alexis dziena?

Post Reply
dutchboy
Posts: 2
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 11:51

Post by dutchboy » 21 Aug 2005 12:28

I saw Jim Jarmusch's <a href='http://imdb.com/title/tt0412019/' target='_blank'>Broken Flowers</a> recently. OK flick, very odd, sort of an even-more-minimalist Lost In Translation. Anyway, in the midst of this weird, arty flick, comes a hot chick character named Lolita, played true to the character's name by an actress named Alexis Dziena, whom I've never heard of. When she gave a generous dose of full-frontal nudity a few seconds later I thought I'd check the obvious place to see if anyone here knew more about her.

<a href='http://imdb.com/name/nm1232226' target='_blank'>IMDB</a> doesn't have much. Justin, they have bootlegs of this one already down Brunei way?

AngelBaby
Posts: 556
Joined: 29 Sep 2004 11:36
Location: Cloud 9
Contact:

Post by AngelBaby » 21 Aug 2005 13:08

<span style='color:blue'>Wow...according to Almighty IMDB, she is in "Havoc." :omfg:

Does the list of hottness in that movie ever end? It really needs to hurry up and get released here.

She's also apparently one of the leads in the new TV series "Invasion" coming this fall. I plan to watch...</span>

User avatar
Justin
Posts: 1228
Joined: 17 Jun 2004 09:19
Location: Brunei
Contact:

Post by Justin » 21 Aug 2005 17:56

i've heard of that flick. havent seen it floating around on dvd yet in these here parts. but i'll keep a look out for it.

there was some talk about the nudity in that flick. well, not so much a talk but an opinion by this one reviewer guy about nudity in general, in movies.
Graphic Nudity

Time for another MPAA-related rant. Maybe I should dedicate one day a week to an anti-MPAA ReelThought.

Last week, I saw Broken Flowers, the lastest Jim Jarmusch film. The MPAA has given it a justifiable R-rating. That's not what this column is about. Instead, it's about one of the reasons for the R-rating. According to the MPAA's content description, it is rated R for "graphic nudity" (amongst other things).

"Graphic nudity?"

I can't recall having seen that phrase used before to elaborate on a rating. "Graphic violence" - yes. "Graphic sex" - yes (usually NC-17). But not "graphic nudity." So what constitutes "graphic nudity?" I was curious. Was I about to see a close-up of a vagina or a penis? Was someone in the film going to spread his or her legs? The lack of an NC-17 indicates that the "graphic nudity" occurs in a non-sexual situation, so pornography seemed unlikely. Maybe it would be something like the still photographs in Kinsey. That, as far as I could guess, would deserve to be tagged "graphic nudity."

So what was so shocking, so unusual that the MPAA coined a new term for it? A naked woman walks into a room, smiles at Bill Murray, then turns around and walks out. Admittedly, we see pretty much all of her (breasts, buns, pubic hair), but it doesn't last long. Three seconds tops. Frankly, it's a lot tamer than some nude scenes in films that have not been labeled as containing "graphic nudity." There was pubic hair in The Devil's Rejects, and the only "graphic" that film got was for violence.

There are reasons beyond the "graphic nudity" for Broken Flowers to be rated R, so I'm not going to quibble with the classification. But, from the MPAA's perspective, the nude scene alone would disqualify this movie from a less restrictive rating. And that's where things stop making sense. Once again, I find myself asking why a naked human body cannot be seen by anyone under the age of 17. The context is non-sexual. Are breasts such a horrifying sight that we feel the need to protect minors from seeing them? (This makes even less sense with girls, since they have them. Are they not allowed to stand naked in front of a mirror?)

Even after bringing religion into the equation, it still makes no sense. (Nudity is not a sin, and if the presence of nudity results in lust - which is a sin - the problem is with the observer, not the nude person.) The point of this scene (and countless others like it) is not to titillate or arouse. It's to illustrate an aspect of a woman's character (that she's uninhibited and doesn't mind casual nudity). People in this country are scared of the human body. It freaks them out. They can't deal with the concept that covering something up makes it more taboo. If women were allowed to go topless as freely as men are, the intense fascination with breasts would abate in a generation or two. (Look to those counties where female toplessness is legal.) There would still be breast festishists, just as there are foot fetishists and hair fetishists today. But naked breasts would no longer be objects of shame and fear.

And now the movies give us "graphic nudity." For those keeping score, here is what I believe the MPAA means by some of its cryptic, unhelpful phrases related to naked bodies. "Discreet nudity" refers to a glimpse of flesh, but nothing that can be identified except by pausing the DVD player during a particular frame. A quick flash of a nipple or partial view of buns fits into this category. "Nudity" refers to a breast or bun view - anything that lasts longer than "discreet nudity," but doesn't show anything between upper thighs and hips in the front. "Graphic nudity" is what is more commonly referred to as "full frontal." Or at least that's what I think it means. I'll need to see some more "graphic nudity" before making a final determination.

Whatever will the MPAA think of next?

dutchboy
Posts: 2
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 11:51

Post by dutchboy » 21 Aug 2005 18:43

I would maybe question that article's claim that the context was non-sexual.

She's just flirted with Bill Murray in a pretty sexy way, steps out of the room, and then shows up again a bit later wearning nada, then goes out. The running joke in the episode is that she's named Lolita, she _is_ Lolita (including heart earrings that match the sunglasses from the original <a href='http://imdb.com/title/tt0056193/' target='_blank'>Lolita</a>), but both her and her mother (Sharon Stone :omfg:) seem completely oblivious to any implications of her name. She also shows up again nicely filling out a bikini.

Her total screen time is probably five minutes, but it's a, uh, stirring five minutes.
Last edited by dutchboy on 22 Aug 2005 05:35, edited 1 time in total.

Dairy
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Aug 2005 12:56

Post by Dairy » 22 Aug 2005 00:42

Is it me or does she look like Fairuza Balk?

heineken
Posts: 301
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 05:42
Location: outside philly
Contact:

Post by heineken » 24 Aug 2005 12:28

Just came back from this movie...she does indeed have a great body. Especially naked.

She's in this promo shot (the girl on the left obviously, not sharon stone). Doesn't do her any justice though.

<a href='http://img108.imagevenue.com/img.php?lo ... lowers.jpg' target='_blank'>Image</a>
Last edited by heineken on 25 Aug 2005 03:40, edited 1 time in total.

UncleMao
Posts: 401
Joined: 17 Jun 2004 12:30
Location: The Heart of the Proletariat

Post by UncleMao » 24 Aug 2005 13:59

Dairy wrote:Is it me or does she look like Fairuza Balk?
Fairuza Balk is attractive in that "Best fuck that could turn around and suddenly stab you in the eye" kind of kinky, homicidal way.

I bet she's a screamer too.

AngelBaby
Posts: 556
Joined: 29 Sep 2004 11:36
Location: Cloud 9
Contact:

Post by AngelBaby » 24 Aug 2005 21:50

heineken wrote:Just came back from this movie...she does indeed have a great body.  Especially naked.

She's in this promo shot (the girl on the left obviously, not sharon stone).  Doesn't do her any justice though.

<a href='http://img108.imagevenue.com/img.php?lo ... lowers.jpg' target='_blank'>Image</a>
<span style='color:blue'>Image killed by post editing...

boo. :( </span>

heineken
Posts: 301
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 05:42
Location: outside philly
Contact:

Post by heineken » 25 Aug 2005 03:41

Fixed!

Whenever that happens you can replace the weird "ℑ" symbol with "&image" (no quotes) and it will work.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests