An essay, by any other name would still be as boring...

An essay on the difference between nudity and pornography I wrote for a Shakespeare and Film class.  This isn't a traditional blogpost so don't feel obligated to read the entire thing, it's more of a way to encapsulate my thoughts at the time (my last year at BYU).  I'd be interested in any thoughts you might have on the subject. 

Looking back on the essay I'm not sure I did the opposing argument justice which more experienced debaters (http://www.jonblogden.com/ for example) would be sure to point out, but it is what it is.

Throughout both modern and ancient history the human nude has been depicted in both pornographic and artistic ways. What exactly divides pornography and art has been a controversial subject for centuries but recently the dividing line has become increasingly blurred. This blurring has originated from the increased availability and commercial appeal of pornography as well as the connected increase in directors and artists willing to sacrifice the integrity of their works by seeking cheap thrills. Ultimately, the artistic use of nudity relies on the nudity to advance key themes and a better understanding of the human condition. The nudity is used as a tool to draw the viewer’s eye and mind not only to a naked body but to a greater understanding of the characters and the issues they face. Pornography by contrast, whether explicit or not, draws attention to itself without passing that attention on. Pornography is the immature dinner guest who can’t allow others to share the spotlight, it’s all about him. By contrast Art is the gracious dinner party host, beautifully dressed but bent on creating new connections for her friends.


In the last fifty years two adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays, Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet and Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing have been criticized by conservative viewers for their depiction of nudity; Branagh depicts a bathing scene replete with naked soldiers and citizens while Zeffirelli shows two young lovers having just consummated their marriage. The question, then, becomes whether or not the two adaptations are simply a result of Hollywood directors drumming up support for their film by including nudity or whether the inclusion of nudity elucidates themes present in Shakespeare’s works.

Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing uses the nudity of the early bath scene to set a light tone for what follows as well as to show the removal of social conventions. Although the soldiers have just returned from war, as they strip off their clothes the viewer realizes the film is not overly concerned with their recent triumph. This will not be Othello where the main character’s refusal to remove the trappings and personality of a warrior will lead to his doom. Instead Branagh’s adaptation will be a light-hearted romp. Troubling characteristics of the main characters, such as the ease with which Claudio is convinced of Hero’s promiscuity or Beatrice’s penchant for verbally attacking others, are to be glossed over. While Branagh’s use of nudity may set a tone and help the viewer interpret subsequent scenes Zeffirelli, working almost three decades earlier, surpasses him by harnessing the emotional power of the human nude.

Throughout the beginning of his adaptation Zeffirelli shows Romeo and Juliet in their respective house colors; Juliet wears warm-colored dresses associated with the Capulets while Romeo’s dark blues and greens match the Montagues. As the couple moves away from their respective family loyalties they begin wearing neutral colors, white during the balcony scene and faded pastels during their marriage. A few scenes later that marriage is consummated but Zeffirelli takes great pains to emphasize that the significance of the bedroom scene is not that a Montague and a Capulet have stopped fighting long enough to fall in love.

Rather, Zeffirelli wishes to capture the unabashed humanity intrinsic to Romeo and Juliet’s love. While the earlier white clothing of the lovers’ courtship showed their refusal to accept the reds and greens of societal conflict their nakedness demonstrates that the couple, for a few brief on-screen seconds, are united physically but also by something Zeffirelli considers as innate to them as their own skin, human love. The nudity then is meant to demonstrate the humanity inherent in the innocent coupling of the two teens and the transcendence of their love over social impositions.

This interpretation of the film’s nudity also clarifies a key closing line. After the lovers have died and the humbled houses assemble the Prince remarks that “all are punished”. A cursory viewing might leave the viewer thinking “all” refers merely to the Montagues and Capulets but Zeffirelli’s point is farther reaching. The violence of the houses has not only “killed their joys…” but by denying the lovers those most basic privileges, to love and be loved in return, they have struck a blow to humanity itself. Innocent love, which Zeffirelli has shown to be inextricably tied to our humanity, has been marred; indeed, all are punished.

If social customs and niceties can be put on or off like clothing, what makes us human? Artists such as Zeffirelli deftly answer by bringing out common struggles, emotions and triumphs; at times utilizing human nudity to further accentuate their point. Sadly, few directors make such sophisticated use of nudity in their films. For every Romeo and Juliet there are hundreds of films which crassly commercialize the human form. Perhaps even sadder though is the propensity for well-meaning individuals to attack art for no other reason than the presence of nudity. In the hands of a true artist, nudity can be a tool to help the viewer better understand what it truly means to be human.

"Can't we develop at least one product that isn't used to kill people?"

School is over, for now.  It will be back.  But it's over...for now.  Consequentially I've got a ridiculous amount of free time for blogging, expect at least...two new posts in the next three to four months.

Work has been going well.  In lieu of a lengthy description of my daily responsibilities I'll suffice it to say that I am Ted from "Better Off Ted" in a company with non-evil management and a boss less bent on world domination.  A large transaction (over 100 miiiiillliioonn dollars) is set to close this week.  This is exciting.  More than exciting, however, is the monetary employee compensation which accompanies such a large transaction. 

/Begin Middle Management Rant

Since I only recently joined the company I find myself in the unfortunate position of a stockless spectator as this large transaction closes (boo).  On the upside, my position has provided me an excellent vantage point from which to observe an interesting phenomenon.  A large number of employees, having a significant number of stock options, are presented the opportunity to cash those options in for money.  In the business world this is generally thought of as a "good thing" (for the non-business savvy amongst my readers most things which result in more money in one's pocket usually fall into this category at least for us business types).

Interestingly, however, this sudden influx of cash has not been universally greeted with joy and laughter-making.  Instead, quite a bit of griping has resulted.  How can this be, you ask? Two words: full disclosure.  In most (all?) stock transactions of any size all stockholders must be notified of the size and scope of the pending transaction.  Consequentially all of the participating employees are shown what every one else is to receive. 

Frank isn't making as much as Ted even though Frank is waaaaay more productive (at least in his own mind).  Ted's irritated because he has two more years of work experience but is receiving only twice as much as Fred, iterate ad infinium. To hear some talk you'd think they'd been slapped with $400 speeding ticket of some sort instead of a healthy bonus.  What was wonderful cash compensation only days ago has become an intricate conspiracy reaching to the top tiers of management to defraud hardworking employees out of their rightful rewards.  C.S. Lewis pointed out that pride does not get pleasure from having something, only in having more of something than someone else.  Its twin sister Envy then, has no displeasure in having something, only in having less of something than someone else.

The moral as I see it is simply this:  The initial decision regarding the "fairness" of something should be made in a vacuum (inasmuch as that is possible).  Weigh the pro's and con's on a personal scale without regard to others.  Next, memorialize the decision in some way: write down the conclusion, tell a spouse,etc.  Later, once the inevitable urge to compare has arrived and you're absolutely sure the only reason Betsy is getting more than you is because the boss likes the pink bow Betsy wears to work every day, return to that initial decision and realize that though that may be true your end of the deal is still equitable.

/End Middle Management Rant