Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 January 6

= January 6 =

Dawn of Islam
There was a movie called Dawn of Islam. Was it in English or in another language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.253 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1971 Dawn of Islam and the 1951 The Dawn of Islam are both Egyptian and in Arabic, according to IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal and intimate acts in films
Hey, I've always wondered how actors perform kisses and sexual acts in films. A lot of them have spouses, so I don't think some of them (especially the women) would've felt comfortable acting out the intimate scenes. How do they do this? Does the director use fill-ins or what? Do some of the actors kiss and make out for real? Also, if yes, has there been any divorces that could be attributed to this? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that they're acting, and that they're surrounded by film crew. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsimulated sex in film says (with a New York Times reference) that "on rare occasions actors engage in real sex" in mainstream cinema. Body doubles are also used. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly well established that the Brad Pitt-Jennifer Aniston breakup occurred as a result of Pitt's involvement with Angelina Jolie in Mr. and Mrs. Smith.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brad is a bad example. He tends to form relationships with his costars on a regular basis: Robin Givens, Jill Schoelen, Juliette Lewis, etc... I wouldn't be surprised if he has been ordered by Angelina to reject any and all romantic movies from now on to avoid repeating the same pattern of behavior. -- k a i n a w &trade; 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like to way you used the word ordered to show who's boss. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of relationships have been formed between people starring together in movies; TV Tropes lists various on-set romances, some of which involved breakups of past relationships. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly one of the most notorious was Taylor and Burton during the filming of Cleopatra. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are tricks often used for making out that avoid actually making out. But, what you see in the movies is not making out. It is heavily choreographed and uncomfortable for the actors. It is not romantic to be performing uncomfortable maneuvers while surrounded in close proximity by a lot of very bright lights, a loud camera, a large set of microphones dangling just over your head, and dozens of people all huddled around. Then, you have to perform the exact same thing again and again and again and again and again... Overall, acting is not fun, even if it is portraying something that should be fun. -- k a i n a w &trade; 19:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hollywood movie/TV show intimacy is a laughably bad approximation of real intimacy. It is highly idealized and prone to certain conventions.  Just as there are other Hollywood conventions which are so common we assume them to be real, even if the real thing is nothing like that (i.e. exploding cars, guns which go "boom" and not "pop", etc.) sex is fantastically badly portrayed in films from a "realism" point of view, though it is 'consistently' badly portrayed (i.e. it's bad in the same ways all the time) so we kinda begin to mistake it for reality.  Just from my own observations:
 * Movie actors don't have tongues, and their lips are paralyzed. Even really "passionate" movie kisses seem to involve prolongued resting of lips against one another, without any real use of the tongues or lips or teeth for stimulation.  The kiss that lovers in movies have resembles the kisses one gets from one's mom, excepting their longer and set to dramatic music.
 * Movie actors have sex at funny angles. Unless one or the other has rather unusually shaped genitals, its hard to imagine actual intercourse occuring in film sex scenes.
 * No one has orgasms in movies. Movie sex ends with a gentle sigh and both partners collapsing quietly to the bed.  Real orgasms tend to be more strenuous events, and involve expressions, vocalizations, and spasms that seem to never occur in Hollywood.
 * Movie sex is surprisingly clean. Real sex isn't.  Speaking of that gentle sigh and collapse to the bed, no one wories about toweling off afterwards, or disposing of prophylactics, or any of that business.  It's just sigh, collapse, cuddle, and sleep.  Are they really cuddling in that mess?  At least clean yourselves up a bit.  Really.  Though considering the previous point, perhaps there is nothing to clean up in the movies.
 * They have strange sheets on movie beds. First of all, sex under sheets tends to get more tangled up.  Secondly, the sheets are strangely "L" shaped, covering the man from the waist down, and the women from the shoulders down.  They also seem to be highly adhesive, as they never move from that position.
 * Lovers in movies are surprisingly ashamed of their own nakedness in the presense of their sexual partners. I mean, no one ever spends any time at all naked.  Its fake-sex-where-gentials-don't touch, sigh with no orgasm and nothing to clean up, cuddle under L-shaped sheets, and no one ever walks around naked.
 * That's why I despise "romantic" movies... -- Jayron  32  19:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All true, but you could find something in every movie ever made that isn't exactly the way it is in real life, and despise them all. And you'd miss out on a lot.  Night-time movie streetscapes always reveal that it's been raining but the rain must have stopped a short time before the scene started, because the road is glistening with moisture that can't be accounted for by heavy dew.  But you rarely see any rain falling when it's happening.  And rarely is the rain ever mentioned, because it has no relevance to the plot.  But there its evidence is anyway.  I know why they do this; they deliberately hose the street down to make it reflect the light more.  In any given case it's quite plausible that it might have been raining, and stopped a short time ago.  But for this to be the case in 98% of all nocturnal street scenes ever filmed is stretching belief just a teensy bit.  I could despise all movies that employ this device so transparently, but I'd deprive myself of a great many quality movies.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, there are good on-screen romances. Just not any good on-screen sex, and the "romantic comedy" and/or "romantic tear-jerker" films which employ them are universally of distractingly bad quality.  Still, there have been some really good, realistic, on screen romance and sexiness.  Take, for example, the "horse racing" dialogue between Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep (1946 film), which may be the single sexiest bit of dialogue every recorded on film.  Don't get me wrong, sex is dirty (at least, if done right) and I understand why a film wouldn't necessarily want to include all of the gory details, at least from a narrative point of view.  However, its the way that Hollywood does it that is so distracting.  The kinds of movies that employ those conventions are frequently of low quality, so I don't think I am "depriving" myself of good films.  There is good, sexy film that has been made, and it doesn't need to be pornographic, but it also doesn't employ those tired, worn out cliches.  -- Jayron  32  20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading your comments Jayron, I feel like you've watched this. If not then you really should-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So you avoid films that are of low quality for any reason, not just the low-quality ones that have bad sex scenes? That's a good decision.  However, "romantic" movies are not necessarily low-quality movies, and vice-versa.  "Romantic" movies don't necesarily have any kissing or sex, and those that do aren't necessarily "romantic" movies.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you are arguing with, because you haven't stopped being correct yet, Jack. -- Jayron  32  20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, I was arguing with you, my friend. Latterly, with your "the "romantic comedy" and/or "romantic tear-jerker" films which employ them are universally of distractingly bad quality".  I disagree with that.  But it's all subjective anyway, so it's not a matter of correctness.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seemed to be arguing against a statement I never made, however. You stated "However, "romantic" movies are not necessarily low-quality movies".  I never stated that they necessarily were.  So I am not sure why you felt the need to make such a correction.  -- Jayron  32  01:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You made a 6-pointed post above, with details of all the things that are wrong with movie sex, and ended with "That's why I despise "romantic" movies". You made a connection between movies with these types of scenes and movies that you despise.  Are you now saying that these movies are not low-quality, or not necessarily low-quality, just because they happen to contain scenes you dislike and are movies that you despise?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems you are being intentionally obtuse here Jack. I don't despise all romantic movies.  I despise the ones which use trite conventions.  There are good romantic movies, and there are bad ones.  Like anything else, there are traits which are markers of quality.  I don't like those movies which have the traits that mark them as of poor quality.  I like those movies that have traits that mark them of high quality.  Liking things that are good, and disliking things that are bad, is hardly a confusing stance to take, Jack.  I mean, really.  -- Jayron  32  20:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've now clarified that "That's why I despise "romantic" movies" is not to be read as you despising all romantic movies, but only some romantic movies. Without that clarification, I don't believe I was being remotely obtuse in thinking you were saying the former.  If you make a statement that can be legitimately read different ways in the context, please take responsibility for that, and don't charge others with obtuseness when they fail to somewhow know psychically what you were thinking when you wrote the statement.  Let's move on now. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One case in which there has been persistent speculation about whether the sex was simulated or not is Nicolas Roeg's fine Don't Look Now; see the section "The love scene controversy" in our article. Warren Beatty (Julie Christie's boyfriend at the time) was apparently not thrilled with the scene. Deor (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the effect of such scenes on relationships, it is not just a recent occurrence. Joe DiMaggio was reportedly quite disturbed by Marilyn Monroe's explicit (for the time) scenes in The Seven Year Itch. — Michael J 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Quuestion According to Jayron, actors don't have tongues, so can I assume all the tongue-in-mouth scenes are the works of computers? Can somebody direct me to a video that talks about kissing and acting? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)