| 
| 
Warning: Strong language!
This idea may test your patience, but bear with me: 2011 has seen a great leap forward in cinema. I speak not, of course, of the unprecedented number of sequels (a step backward, by definition) or of the recrudescent plague of 3D (which can go....
...fuck itself). No, I speak of the companion-piece romantic comedies No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits. Yes, that's right.
Beyond the weird coincidence of Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis, respectively, starring as enthusiastic heterosexuals after their much-publicized sex scene together in Black Swan (almost as if they were both saying “Look at us being straight! That was ACTING!”) "No Strings Attached" and "Friends With Benefits" have many similarities. For one, they both started out being titled "Friends With Benefits" before (what would become) "No Strings Attached" changed its title. For another, and more importantly, both movies are about, at core, the exact same thing: a man and a woman not married to each other, or even considering themselves to be in a “relationship” of any formal kind, who have frequent and enthusiastic sex.
There was a time—by which I mean the dawn of cinema until a couple of years ago—when 
such a movie could never have been made at any studio. Hollywood is often, and not without basis, considered a bastion of liberalism by heartlanders, but there are certain areas about which it stays pretty conservative, sex being the most notable. This is not to say there's no sex in Hollywood movies—that would be an exaggeration at best—but what there is tends to be linked either with violence and danger or well within the traditional monogamous, heteronormative model. Hell, even the provocatively titled 1988 picture Casual Sex? had the question mark to soften things, and the answer turned out to be “no,” as the two female protagonists were ultimately trying nor to get laid but to get married, in accordance with societal norms. Most deviations from that model have resulted in huge controversy (like whenever anything the slightest bit gay is released--e.g. "Brokeback Mountain") historically, but this is lessening with time. The most notable thing about the controversy surrounding "No Strings Attached" and "Friends With Benefits" is . . . there isn't any. Therein lies our great leap forward.
Whether this is a matter for celebration or panic depends on one's own convictions. All I'm saying is that this premise—two consenting adults in a consequence- and judgment-free sexual non-relationship—could never have existed without massive controversy in any other era in cinema. Would Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn “hook up”? Bogart and Bacall? Even Warren Beatty and Julie Christie faced often-tragic consequences whenever their characters had sex. In just about every movie ever about two lovers not in a relationship with each other, those lovers were in relationships with other people. And adultery ALWAYS had negative consequences.
We find ourselves now in a (not very) brave new world. The idea of being “friends with benefits” has been discovered by the movies. And it's a common enough thing in society that no one seems to care, except to say, “Oh, that movie looks interesting. Wow, it's directed by the guy who did "Easy A"? Let's go see it!” I say this is good. You may say this is bad. But it cannot be debated that this is, and that this acceptability of a once-scandalous idea is a relatively new thing.
What does this development have to do with the future of sexuality in cinema? It may have no effect at all, it may herald a new sexually progressive (matter-of-factness is itself progressive) era. Only time will tell.
Danny Bowes' is a prolific writer and critic who lives in New York City. You can look for his column every Wednesday, and read him online at moviesbybowes.blogspot.com.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
bolinica002
said:
 |
... I agree with the poster above. The world s changing, and as someone who is currently in college at the moment, I see a "friends with benefits" situation on the daily. Its nothing to be ashamed about in real life, so I for one, am very glad that cinema is straying from the old-school mentality. As for the future of cinema, I do feel like movies will continue to portray "hook-up" sex more and more, and eventually lead to a world where these kind of things are looked at as completly normal. |
ach
said:
|
... I disagree that the "acceptance of a once-scandalous idea is a relatively new thing." Society has moved forward and along with it the notions of what is morally and culturally acceptable. What was once considered outre, scandalous, and unacceptable has always evolved into the norm. Interracial marriage, unmarried living together, blacks and whites using the same facilities, miniskirts, bikinis, etc. were once taboo but very commonplace today. This is no different from any other time in history. Years from now, our society will wonder what the big deal was with opposition to gay marriage, equal rights for women, etc. And frankly, I can't wait until that day comes.  |
ravenjack
said:
 |
... It feels like the 1960's Free Love era is returning, unfortuantly it's returning to a time when STD's are more common then peace signs were back then. I think these movies echo a good amount of today's culture, especially the younger crowd that wants to feel good and live for the now. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
