Hacker News Reader

Comment by khazhoux | Hacker News Reader

> It's one of the most beautiful sequences in all of cinema -- a grieving couple rediscovering intimacy and joy. The way it is intercut with them dressing, getting ready for dinner, the way you can see it brought happiness and affirmation and some sense that life is not over and love survived a terrible loss. It's central to the entire film: to why they are in Venice in the first place, to their commitment to each other, to their determined love for each other.

Also known as a "sex scene." And at a full five minutes, it's a rather long scene :-)

It's also one of the most notorious sex scenes in cinema from that era, with persistent rumors that Sutherland and Christie actually were doing the deed.

But I think you wrongly inferred that the commenter was trying to dissuade people from watching the movie because of it. I interpreted it just as a fair warning, lest you think it might be a fun pick for family movie night with the kids and grandparents.

View on HN

> Also known as a "sex scene." And at a full five minutes, it's a rather long scene :-)

It has almost nothing creatively in common with sex scenes in almost any other movie ever made, which are usually (lazily, and often misogynistically) used to cheaply bond the damsel to the hero.

It's not a sex scene; it is fully and completely a love scene.

I can think of so few like it.

> It's also one of the most notorious sex scenes in cinema from that era, with persistent rumors that Sutherland and Christie actually were doing the deed.

Persistent, infantile, somewhat misogynistic rumours.

Buddy, when two people are having sex in a movie, it's a "sex scene", however you choose to explain the nuance.

>Persistent, infantile, somewhat misogynistic rumours.

What makes it "misogynistic"?

> Buddy, when two people are having sex in a movie, it's a "sex scene", however you choose to explain the nuance.

I'm not your buddy and I'm trying to draw what I think is a pretty important creative, cultural, artistic distinction. But if you don't see it, that's fine.

> What makes it "misogynistic"?

Have you ever considered how the balance of male and female nudity works in Hollywood? Who is always the most exposed?

As a result it's very nearly intrinsically misogynistic to suggest two actors really had heterosexual sex on a film set. The portrayal and the balance of power makes that clear.

(I mean consider how the distinction works if it is two men or two women... how do you decide what is portrayal and what is sex?)

> Have you ever considered how the balance of male and female nudity works in Hollywood?

Using balance and Hollywood in the same sentence looks strange to me.

I find most of Hollywood movies unbalanced.

> It's not a sex scene; it is fully and completely a love scene.

The love was expressed sexually. In a sex scene.

I understand that most sex in movies is poorly done, but that is a different discussion (and doesn't alter the plain-english meaning of the words sex or scene). No argument that sex is often a negative thing in films -- often causing the protagonist's downfall (an endless re-telling of the Garden of Evil parable). And of course, until very recently the woman was expected to be topless, though less so in the last few years since #metoo. There are exceptions, with sex-positivity and/or no female nudity.

> Persistent, infantile, somewhat misogynistic rumours.

Persistent, yes. But I'm confused why you think the rumors are infantile or misogynistic. At the time, people were shocked by the realism, and they reacted with "those two sure look like they're really fucking." How is that derogatory to Julie Christie??

Reply on news.ycombinator.com