After watching "Ghost in the Shell" with Scarlet Johansson, this subject came to mind.
There is an odd film, "Under the Skin", that Johansson is in that involved nudity on her part.
The scene which that took place seemed very out of context to the films plot, having the cynical view of Hollywood I do I decided to search why that was done and found this: https://www.slantmagazine.com/feature...
FTA:
Slant: In the film’s press notes, you describe the alien’s transformation as being from an “it” to a “she,” and you cite that as being the core of the movie. Were there any concerns about how you might be depicting female sexuality on screen, for a viewer who didn’t read this as a discovery of humanity and identity, but as, say, a cautionary tale about female libido?
Glazer: Well, it wasn’t meant to be a cautionary tale at all. I think the female sexuality in the film is something which is objectified. The creature that Scarlett plays in the film exists to be objectified. She’s there to be objectified. And what she does in the course of the film, in her own discovery, is she reclaims that—she de-eroticizes her own image, actually. Thinking about that now, that’s nothing that I would worry about. It seems to me to be somehow in line with Scarlett’s life as an actress, and in the way she’s objectified. There’s a parallel idea of her reclaiming her image, and hersexuality in this film, which I think she does.
Me, again: That is some bullshit right there.
In my, all be it cynical, opinion is that this is the structure that Hollywood has for women and even with Weinstein and "Times (-) Up" and "Me Too" that is something that has not even come close to being addressed yet.
There is an odd film, "Under the Skin", that Johansson is in that involved nudity on her part.
The scene which that took place seemed very out of context to the films plot, having the cynical view of Hollywood I do I decided to search why that was done and found this: https://www.slantmagazine.com/feature...
FTA:
Slant: In the film’s press notes, you describe the alien’s transformation as being from an “it” to a “she,” and you cite that as being the core of the movie. Were there any concerns about how you might be depicting female sexuality on screen, for a viewer who didn’t read this as a discovery of humanity and identity, but as, say, a cautionary tale about female libido?
Glazer: Well, it wasn’t meant to be a cautionary tale at all. I think the female sexuality in the film is something which is objectified. The creature that Scarlett plays in the film exists to be objectified. She’s there to be objectified. And what she does in the course of the film, in her own discovery, is she reclaims that—she de-eroticizes her own image, actually. Thinking about that now, that’s nothing that I would worry about. It seems to me to be somehow in line with Scarlett’s life as an actress, and in the way she’s objectified. There’s a parallel idea of her reclaiming her image, and hersexuality in this film, which I think she does.
Me, again: That is some bullshit right there.
In my, all be it cynical, opinion is that this is the structure that Hollywood has for women and even with Weinstein and "Times (-) Up" and "Me Too" that is something that has not even come close to being addressed yet.