Memorable cinematic moments. (Wink-wink.) Where to begin? There's so many of them! Off the top of my head, Patricia Arquette's noteworthy scene in "Lost Highway" comes to mind, as does Heather Graham's outstanding performance in "Killing Me Softly." How about Natasha Henstridge in "Species" or Selma Blair in "Storytelling"? And who can forget Kelly Preston in "Mischief," Reese Witherspoon in "Twilight," Uma Thurman in "Dangerous Liaisons," and Goldie Hawn in "Crisscross"? Most unforgettable, too: Gretchen Mol's wowing appearance in "The Notorious Bettie Page"! Most cineastes could go on and on with their own personal favorites. None of these filmic gems, by the way, appear in this; 'tis a movie which features its own arbitrary selection of 'MCMs,' so it's a bit like watching a compilation of someone else's choice clips, which is okay but far from ideal and faith-affirming.
To think there was a time when a mere glimpse of an exposed ankle was enough to cause the average moviegoer to howl at the screen and to send him (or her) into a state of giddy rapture. Safe to say, cinema has certainly come a long way since those prudish wolf-whistling days, as this retrospective overview adequately demonstrates.
Not since "Some Nudity Required" has a flick like this come along. Only this one, in my opinion, is a lot more viewer-friendly, if you catch my meaning. Indeed, if clips of nude & sex scenes from non-pornographic movies pique your interest, here's a documentary that is almost guaranteed not to disappoint. (As for whether such can be said sans the aid of a fast-forward button, is another matter.)
Personally, and somewhat paradoxically, I found SKIN: A HISTORY OF NUDITY IN THE MOVIES (that's in, not at) to be a rather monotonous affair -- poorly paced, draggy, and overlong. What with me being a movie buff and all, I also wasn't exposed to much information that I didn't already know. Granted, the forepart contains a most enjoyable history lesson, as I was hitherto unaware of several film titles from the silent era that are referenced.
Decade-by-decade, the doc chronicles cinematic nudity, beginning in the early 20th century and proceeding up to the present day, and ranging from genres such as European New Wave, to even ribald, low-budget and -brow off-putting schlock (like Russ Meyer's "The Immoral Mr. Teas," among other sleazy sexploitation pics), although to its credit SKIN mainly focuses on more wholesome -- and mainstream Hollywood -- fare.
Naturally, a film like this would be remiss if it didn't include the history of those early censorious production codes, and so there is some obligatory commentary with regards to the Hays Office, Joseph Breen, and the MPAA (material that's also been covered in previous docs, such as in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"). We get chatter from various film critics/historians, who are basically here to state the obvious. Although some of what these self-perceived pundits have to say is informative, for the most part their input is not all that insightful and does little to enhance the viewing experience. We might just as well be watching a silent picture with interspersed, self-evident printed narration. ("In this, our female megastar, playing the part of a flagrant exhibitionist, slowly -- and we mean slowly -- removes layers of mid-Victorian apparel, ultimately baring her left breast in right profile for a freeze-frame-worthy millisecond. Not surprisingly, the picture went onto win a Best Actress award.")
Really, now, who desires or expects intellectual depth (if that is even possible) from an audio track of a movie so generally skin-deep as this? Or do you need a course in cinema studies under your belt in order to properly appreciate and gratuitously analyze 'MCMs'? My guess is, SKIN will leave most viewers feeling alternately aroused/mentally vacuous, what with its extended, almost sleep-inducing, interest in carnal consciousness.
Aside from the plentiful, lascivious clips we get, highlights for me were getting to see and hear from Richard Roeper, and finally putting a name and face to the heroic 'Mr. Skin,' whose encyclopedic knowledge of his pet topic gives fans of his new meaning to authoritative chapter-and-verse.
Still, SKIN I would have to describe as, overall, tedious and, in the end, only mediocre. I hate to have to say this, but it's true. Would I watch it again? Not anytime soon, would I want to. Perhaps I expected much less talk and a more audience-aware running time, but to me SKIN, as a whole, is a letdown -- akin to a curiously sanitized copy of an otherwise unrated direct-to-video erotic thriller, or discovering what you thought were the genuine articles of that sexy starlet you've been dying to see more of in fact belonging (darn it) to some faceless stunt woman.
Incidentally, on that note, I would've liked it had the film interviewed some actresses with no-nudity clauses (curious I would be to hear their reasons for this), and from some body doubles too (preferably, those comfortable with showing their true identities on camera. No concealing imagery, please).
To think there was a time when a mere glimpse of an exposed ankle was enough to cause the average moviegoer to howl at the screen and to send him (or her) into a state of giddy rapture. Safe to say, cinema has certainly come a long way since those prudish wolf-whistling days, as this retrospective overview adequately demonstrates.
Not since "Some Nudity Required" has a flick like this come along. Only this one, in my opinion, is a lot more viewer-friendly, if you catch my meaning. Indeed, if clips of nude & sex scenes from non-pornographic movies pique your interest, here's a documentary that is almost guaranteed not to disappoint. (As for whether such can be said sans the aid of a fast-forward button, is another matter.)
Personally, and somewhat paradoxically, I found SKIN: A HISTORY OF NUDITY IN THE MOVIES (that's in, not at) to be a rather monotonous affair -- poorly paced, draggy, and overlong. What with me being a movie buff and all, I also wasn't exposed to much information that I didn't already know. Granted, the forepart contains a most enjoyable history lesson, as I was hitherto unaware of several film titles from the silent era that are referenced.
Decade-by-decade, the doc chronicles cinematic nudity, beginning in the early 20th century and proceeding up to the present day, and ranging from genres such as European New Wave, to even ribald, low-budget and -brow off-putting schlock (like Russ Meyer's "The Immoral Mr. Teas," among other sleazy sexploitation pics), although to its credit SKIN mainly focuses on more wholesome -- and mainstream Hollywood -- fare.
Naturally, a film like this would be remiss if it didn't include the history of those early censorious production codes, and so there is some obligatory commentary with regards to the Hays Office, Joseph Breen, and the MPAA (material that's also been covered in previous docs, such as in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"). We get chatter from various film critics/historians, who are basically here to state the obvious. Although some of what these self-perceived pundits have to say is informative, for the most part their input is not all that insightful and does little to enhance the viewing experience. We might just as well be watching a silent picture with interspersed, self-evident printed narration. ("In this, our female megastar, playing the part of a flagrant exhibitionist, slowly -- and we mean slowly -- removes layers of mid-Victorian apparel, ultimately baring her left breast in right profile for a freeze-frame-worthy millisecond. Not surprisingly, the picture went onto win a Best Actress award.")
Really, now, who desires or expects intellectual depth (if that is even possible) from an audio track of a movie so generally skin-deep as this? Or do you need a course in cinema studies under your belt in order to properly appreciate and gratuitously analyze 'MCMs'? My guess is, SKIN will leave most viewers feeling alternately aroused/mentally vacuous, what with its extended, almost sleep-inducing, interest in carnal consciousness.
Aside from the plentiful, lascivious clips we get, highlights for me were getting to see and hear from Richard Roeper, and finally putting a name and face to the heroic 'Mr. Skin,' whose encyclopedic knowledge of his pet topic gives fans of his new meaning to authoritative chapter-and-verse.
Still, SKIN I would have to describe as, overall, tedious and, in the end, only mediocre. I hate to have to say this, but it's true. Would I watch it again? Not anytime soon, would I want to. Perhaps I expected much less talk and a more audience-aware running time, but to me SKIN, as a whole, is a letdown -- akin to a curiously sanitized copy of an otherwise unrated direct-to-video erotic thriller, or discovering what you thought were the genuine articles of that sexy starlet you've been dying to see more of in fact belonging (darn it) to some faceless stunt woman.
Incidentally, on that note, I would've liked it had the film interviewed some actresses with no-nudity clauses (curious I would be to hear their reasons for this), and from some body doubles too (preferably, those comfortable with showing their true identities on camera. No concealing imagery, please).