• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Hypothetical movie making

Go to CruxDreams.com
I'll try not a kolossal, not a "peplum movie" or something like that...
I want an extremely simple movie, few characters, few sets, no symbolisms, references or other meanings, just a perfect psychological construction (audience must identify with the characters, understand their thoughts, their feelings... must feel their fear, desire, hate, angst, hope, desperation, sadness... ) with a excellent acting and a great cinematography.
Filmed in 70mm, natural light, strong, simply and perfectly build images (as an "Herzoglike" style)
 
I’ve written about this once or twice before on other threads, but if it were me, I would resist all of our fetishistic instincts. I would make a character drama set in Ancient Rome, that doesn’t feel at all like an exploitation film or an erotic film. Most of the story would be PG-13. Then as we approach the climax, the audience would start to realize that a prominent supporting character (I wouldn’t even do the protagonist, personally) is likely to be in really big trouble. The suspense builds, she gets caught, and suddenly people are talking about her being crucified. Surely not! But as the drama progresses, still PG-13, they slowly realize it’s really going to happen. But nobody suspects the level of realism. This has been a PG-13 film. They’ll probably either do it off-screen or nail her up with her clothes on. Then she’s stripped to the waist for her whipping, and there are some discrete shots that show her breasts as she’s beaten. People realize very gradually how brutally honest this scene is going to be. At the cross, she’s stripped naked, but the camera doesn’t focus or linger as if it were porn. She happens to be naked, and if some intimate details are caught on film, that’s just the way it is. Also, she wouldn’t have a super-model body. Fit, sure. Attractive as any nude woman, but not unattainable perfect.

I think this approach has the advantage of having a better chance at seeing the light of day with a mainstream audience, and for me at least, it’s honestly more of a turn-on. Kind of like how you’d rather convince the shy girl in the corner to come to bed with you than go with the seductress who’s flashing you naughty looks all night.
 
I’ve written about this once or twice before on other threads, but if it were me, I would resist all of our fetishistic instincts. I would make a character drama set in Ancient Rome, that doesn’t feel at all like an exploitation film or an erotic film. Most of the story would be PG-13. Then as we approach the climax, the audience would start to realize that a prominent supporting character (I wouldn’t even do the protagonist, personally) is likely to be in really big trouble. The suspense builds, she gets caught, and suddenly people are talking about her being crucified. Surely not! But as the drama progresses, still PG-13, they slowly realize it’s really going to happen. But nobody suspects the level of realism. This has been a PG-13 film. They’ll probably either do it off-screen or nail her up with her clothes on. Then she’s stripped to the waist for her whipping, and there are some discrete shots that show her breasts as she’s beaten. People realize very gradually how brutally honest this scene is going to be. At the cross, she’s stripped naked, but the camera doesn’t focus or linger as if it were porn. She happens to be naked, and if some intimate details are caught on film, that’s just the way it is. Also, she wouldn’t have a super-model body. Fit, sure. Attractive as any nude woman, but not unattainable perfect.

I think this approach has the advantage of having a better chance at seeing the light of day with a mainstream audience, and for me at least, it’s honestly more of a turn-on. Kind of like how you’d rather convince the shy girl in the corner to come to bed with you than go with the seductress who’s flashing you naughty looks all night.
Juan, your scenario is a summary of 'Quo Vadis', word for word!;)
(just joking):D

I can follow your approach, it depends on what audience one is aiming.

Anyway, if I would be the producer, I would say :
"Go ahead, Juan, but,.... shouldn't you include.. a few more girls, than one, to get crucified at the end!?"
 
Juan, your scenario is a summary of 'Quo Vadis', word for word!;)
(just joking):D

I can follow your approach, it depends on what audience one is aiming.

Anyway, if I would be the producer, I would say :
"Go ahead, Juan, but,.... shouldn't you include.. a few more girls, than one, to get crucified at the end!?"
There are 2 issues here, as I already hinted at. First, if “we” are the crucifixion fetish club, we’re likely to be a small, underfunded group for a very long time. The number of people who will pay to produce or to see a crucifixion fetish movie is very small, I think. I don’t know how typical my situation is, but it would be difficult for me to go see one for social reasons. So even somebody who might support the idea just can’t make it work, socially and financially. Porn films and exploitation films have always been low budget. But then nudity and sex can show up in mainstream movies without much problem as long as the movie itself is more than a vehicle for nudity and sex. I think the same path could possibly work for realistic, female crucifixion. If “we” are serious film-makers who want to try something bold and honest and dramatic, I think there are a lot more of us.

The second issue is, admittedly, my personal taste, but I’m curious what other folks feel about it. To me, if a whole movie is a vehicle for porn, I get desensitized. I’m expecting to see porn, and I see porn, and after a while, the “zing” is gone. Whereas if a moment of nudity sneaks up on me in a film that is valuable apart from the nudity, that is much more powerful, even if it’s brief, or you don’t quite get to see all you wish you did. Can anybody else relate? Kind of like the way good comedy is usually a little surprising and catches you off-guard. To me, a whole movie about super-model after supermodel being raped, tortured, beaten, crucified, writhing lusciously and moaning on their crosses.... that would get old, and it wouldn’t pack as much of a punch for me. Am I the only one?
 
Am I the only one?

No, Juan, you are not. Subtlety is always effective, as is imagination. There are a great many films made over the years, I think, that Have teased the very darker imaginations and fantasies we all share by embedding the suggestion of them, or even tantalizing glimpses of them, within believable and captivatingly told stories and cinematography. Even when such films fall short of presenting the scenes we might want to see, the mind can, and will, fill in the detail so long as the suggestion is there.
 
No, Juan, you are not. Subtlety is always effective, as is a imagination. There are a great many films made over the years, I think, that Have teaseD the very darker imaginations and fantasies we all share by embedding the suggestion of them, or even tantalizing glimpses of them, within believable and captivatingly told stories and cinematography. Even when such films fall short of presenting the scenes we might want to see, the mind can, and will, fill in the detail so long as the suggestion is there.
And of course we all want to see a full nude female crucifixion scene! But isn’t it more effective if it’s unexpected? And if the anticipation of it builds up for a while, along with doubts of whether they’ll actually, you know - SHOW it?? And then when it finally comes, do we want to actually see her pussy? YES! But as part of an artistic shot that tells a bigger dramatic story and that’s not ALL ABOUT PUSSY. :) Right??? Spielberg shows a bunch of full frontal nudity in Schindler’s List, for example, but nobody would ever accuse him of making a pornographic film or of anything gratuitous, even, because the shots are not ABOUT nudity. They’re about telling a great story.
 
And of course we all want to see a full nude female crucifixion scene! But isn’t it more effective if it’s unexpected? And if the anticipation of it builds up for a while, along with doubts of whether they’ll actually, you know - SHOW it?? And then when it finally comes, do we want to actually see her pussy? YES! But as part of an artistic shot that tells a bigger dramatic story and that’s not ALL ABOUT PUSSY. :) Right??? Spielberg shows a bunch of full frontal nudity in Schindler’s List, for example, but nobody would ever accuse him of making a pornographic film or of anything gratuitous, even, because the shots are not ABOUT nudity. They’re about telling a great story.

Good example.
 
But as part of an artistic shot that tells a bigger dramatic story and that’s not ALL ABOUT PUSSY. :) Right??? Spielberg shows a bunch of full frontal nudity in Schindler’s List, for example, but nobody would ever accuse him of making a pornographic film or of anything gratuitous, even, because the shots are not ABOUT nudity. They’re about telling a great story.
Isn't it kind of cheating, though, if you really do want to show the pussy for prurient purposes, but just don't want it to be obvious? Even if you do have other reasons too.

Regarding your idea, it does have some realistic appeal. I do think it might disappoint the anonymous backer who gave you a bunch of money to make a crux film with, but then so might my more middling one.
 
Isn't it kind of cheating, though, if you really do want to show the pussy for prurient purposes, but just don't want it to be obvious? Even if you do have other reasons too.

Regarding your idea, it does have some realistic appeal. I do think it might disappoint the anonymous backer who gave you a bunch of money to make a crux film with, but then so might my more middling one.
All right! All right! The customer - and the investor - are always right!

Proceed to a scenario for a nazisploitation movie, with lots of pussies, and plenty of nasty crucifixions! Rows of crucified pretty resistance woman! The Nazis never did crucifixions, you say? Never mind! That will even make it original! Call it 'Crux Camp 7' or so!
 
Based on my experience in moviemaking, I would keep the production as lean as possible, using as few people as possible. I would set it in our time, not the Romans or even the Nazis. Even after paying a lot of money for costumes and props it is likely to look lame. It would also be best to shoot indoors. The reason for that is more privacy and more control over lighting and sets. It might also be interesting to find some masochist young women who are used to enduring (and enjoying) pain. Although you can have an actress play the part of a woman undergoing torture, she might draw the line at any real discomfort. It would be difficult to avoid some suffering as the filming session goes on. You want it to look real for the most impact. In terms of editing, I would not show lengthy shots of her agony. Porn videos do that, but as a couple of people already mentioned, the effect wears off after a while. Watching a well-lit torture scene for several minutes gets boring. The brain craves something more. A better quality film should have a variety of shots that are not held too long. You want the viewer to anticipate what comes next and you want to leave a lot to the imagination. Done right it could be quite exciting. But it would have limited appeal to a general audience.
 
Based on my experience in moviemaking, I would keep the production as lean as possible, using as few people as possible. I would set it in our time, not the Romans or even the Nazis. Even after paying a lot of money for costumes and props it is likely to look lame. It would also be best to shoot indoors. The reason for that is more privacy and more control over lighting and sets. It might also be interesting to find some masochist young women who are used to enduring (and enjoying) pain. Although you can have an actress play the part of a woman undergoing torture, she might draw the line at any real discomfort. It would be difficult to avoid some suffering as the filming session goes on. You want it to look real for the most impact. In terms of editing, I would not show lengthy shots of her agony. Porn videos do that, but as a couple of people already mentioned, the effect wears off after a while. Watching a well-lit torture scene for several minutes gets boring. The brain craves something more. A better quality film should have a variety of shots that are not held too long. You want the viewer to anticipate what comes next and you want to leave a lot to the imagination. Done right it could be quite exciting. But it would have limited appeal to a general audience.
From the practical, daily life business viewpoint, you are right of course!
(the more nudity, the lower the cost for costumes, anyway!;))

But this forum lives in a fantasy world, where there is a large audience for the kind of movies we would like to be made, and big studios with lots of means who provide the funding! So, we keep dreaming of making them!:rolleyes:
 
There might be a way to have the best of both worlds.

So, there are people obsessed by crucifixion?
You want to make a film about it?

A time honored way to show lots of people with obsessions, and lots of nudity,
is an artsy film about art!

We might start following a group of young women who model for a mysterious artist with an intense personality and obsessive interests.

It's not all going to be crux, he might for instance put them through all kinds of different mythological poses
... martyrs, heroines from legends, amazons ...
so that they can 'connect to feminine archetypes'
and that is what he does his art on.

Nudity will be very tasteful and the whole thing will start off with a French auteur feel to it,
something you'd see in the art-house cinema....
there will be a lot of psychological tension as the near-demonic personality of the artist gains authority over the girls,
and there's perhaps some conflict/competition between them as to who gets to be his 'favorite Muse',
by being willing to explore those 'archetypes' ever more deeply...

In this context you could show 'tasteful' roped cruxes and probably get away with nudity as such artsy films tend to do.
But that's not all...

After some time it turns out there's something deeper about the artist ...
he's actually a member of a kind of secret cult.

They believe there is a deeper truth or connection to parallel worlds,
that can be attained in ecstatic/agonized, euphoric states of torment.

(This isn't going to be necessarily people in robes with daggers, think more like NXIVM, it might even have an official front...)

They basically perform a kind of sacrifice ritual, but the intent isn't killing anyone ...

The ultimate ideal is to bring a 'sacrifice' to a state like a near-death experience.
(a crucifixion could do that. If nails were used, they would take care that they're not fully weight-bearing to not cripple a victim)
This, supposedly, brings them in contact with 'another dimension'
Anyone who passes through that is initiated into the innermost circle.

The 'favorite muses' of the artist are effectively brainwashed and groomed to become such sacrifices.
Obviously it's a dangerous ritual and things can go wrong -
deaths are pretty rare though and get explained away (drunk party girl fell off a yacht, etc).

However the cult does have a detective on their tail who has some idea of what's going on but no proof and has decided to follow what happens to some of our student 'muses'.

The cult idea, the link to a kind of bent religiosity etc. would make it possible to show more severe 'sacrifice cruxes' in the rituals.

The film turns a bit more thriller-like:
there'll be suspense what will happen to the 'muses', does the detective find them, does the cult get stopped etc.

To ratchet things up we might go a bit supernatural horror-film and say...
... maybe just maybe the cult was partly right about something,
and when one of the girls does her 'at the gates of death' sacrifice thing...

... she does actually connect to another dimension and brings something back.

Very nasty things start happening in the world then ...
perhaps our timeline starts getting bent to conform with the alternate history of the parallel world to which the ritual has opened a portal.
In fact the 'muse' may have become possessed by a strange power against her will
-- something like in the film 'The Medusa Touch'.

Anyway in the end the detective catches up with her.
She explains everything she's learned about the cult,
and explains that the only way to banish the evil that is consuming the world,
is to finally, lethally crucify her, and so shut the portal...

He doesn't really want to, but as the series of Medusa-Touch like disasters continues,
he agrees.

(Insert passionate lovemaking before the crux)

This crucifixion will of course be the controversial climax of the film and it will have everything!

Of course to make the film more palatable, a last-minute alternative is somehow found,
the evil spirit is banished,
the mysterious artist vanishes
(it will be left open but somewhat suggested,
that he was a visitor from a parallel world trying to recreate a portal to his home dimension)

and it ends with the crucified muse recuperating in the artist's villa,
which detective and muse have been squatting in since they discovered the artist has abandoned it.

She stands in front of the first cross she ever hung from
in his garden, for the artsy posing - and ponders her healing nail wounds.

Then in the background, flames burst from the villa,
as the detective has decided the knowledge is too dangerous and needs to be destroyed.

The End!
 
There might be a way to have the best of both worlds.

So, there are people obsessed by crucifixion?
You want to make a film about it?

A time honored way to show lots of people with obsessions, and lots of nudity,
is an artsy film about art!

We might start following a group of young women who model for a mysterious artist with an intense personality and obsessive interests.

It's not all going to be crux, he might for instance put them through all kinds of different mythological poses
... martyrs, heroines from legends, amazons ...
so that they can 'connect to feminine archetypes'
and that is what he does his art on.

Nudity will be very tasteful and the whole thing will start off with a French auteur feel to it,
something you'd see in the art-house cinema....
there will be a lot of psychological tension as the near-demonic personality of the artist gains authority over the girls,
and there's perhaps some conflict/competition between them as to who gets to be his 'favorite Muse',
by being willing to explore those 'archetypes' ever more deeply...

In this context you could show 'tasteful' roped cruxes and probably get away with nudity as such artsy films tend to do.
But that's not all...

After some time it turns out there's something deeper about the artist ...
he's actually a member of a kind of secret cult.

They believe there is a deeper truth or connection to parallel worlds,
that can be attained in ecstatic/agonized, euphoric states of torment.

(This isn't going to be necessarily people in robes with daggers, think more like NXIVM, it might even have an official front...)

They basically perform a kind of sacrifice ritual, but the intent isn't killing anyone ...

The ultimate ideal is to bring a 'sacrifice' to a state like a near-death experience.
(a crucifixion could do that. If nails were used, they would take care that they're not fully weight-bearing to not cripple a victim)
This, supposedly, brings them in contact with 'another dimension'
Anyone who passes through that is initiated into the innermost circle.

The 'favorite muses' of the artist are effectively brainwashed and groomed to become such sacrifices.
Obviously it's a dangerous ritual and things can go wrong -
deaths are pretty rare though and get explained away (drunk party girl fell off a yacht, etc).

However the cult does have a detective on their tail who has some idea of what's going on but no proof and has decided to follow what happens to some of our student 'muses'.

The cult idea, the link to a kind of bent religiosity etc. would make it possible to show more severe 'sacrifice cruxes' in the rituals.

The film turns a bit more thriller-like:
there'll be suspense what will happen to the 'muses', does the detective find them, does the cult get stopped etc.

To ratchet things up we might go a bit supernatural horror-film and say...
... maybe just maybe the cult was partly right about something,
and when one of the girls does her 'at the gates of death' sacrifice thing...

... she does actually connect to another dimension and brings something back.

Very nasty things start happening in the world then ...
perhaps our timeline starts getting bent to conform with the alternate history of the parallel world to which the ritual has opened a portal.
In fact the 'muse' may have become possessed by a strange power against her will
-- something like in the film 'The Medusa Touch'.

Anyway in the end the detective catches up with her.
She explains everything she's learned about the cult,
and explains that the only way to banish the evil that is consuming the world,
is to finally, lethally crucify her, and so shut the portal...

He doesn't really want to, but as the series of Medusa-Touch like disasters continues,
he agrees.

(Insert passionate lovemaking before the crux)

This crucifixion will of course be the controversial climax of the film and it will have everything!

Of course to make the film more palatable, a last-minute alternative is somehow found,
the evil spirit is banished,
the mysterious artist vanishes
(it will be left open but somewhat suggested,
that he was a visitor from a parallel world trying to recreate a portal to his home dimension)

and it ends with the crucified muse recuperating in the artist's villa,
which detective and muse have been squatting in since they discovered the artist has abandoned it.

She stands in front of the first cross she ever hung from
in his garden, for the artsy posing - and ponders her healing nail wounds.

Then in the background, flames burst from the villa,
as the detective has decided the knowledge is too dangerous and needs to be destroyed.

The End!
Intriguing scenarion, Malins. And these references to 'The Medusa Touch'!
"I will bring the whole edifice down on their unworthy heads!"

Not so sure if the curse will have vanished after all? What words did the artist whisper before vanishing?
 
Intriguing scenarion, Malins. And these references to 'The Medusa Touch'!
"I will bring the whole edifice down on their unworthy heads!"

Not so sure if the curse will have vanished after all? What words did the artist whisper before vanishing?
Well,
we are artists,
but also competent business-people,
if the film does turn out to be a success - we want an obvious opening for a sequel!
 
Isn't it kind of cheating, though, if you really do want to show the pussy for prurient purposes, but just don't want it to be obvious? Even if you do have other reasons too.
Of course, it’s hypocritical at the end of the day. I think there’s a certain measure of hypocrisy in any film that shows nudity/sex or possibly even extreme violence, but bills itself as above the porno/exploitation genre. Certainly any male director who has ever asked an actress to get naked on set for a non-porn movie is at least a little hypocritical. (E.g. Did Spielberg really HAVE to show all those women in the shower for Schindler??) The only ones who are NOT hypocrites are the porn industry, right? But even though there’s a sort of queasy irony about the whole thing, audiences can keep their own self-respect and not feel sleazy watching a great film with great drama that includes realistic nudity and sex in reasonable doses. Spielberg successfully APPEARS to have his gaze far beyond the details of the nudity to the grand scope of the drama. As soon as the audience picks up on the filmmaker’s hypocrisy, though, the spell is broken, and it feels uncomfortable, or like a guilty pleasure - a tangent away from the story. Audiences are good at smelling it, and it doesn’t attract large budgets.
 
Certainly any male director who has ever asked an actress to get naked on set for a non-porn movie is at least a little hypocritical.

They knew it sells tickets, and actresses were aware that it was a necessary career step (not thinking so much of Spielberg and Schindler’s List, but of countless other productions that slipped in a bit of nudity for effect). That’s show biz.
 
Of course, it’s hypocritical at the end of the day. I think there’s a certain measure of hypocrisy in any film that shows nudity/sex or possibly even extreme violence, but bills itself as above the porno/exploitation genre. Certainly any male director who has ever asked an actress to get naked on set for a non-porn movie is at least a little hypocritical. (E.g. Did Spielberg really HAVE to show all those women in the shower for Schindler??) The only ones who are NOT hypocrites are the porn industry, right? But even though there’s a sort of queasy irony about the whole thing, audiences can keep their own self-respect and not feel sleazy watching a great film with great drama that includes realistic nudity and sex in reasonable doses. Spielberg successfully APPEARS to have his gaze far beyond the details of the nudity to the grand scope of the drama. As soon as the audience picks up on the filmmaker’s hypocrisy, though, the spell is broken, and it feels uncomfortable, or like a guilty pleasure - a tangent away from the story. Audiences are good at smelling it, and it doesn’t attract large budgets.
I think it is possible to use nudity and violence to tell a story without revelling in it - to even be disgusted at the thought people will. I mean, it's not like the world doesn't have those things in it.
 
I think it is possible to use nudity and violence to tell a story without revelling in it - to even be disgusted at the thought people will. I mean, it's not like the world doesn't have those things in it.
You are probably right. It is a very thin line, though. The decision to show it on screen is a big decision. The decision to show ANYTHING on screen is a big decision - it shows what the filmmaker believes is important. The question becomes WHY it’s important. Why should we see these people having sex instead of just referring to it? Why should we actually show “taboo” nudity instead of have them under the blanket? An audience will come to their own conclusions about the answers to those questions. If they feel like the answer is for the sake of titillation, they may enjoy it, they may be offended, they may not care, but the artistic chops of the film take a hit.
 
Back
Top Bottom