BULLCRAP!!!!!

You guys are living in male fantasy world. I admit, it's a great place to be, and we all wanna live there, but let's look at reality.

"Here's My Pussy" doesn't really tell you anything about her character (other than maybe she's a girl). If you guys think "I need to see her naked so I know something about her character", let me fill in on a little secret. All girls have pretty much the same equipment!

I don't even really buy the "nudity is necessary for the emotional content of the scene" argument. If you have a half decent director, you should be able to get it without the nudity. I can't think of a single instance where nudity is absolutely intergal and vital to the story (except for maybe a few comedy scenes that use nudity). It seems to me nudity is almost always superferlous to the scene. What do you need to show? Vulnerability? submissiveness? That can be done without nudity.


Yes, we all like nudity. But let's not make out to be anything bigger than it actually is. It's just nudity and it's not a "window into anyone's soul".

This ridiculous argument aside, I'm not sure why anyone is under the impression that Kathy Bates won her Oscar before ever doing a nude scene. That is not true. She appeared nude in At Play in the Fields of the Lord prior to starring in Misery.

, If that were true then the same could be said for violence, set, special effects and a whole manner of stuff.........and what would we be left watching then?

Whatever turns you on Jel...

Who ever called her a "good" actress? She's not a good actress, and that has nothing to do with her character, and everything to do with her abilities. Please, scroll through her filmography and tell me which piece of cinema she was involved with that would have warranted non-gratuitous, pertinent-to-the-character nudity. She's not starring in The Reader, but then again, she's not being offered a starring role in The Reader. And that's not because she's iffy about getting nude. Maybe if she were getting such offers, she'd be a little more amenable to stripping down for a role. As it is, she's starring in movies more suited to her range, getting paid well, and letting others handle the heavy-nudity lifting.

It doesn't really tell me much about her character except that she won't do something she's uncomfortable with, which isn't really a negative. I know, blasphemy to say on a board like this.

Yes where as other other actresses who have more dedication to a role push their boundaries. Actresses like Winslet, Mirren etc... have been quoted saying that they were terrified before doing a nude scene but they did it anyway. Their willingness to fulfill a role overrode their fear, it's called having a good work ethic and it's something that Alba would appear not to possess.

How do you know she wasn't terrified of dolphins before she made Flipper? Or maybe she is disgusted by Dane Cook (as most reasonable people are) yet still overcame her distaste to star in Good Luck Chuck. Why is doing nudity your main barometer for boundary-pushing and work ethic?

As far as I know, Alba never agreed to do a role that she knew required nudity, and then balked when it came time. If she's turned down plum roles because of nudity then that's her prerogative, and really tells me nothing about her lack of character. She's a C-level talent that has managed to make a good living, making the kind of tripe she's suited for, without having to get naked. Would her popping out a titty in The Love Guru have lent her more gravitas?

I agree with you that she's no Mirren or Winslet, but disagree with the notion that it has anything to do with being willing to do nudity.

You're being facetious now. It's my main barometer because it's one of the aspects that displays just how far an actress is willing to go in order to play a part. eg.......most women are not afraid of a Dolphin but most are when it comes to nudity.

Why not extend it to hardcore? Or at least full-on beaver shots? Pamela Anderson must be the bravest actress out there. I was and am being a bit facetious, but the point still stands.

The point about the Flipper thing, how do you know she hasn't pushed her own personal boundaries to play a role? I'm sure it wasn't easy to play getting raped and beaten in The Killer Inside Me.

And you're ignoring my other points where I wasn't being facetious at all.

No it doesn't.

I'm ignoring your other comments because I've already explained why I think it does show character when considering her commitment to a role. Oh and yes the Machete script was changed to fit her requirements.

Misery came out in 1990.
At Play came out in 1991.

These days Oscars are given to those in left wing message movies and dependably liberal stars off screen.

2010 - The Hurt Locker - Anti-American was movie
2009 - Slumdog Millionaire - anti-poverty fantasy
2008 - No Country for Old Men - Evil rich white man

2010 - Sandra Bullock - noted liberal actress in very very PC movie
2009 - Kate Winslet - anti nazi movie
2008 - Marion Cotillard - heroic woman's movie.

Nudity has nothing to do with it.

I agree with some of the recent posters, this argument is getting silly!


Last comment I'm gonna make on it, and here's why I don't buy the "She has to do a nude scene to challenge and stretch herself as an actress" line.

If "challenging youself as an actress" involves doing something a little scary, bold, and something you probably don't want to do, then what's so special about nudity? Why not say they have to eat a plate of scorpions, or parachute out of an airplane, or any other number of "Dog Eat Dog" type of stunts in order to "challenge themselves as an actress". Why is nudity such a benchmark and measure of challenge?









Commitment to the role? What's so hard about taking your clothes off? All it shows is that she's willing to get naked. By that argument Porn Stars are the most committed of all actresses. I think there are better indications, such as research into the part, physical changes (I'm thinking of Dinero in Raging Bull, but also maybe things like getting your tongue pierced, etc).

Well then why doesn't she do it then?

A ding dang do.

Dumbass.


She won't leave her comfort zone in order to fulfill a role. D U C !!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe she doesn't want to? And maybe she doesn't have to. Da-Da-Da-Dumbass!

These internet celeb sites really screw up people's minds. People forget the difference between actresses and Playboy models. Believe it or not, nudity is not required to be an actress (or even to be a good actress!!!!!!)

Comfort Zone???? WTF- why is getting naked the only way to leave your "comfort zone"????? Doing your own dangerous stunts, like jumping into a pit full of alligators, is leaving your comfort zone, but I don't hear a lot of people demanding she do that.


Can someone please explain to me where this idea that nudity (and only nudity) validates your acting credentials comes from? It doesn't make sense to me!

[b]I think people are confusing their own wishes and desires to see her naked with reality!

It's not "her comfort zone" that's the problem. It's "your comfort zone", because all you care about is seeing her naked and you're letting that cloud your judgement. If she suddenly did a nude scene would she automatically become "a better actress"? You seem to be saying that.--- And if not, then why is a nude scene so damn mandatory?

She's an actress, and a bad actress. But the fact that she won't do a nude scene isn't what makes her a bad actress. It has nothing to do with it. I suppose Mery Streep sucks as an actress because she's done very little nudity and never gone full frontal. She's still too much in her "comfort zone".--- Oh, I forgot, you don't paticularly want to see Meryl Streep naked, therefore she doesn't need a nude scene to validate her acting credentials. Only the girls you wanna see naked are required to do a nude scene to be legitimate.