Monday, March 16, 2009

The digital phallus that destroyed Manhattan...literally...

I should take a second to warn any perspective readers that full frontal male nudity is being discussed in the lines below where your eyes are now resting. There are no pictures, but there may be vocabulary you find offensive. If discussions of male nakedness and use of the terms required therein offend you, perhaps it would be best to sail away right now...rejoin us here at the hideaway tomorrow when we will discuss topics of a much less dangerous nature...like global thermonuclear war...or the Care Bears...

My beautiful wife left me this weekend.

On Saturday she went away for an overnight with some friends. When the cat's away, the mice will play so myself and a few friends decided to relive the college years by going to a movie, grabbing some horrible WaWa food afterward, and playing video games into the wee (Wii) hours of the morning.

The movie we chose to see was Watchmen, a movie I had been looking forward to seeing for several months. I was never a hugely devoted follower of the graphic novel. I was aware of the story but did not pick it up and read it until two months ago in anticipation of the movie. I enjoyed the graphic novel. It is truly deserving of all the accolades that have been showered upon it over the years and quite literally gave me the always enjoyed 'can't put it down' syndrome that all good stories do. So I came at the movie as an admirer of the book, not necessarily a devoted disciple, but an admirer to be sure.

I tremendously enjoyed the movie. I am not a movie reviewer kind of guy (although I will say that my biggest complaint about the movie was the "acting" of Malin Akerman, who looks beautiful both in and out of her costume, but whose acting was about as inspired as a kitchen chair sitting in the middle of an empty room) so I am not going to write a review of the movie. There are thousands of folks currently taking up space on the net doing that. I have read forty or so of these reviews as I prepared to write this post and I know I just scratched the surface of the the Internet love orgy/hate fest that has been born out of seeing and then reviewing this movie.

My fascination is with every one's fascination with Dr. Manhattan's digitally created phallus. FIVE people I have talked to since seeing it have asked me the same question first. "So what was up with the blue guy's unit that I have heard so much about?" Not a question about the plot, the special effects, the violence...

No.

They wanted to know about the digital dong.

And my experience is not unique. Google (you might wanna put safe search on first) the phrase "Dr. Manhattan's __________" (in the blank, place any synonym for the male anatomy that you prefer). You will be directed to hundreds of people (yours truly included in that list too I guess) discussing the merits and size and shape and color of a fictional super hero's 'little hero'.

It flummoxes me, the degree of attention this is getting. As I said earlier, I have read my way through forty or so movie reviews today for Watchmen and found only THREE that make no mention of Dr. Manhattan's lack of clothes. It is a central detail in most of the other reviews. Some are quite colorful and frankly, quite entertaining. Two of my personal favorites refer to it as "Dr. Manhattan's stimulus package" and his "Lower Manhattan".

(Come on...be honest...those made you at least smile...)

What is the big deal? In a movie more soaked in blood than an abattoir floor, steeped in more on screen violence than a Martin Scorsese movie night, and containing a no holds barred sex scene between two superheroes suspended high above the city streets, why is the occasional screen shot of a digitally created man's member the hot topic? It's not like they were showcasing the thing in the movie. To read some of these reviews and discussions you would think the director himself pops into shot, gaping at the appendage, pointing and gesturing to get your attention to make sure you don't miss it. Many shots of Dr. Manhattan are taken from the navel up. In others, such as when he is vaporizing Vietnamese guerrillas with the efficiency of a Hoover Shop-Vac, he has created a sort of Manhattan Speedo that covers the offending body part. On two occasions he even wears a well tailored black suit. But when he is amongst friends, Dr. Manhattan certainly likes to go commando and on many of those occasions the camera takes us north instead of south. There are no close ups, no "unnecessary zooms". Just a super dude with the power to create life...but not nice blue boxers.

Walking around like a pantsed smurf not realizing he has lost his little white pants.

Contextually speaking, Dr. Manhattan's nakedness is just further evidence of his disassociation with his humanity. He only covers up when asked to do so. To him details such as nakedness are as inconsequential as forgetting to provide a way for Laurie to breathe when they arrive on the Martian surface together. It makes sense in the context of the story. It fits. But I have had two people tell me flat out that the full frontal digital male nudity is why they will not go see the movie.

Many people believe, as I do, that our 'naughty bits' are to be reserved for the sole viewing pleasure of our spouses and ourselves. Some take that a step further and say that movies that proudly display people violating that tenet are to be avoided at all cost. I get that and I respect their opinion. I myself won't go see a movie simply because there is nudity but if it occurs, it doesn't shatter my world, so long as it is relevant to the narrative and not nudity for it's own sake.

But to refuse to see a movie because of full frontal male nudity, and be OK with the full frontal female nudity smacks of hypocrisy. Or maybe it is a fear of catching 'gayness' through a movie screen, like some viral plague. I am not sure what it is and I don't understand the double standard. Where are the jokes about the Silk Specter's anatomy? The embarrassed giggles and averted eyes? I will save you the time...there aren't any. Why not?

I find it utterly fascinating.

I would be interested to know what you think. Please feel free to comment here on the blog, toss in your two cents. Just click on the word comment below. I would love to get a lively discussion going here about this.

32 comments:

  1. As always you are very funny and you bring forth some good points. I will be interested in how the other 5 people respond.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hehehe...you said phallus. I am TOTALLY going to see this movie now. :) Funny and engaging writing.
    Lisa Blackwell

    ReplyDelete
  3. If 4 guys could sit through the movie and not find it a big deal in the context of a movie that pushes the boundaries of the R rating on merits that have nothing to do with the 'stimulus package' then the whole thing is overblown. Incidentally I agree that Malin Ackerman was the weak point but the rest was very well acted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with you to a certain extent, female nudity is wholely more acceptable in movies than male nudity.

    However..........the other day I was pursuing some odd picture on the internet, intending a totally G rated procurement, when I came across a picture of a vagina on a bicycle. Now....it struck me, first as "what the......" and then it turned into "ewww gross" and then the thought dawned on me that if it had been a phallus, as you have put it, most people would look, giggle and or laugh and a few would get a bit indignant about the state of the world these days.

    However, when it comes to the picture of the vagina on the bicycle most peoples reactions I have encountered has been 1. confusion and then 2. some sort of utterance of ichyness and or queasiness/grossness.

    You can and do see renderings of the male anatomy on the various surfaces depending on proximity to Jr High School's and teen hang outs, many such drawings relating to power and greatness and such but there is no such thing when it comes to the vagina. Nope, people reach to other female anatomy for that and it generally doesn't convey power.

    anywho.......there is some weird disconnect between the reproductive organs when it comes to males and females but I'm not sure that the standard is biased one way or the other.

    gabbailey

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jeez, i only asked because I ALSO only heard people talking about the "stimulus package". Everyone who said they saw it said it was 45 mins of blue..."man parts"...LOL I could care less, I saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall and they didn't even cover that one up with blue body paint...and trust me that dude is not the first person that comes to mind when you think "who might I want to see full male frontal nudity"...although it was hilarious LOL It's novel at this point to see a male part on the big screen...(I was going to make a joke about size...but I won't LOL)...we have been seeing women nude for decades, I think it just throws people off when it's presented without warning...it's new and apparently, blue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Gabby...

    I must admit...I am trying to figure out WHY someone would make a picture of a vagina on a bicycle...

    I also have seen many hastily scrawled pictures of male genetalia in public bathrooms and the like. Mostly they seem to be drawn to ridicule or mock someone.

    I agree that there is a disconnect. But in motion pictures it is much more acceptable to show full frontal female nakedness as opposed to male. That is I am trying to understand...the reason why that is.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Erin
    But you were not the only one who asked me and that is the whole point. Many people who have yet to see it are talking about it.
    It is not even a case of blue body paint. This blue phallus never existed anywhere outside of a computer...it was all digitally rendered. It wasn't even a real one...and still it is a main topic of convo from the movie, and that is what amazes me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it was some feminist/lesbian demonstration/event/parade.............thing

    gabby

    ReplyDelete
  9. maybe it's more acceptable to show female nudity because there is no obvious arousal...
    or maybe because considering that people breast feed the boobie is no more erotic than a belly button...
    Ok...even I have to laugh at that one...
    Maybe it's National Geographics fault...I mean jeez I saw lots of naked boobies growing up and that was in the name of....Geography!!!
    (Sorry sometimes the word boobie cracks me up...this is one of those times...I'm surprised I didn't say blue weinie yet)
    i have no idea what i'm talking about...do you guys miss me yet? :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Erin...
    1. What are you on and where can I get some?

    2. You may have something with the whole arousal aspect. But I don't know if that is totally it. I personally think that it is proof positive positive that God has a sense of humor when you consider how silly an aroused male looks.
    But even taking that into consideration I can't think of a single movie (except for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back) where a fully aroused male is shown on screen. Porn, of course, would be the exception I guess but we are talking about main stream movies.

    And for a lot of us, National Geographic was our first glimpse of a bared breast. (Sorry...couldn't bring myself to type the word boobie...)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well I just discussed this topic with Eric and he feels that maybe it's the fact that the female body is more aesthetically pleasing to both males and females (not in a gay/lesbian kind of way...just in general). Of course, that is coming from a male. LOL

    And I am not on anything...this is just my way overly charming personality :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I felt sorry for the guy. He's immortal, so he has to spend eternity with blue balls...

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Erin...

    No doubt. Again...comes back to god's sense of humor.

    And while you do have a very charming personality...you are definitely ON something...

    ReplyDelete
  14. @JA...Is that worth the price of immortality?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sorry I was wrong, it's a bicycle Taxi in Helsinki Finland.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Gabby...

    OK...I don't find that offensive...just stupid.

    A vapid way to try to make a point.

    Driving around with a giant phallus bike would be just as stupid.

    Looks like she has one on her lapel too.

    Whatever...

    ReplyDelete
  17. The movie probably had too much skin, both the male and female variety. About halfway through I was trying to figure out how they are going to show this on a broadcast TV, and then I realized that it was over 2 and half hours and it probably won't make sense when stripped down.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @David...

    The possibility of television broadcast went "out the window" five minutes in...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I had read a lot of reviews and decided against seeing "Watchmen" in Imax because I didn't want to see a giant-sized "man thingy".

    When I saw the movie on Sunday, I didn't see Manhattan's nakedness to be as much a distraction as I had thought it might be, maybe because they weren't doing weird "focus on it" type stuff and it wasn't shown in an aroused state that would draw lots of attention.

    (I'm not going to get into any "male nudity versus female nudity" stuff, since I have no idea.)

    I was more bothered by all the gore in the movie.

    Patrick

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Patrick...

    I agree...the gore fest at points was far more distracting than the "man parts".

    But that's the whole point of my fascination...people seem to be talking more about the "man parts" than then flow of blood.

    I did get to see an extended preview for Wolverine:Origins which I am eagerly awaiting...

    ReplyDelete
  21. And the fact that people in this country are more concerned/upset about seeing a penis- fake or not- than seeing massive amounts of violence and gore is precisely the problem with our country today

    ReplyDelete
  22. My husband and I went to see the movie together, as he had read the book and really enjoyed it. Since I had NOT read it, he prepared me for the violence. I personally have never enjoyed watching violence, so I just didn't watch those parts.

    Nudity and sex in movies has always bothered me. I consider sex to be a sacred thing between husband and wife, and I HATE the way hollywood has cheapened it.

    Having said that, I didn't even realize until further into the movie that Dr. Manhattan was going commando. I felt they handled that well - as you said, NOT drawing attention to it. And you're right, it did fit the character.

    So, that's my opinion. :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. And, I forgot to say, I did enjoy the movie. :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. While I have no interest in the movie, I have read reviews and seen interviews, and they ALWAYS mention the blue member. The actor totally denies it is his also. We are so used to female nudity that this is an outlier and everyone is talking about it. EXCEPT on Nip/Tuck, where all the nudity is male back nudity.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Topher...

    What if the penis CAUSED the violence and gore?

    ReplyDelete
  26. @D-Girl...

    Question to ponder.

    Has Hollywood cheapened sex or just catered to what the majority of the masses want to see?

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Beryl...

    Why must you ALWAYS interject,one might say thrust, NIP/TUCK into a conversation?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Brian and Topher...given what war is...I would say Penis' caused lots of violence and gore LOL

    again, I discussed with Eric and he agrees that "Blue Man" (I have no idea who he is or his name) is just oblivious to human need to "cover that sh!t up" LOL

    I can't wait to see the movie :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Phalli...or phallus's or phallium aside, what did you think of the actor who played Rorsharch? I thought he was great. I am biased as that was my favorite character from the comic, so I admit I was totally focused on him.

    I thought they could have fleshed out Veidt's background a bit more like in the comic, but you only have so much time in a film. But I liked the flick too. I'm not as hung up about some of the inconsistencies or omissions between the book and the movie as it seems some uberfans tend to be.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Jonathan...

    Jackie Earl Haley NAILED the character. Rorsharch makes this movie. The scene between Kovacs and the Shrink...one of my favorites from the book, was nailed to perfection. And his plead with Manhattan at the end...wow...one heck of a performance.

    I really do not like the way they changed the ending. It is completely unfeasible to me that they way they decided to write it in the movie would fly. It simply would not work...for many reasons.

    I thought the guy who played Blake was awesome as well.

    ReplyDelete
  31. To be honest, I never did like the book's ending (forgive me Alan Moore) but if they had incorporated it into the film I think you're looking at another hour to it's length at least.

    And on the subject of Giant Size Man-Things, as spoken by Patrick...I have 5 of 'em.

    Click if you dare!

    http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i292/manthing2/300px-Giant-Size_Man-Thing_5.jpg

    http://www.myspace.com/whateverknowsfear

    ReplyDelete
  32. To Brian--Why do I always use words such as thrust, and Nip/tuck in my conversation? Guess I never noticed I do. But YOU certainly noticed. Hmmmmm........

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT HERE...YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO