocks. She is nude for about 2 or 3 minutes of screen time, and you see her body from every angle. It is the very definition of a nude scene, I don't see why there is any debate. It is also the scene from which she is most identified. Dee1980dee (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What source are you working from when you make the assertion that it is "the scene from which she is most identified"? Dismas |(talk) 23:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That was my assessment, I wouldn't assert that as an undisputed fact, that is why I posted it here and not in the article. It's difficult to prove why people know her, but I will note that just about every major interview she has done since that film has inquired about that scene. At the moment I can point to her playboy interview as 1 example, http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/wov/alexis-dziena/ Dee1980dee (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference to her infamous nude scene was removed YET again. I went back through her history about 10 different users have attempted to make note of this very obvious and covered part of her career, that she herself acknowledged in numerous interviews. The same user continues to edit it out every time. I don't understand why this user finds that particular important career move of hers to be un-noteworthy. The director himself has said that it was a pivotal part of the movie, and shocked audiences at every screening. Can the user who continuously deletes that reference locate a single mainstream news media interview where the interviewer has not raised at least one question to Alexis about that infamous scene? Dee1980dee (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to me? Dismas |(talk) 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's not important or worth arguing over though. I just was curious why you don't feel something that has been talked about so much related to her is not relevant to her biography. Especially since she herself does not shy away from discussing the scene, and notes that it was controversial. It's not a big issue though. Dee1980dee (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Now it's out there.  Don't hide behind vague comments like "the same user" or "this user".  Own up to and stand behind your comments.
 * So, now to the point. I think it should be mentioned in the article.  I agree with your points.  I keep removing it because it doesn't get cited or sourced.  Comments are made that are the editor's opinion (see WP:POV) and not cited statements.  Going in reverse order:
 * In this edit, you said that the role was "dominated" by a "surprise" nude scene. I removed it here because those words are your own point of view.  If you would have said, "According to several critics, the role was dominated... etc" and then cited those critics, I would have been fine with that.  And as far as "surprise" goes, it wasn't to anyone who read any reviews of the film before seeing it.  (not to mention the fact that the way the sentence was structered, it's unclear whether it's a surprise to the audience or to Murray's character)
 * In this edit, the scene was said to have caused a controversy but it doesn't say why or more importantly with whom. Again, it's not backed up with anything.  It's POV'ish.  If the editor that added it was a conservative Catholic, then of course the scene was controversial but that would be their opinion.  They never backed it up with any source.  And to boot, the phrase "some controversy" is vague and weasely (see WP:WEASEL) since there is no definition for "some".  Is "some" just a couple mothers outside a theater with protest signs or is "some" a nation-wide boycott?
 * And finally, because I'm running out of time, this edit referred to it as "surprisingly lengthy". Again, according to whom?  What yard stick are we using?
 * I've given reasons for all these reverts in my edit summaries and yet people keep adding the same material expecting different results. Why not take the comments in the edit summary and respond to them with better edits to the article?
 * So, I agree (my opinion) that it was controversial and long (for a mainstream Hollywood film). I agree(my opinion) that it surprised Murray's character.  And I think (my opinion) that it's stupid that if it were a guy who was nude that the film would probably have been rated NC-17 because for whatever stone aged reasoning, it's more accepted for a woman to be naked in a mainstream movie than a guy.  For the other side of the coin, Watchmen caused a bit of a stir due to the blue penis and the ratings board was rather concerned with how much time was taken up by the penis dangling on screen.  Dismas |(talk) 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I'm sorry that I didn't mention you by name before, I didn't want this to be confrontational, I just wanted to give my opinion. Now, let me ask you, how does someone cite a scene in a movie? That's not sarcastic, I'm actually asking. I've never seen a way of citing that a controversial scene appeared in a movie. If it is factual, which we both know it is, why does it have to be that some journalist mentioned it in an article. Things on Wikipedia need to be "verifiable" not just cited, if anyone wants to verify that the scene is shocking, they can put the movie on and confirm it. I would say it is common knowledge because anyone who wants to check that the description that her scene is full frontal nudity and that the scene shocked Bill Murray's character, can do so by simply watching the film. It's not a quote that someone said about the film that needs to be cited in order to be proven true, it's a fundamental fact about the movie itself that is self evident if you actually view the work. I'm unsure of how to cite that. I would defer to your advice. Dee1980dee (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would further ask, why that one statement is being removed because it is not cited, but in the very next paragraph this statement "She dated actor Michael Pitt and currently resides in Los Angeles." is also not cited, and refers to her personal life. This statement is not cited: "In the ABC television series Invasion she played the sheriff's daughter Kira Underlay.". This statement is not cited "She made her acting debut in TNT's Witchblade.". I guess since I am new at Wiki I do not understand why writing a statement about a scene she was in needs to be cited, but a statement about her personal life, who she's dating, does not need to be? Dee1980dee (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the existence of the scene had to be cited. It doesn't.  I said that the adjectives that were describing it should be.  Saying that it was a surprise to the character is obvious.  Saying that it was lengthy, controversial, or shocking (to the viewer) is a matter of opinion and thus needs to be cited.  You said "...if anyone wants to verify that the scene is shocking, they can put the movie on..."  Again, I ask, shocking to the viewer or shocking to Murray's character?  Your description is vague.  If you mean that it was shocking to Murray's character, then yes, it's obvious in the film and doesn't need to be cited.  If you're saying that the viewer would be shocked, then you're stating an opinion (coincidentally, an opinion which I do not agree with) since not necessarily everyone was shocked by it.
 * The reason why appearances in films and television shows do not need to be cited is because the films and television shows act as their own reference. Also, there isn't any opinion there.  It's not contentious in the least.
 * And as far as the Michael Pitt/LA thing goes, the reason why I didn't take it out is because I didn't see it. It's cited now.  Dismas |(talk) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my opinion is that you are being overly picky with the descriptors like “shocking“, I feel like in society certain things are universally accepted as shocking, walking into a movie and seeing a young looking woman walk out in a well lit screen out of the blue completely naked I think is one of those universal shocking things in that even if you are not shocked by nudity it is an unexpected occurrence. However, again, you've used Wiki way longer than me, so in my post I deferred to your knowledge and left any descriptive words out. I think we are in agreement now that it is as good as it can be now? If so, thanks, I appreciate the tips. Dee1980dee (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's my two cents, for whatever it's worth, about Alexis' nude scene in Broken Flowers: the point has been made that, if it were Bill Murray nude, that it would noteworthy. There's a reason for that: it doesn't happen very often, if at all. And, the nude scene with Alexis is also noteworthy for the same reason: what she did is rare in a wide-released motion picture. If she had done it in a pornographic/XXX/NC-17 movie, it probably would have elicited yawns and feigned interest. In addition, movie actresses will perform nude scenes early in their careers until they are "established", then tell their agents/representatives "no more nudes". They think of performing nude scenes at the beginning of their careers as an "investment" to further their careers. In summary, I believe that a mention of her nude scene in Broken Flowers is a fair comment and should be included in the article, simply because of how rare a scene like that is in a wide-released motion picture. Another fair comment that could be made is how young she looks in relation to her chronological age. In She's Too Young, she looks like a 14-year-old girl, which is what the character is supposed to be. But, when she filmed the movie, she was already 20 years old. I've noticed that many Asian women look much younger than their chronological ages. Baby-Faced" or "young-looking" Caucasian thespians are unusual, which justifies the inclusion of the comment. Ok, so my comments probably amount to a quarter instead of two pennies, but there they are. Do what you want with them...76.105.145.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Most startling nude scenes
The citation link for Roeper's nude scene list was broken. A quick google search for the list turned up only references to Alexis Dziena, which unfortunately makes it look like this could be myth, not fact. While I do not doubt the original citation was true personally, I have put up a citation-needed tag in the hope that someone else can find one. Otherwise this will eventually become unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.129.47 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexis Dziena performed the nude scene (unscripted) to possibly more than compete with Sharon Stones performance in "Basic Instinct" Recall that Sharon Stone was in Broken Flowers too. Alexis Dziena simply, tactfully performed in her skin suit. Whereas Sharon Stone purposely exhibited her Eagle Eye Cherry to incite the Officers. How much discussion would there be if it were Bill Murray performing fully nude? Probably most likely...None. Alexis Dziena is a beautiful young woman. Appreciate the abominable snowman. A scene like hers was a beautiful rarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.38.147 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * These claims of her using a "skin suit" and claims that she "was trying to outdo sharon stone" are completely baseless, they show and hold no merit to being anything truthful, or verifiable in the slightest, in any case. The nude scene does indeed happen.

Main picture only shows the side of her face?
Can we please change that picture to something that shows her FACE and not just the side of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)