Shia LaBeouf will do literal sex scenes in Lars Von Trier’s new film: gross?

Shia LaBeouf

Shia LeBeouf is gross. I mean that in a lot of ways. Not only has he transformed (har har) his physical appearance into that of the Hipster Unabomber, but he’s also developed quite a habit of getting hissy-fit drunk in public and also talking about how the studio system stuck a finger up his a**. Then he decided that we all wanted to see him get (fully) naked, so he took it all off for a music video. Gross.

Anyway, now Shia is grossing me out again by talking about how the sex in his upcoming movie, N-mphomaniac, will be actual sex as opposed to “acted out” sex. The fantastic voyage in reference is , of course, a movie directed by Lars Von Trier, who famously spent his 2011 trip to Cannes getting himself banned from the festival for all of eternity because he went on a socially-awkward rant that culminated in him expressing sympathies for Hitler and jokingly declaring himself a Nazi. It was a total mess, but at least that means that Shia’s bare booty (and presumably, his wang) won’t be screening for competition (or otherwise) at Cannes. As for Von Trier, I’m sure he feels that having his actors actually do it with each other is much more “artsy” than merely pretending that they’re doing it, right? Hell, I’m surprised James Franco hasn’t signed onto this movie for the art of it. Here are the details on Shia’s impending moon:

Shia LaBeouf

The unfiltered actor admits he’s “terrified” to film the Danish director’s erotic drama. Shia LaBeouf says the sex scenes in Lars von Trier’s N-mphomaniac will be the real deal.

As THR exclusively reported, the 26-year-old actor signed on to star in the controversial Danish director’s latest project, an erotic two-part drama that begins production next month and will be released in two cuts, one more sexuality explicit than the other.

“(The movie] is what you think it is,” LaBeouf tells MTV News. “It is Lars von Trier, making a movie about what he’s making. For instance, there’s a disclaimer at the top of the script that basically says we’re doing it for real. Everything that is illegal, we’ll shoot in blurred images. Other than that, everything is happening.”

Von Trier’s first film since 2011′s Melancholia, an apocalyptic drama co-starring Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg, N-mphomaniac, will chronicle the sexual adventures of a woman (Gainsbourg) from her youth through age 50. Stellan Skarsgard plays her husband, and Nicole Kidman has suggested she might have a small role.

As to why LaBeouf took the N-mphomaniac job: “Because (von Trier’s) dangerous. He scares me. And I’m only going to work now when I’m terrified.”

[From Hollywood Reporter]

Honestly, Charlotte Gainsbourg must be a masochist in the true sense since she keeps signing onto these Von Trier films. If I recall correctly, Antichrist featured actual penetration in its opening scene, but these were obviously (I hope) “stunt” actors and not Charlotte and Willem Dafoe really doing the deed. Now Von Trier is pushing his little obligatory envelope even further, and I’m wondering …. who will Shia actually be, um, bedding in this movie? So far, Shia, Charlotte, Willem Dafoe, Stellan Skarsgard, and Nicole Kidman are the only confirmed actors in roles, and I don’t see Nicole agreeing to do the dirty with Shia. As for Charlotte, yeah, I can see her going there. For the art, of course.

Despite Von Trier’s madness, however, I have to admit to actually liking Melancholia much more than his other movies. But how do I feel about watching a movie featuring Shia’s authentic O-face (and much more)? I’ll pass on this one.

Shia LaBeouf

Shia LaBeouf

Shia LaBeouf

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

115 Responses to “Shia LaBeouf will do literal sex scenes in Lars Von Trier’s new film: gross?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GiGi says:

    I just got around to watching that Sigur Ros video this weekend after having been all eye-rolly and judgy about it.

    I loved it. It was weird, sure, but I thought Shia was really riveting. I’d definitely watch him in a von Trier flick.

    I guess he’s won me over… what does that say about me!?!?

  2. DanaG says:

    That sounds gross Shia isn’t even that good looking who wants to see him naked let alone doing the nasty? It sounds like a really bad porn movie and whoever that poor actress is can pretty much kiss away any real career after this. I am surprised Nicole Kidman has signed on for it.

  3. phoenix says:

    uneccesary and pretentious.

    • Mia 4S says:

      Which I believe are Shia’s middle names. He’s been bragging about “method-harassing” some poor actress on Lawless. Also supposedly he went off the wagon to look like a drunk during that movie. For art! What a douche.

      Seriously though this makes we want to throw up…which knowing Von Trier may be the desired reaction.

  4. yellowshaba says:

    Trier pushes the envelope of what american audiences consider shocking. US films are soooo tame in comparison to overseas film. I crave that non conformity, non hollywood standard which is probably why I love films from overseas. I’m stoked that american actors have jumped on board, so I most definitely will see it. AS for shia, I think u either like him or don’t. I watched him since a kids program that I can’t remember what it was called and the movie Holes so I tend to give him a chance

  5. Eve says:

    Well…his fans will rejoice at that, non? I wonder if Kaiser still has a crush on him.

  6. sara says:

    This movie will definitely be at Cannes like all other LvT movies. It was all false outrage when they “banned” him

  7. Agnes says:

    I bet this is a publicity-wh-re stunt and no one actually will have sex. Either way, gross as hell.

  8. hmm says:

    what happened to his little asian gf?

  9. Jennifer12 says:

    Non-conformity is cool, but not pretensions and holier than thou attitudes. This guy reminds me of the hordes downtown, who all think they’re different from each other. It’s called acting because you’re supposed to ACT and be convincing. Having sex on camera means you’re in a porno or you’re Pamela Anderson.

  10. ds says:

    I didn’t follow Shia gossip wise but I do think he’s got something on screen. I find him talented. As for Lars Von Trier, as a fan of his all I can say is he knows exactly what he’s doing. Can’t wait to see Skarsgard. Did you watch Breaking the waves? Is it porn?

  11. HillbillyintheCorner says:

    Watching two people have not art…or acting it’s sex…and that kind of film is porn, period…. as old as time ..No matter if it two porn stars who are honest enough to say what they are doing is porn or a actor like Shia..there is no difference…Sex is Sex….and I really don’t care to see two people banging away at each other…if I want to see that all I have to do is watch the dogs in the street ..about as entertaining…

  12. Nibbi says:

    i think i read in a more detailed script of this interview somewhere that it will be actual porn actors standing in during the sex parts, not shia and whoever themselves doing the nasty.

  13. Mrs. Darcy says:

    Ugh, I’m over Von Trier, it’s all been downhill since Breaking the Waves.

  14. Samantha says:

    And yet people still trash Chloe Sevigny for the scene in Brown Bunny.

  15. Samigirl says:

    I couldn’t even get through the first 10 minutes of The Antichrist without crying so hard I threw up. Melancholia bored me to tears, even the incredible ASkars bored me. I think I’ll have to skip this one as well.

    • Samantha says:

      I found it incredibly misogynistic. And gross, on an emotional level.

      • Samigirl says:

        I just can’t do movies or books with babies dying. That’s my biggest fear. I made myself sick trying to watch The Antichrist. I read the wikipedia of it instead :-/

      • Palefire says:

        Yeah really. It just comes to a point as a woman your like errr no. If u watch the rules of attraction it’s the same thing…. I got really upset when I read that the director of that movie and one of the male actors went around Europe together with camcorders and set up the actor to pretend he was a traveling American exchange student and his whole ploy was to lay bunch of European girls and they both filmed it unbeknownst to all these girls. Than they said wellllll we really can’t release this as a movie. How fffin fffeed up is that. This is why I can’t support these type of directors. They take huge sh*ts on women….

      • yo momma says:

        @Palefire-I am glad I am not the only one who feels that way-and that story is horrifying. makes you feel people in hollywierd are really nasty pieces of shit!

  16. NM6804 says:

    I loved Von Trier but now his “art” is reaching Gaga levels. Not good.

    I’ve seen a lot of “arthouse” films containing real sex (9 Songs, Shortbus, Intimicay…) and for usually, the plot of the film is merely there subserve the explicit nudity. It’s just fancy better written pr0n in the end.

    Von Trier went from pushing the boundaries with films like Antichrist (which can’t be just dismissed as a disturbing arrogant film), Dancer in the Dark to cheap filmmaking like this.

    The penetration scene in Antichrist was performed by pr0n actors, because that’s what they do: perform real sex. Actors ‘act it out”. They pretend to do it. The way I read it, every actor is going to do it for real, all the time (which will be a lot apparently). Even the title is juvenile, not one bit of originality.

    Von Trier and the actors on board really dissapooint me. It’s true, these days, slap the word “art” on it and every pretentious drivel is accepted!
    Von Trier also needs to stop pushing out his mental demons through his films, it’s getting too much. I mean, exploring a child’s sexuality, that’s just asking for trouble! I remember the “Birth” bathing scene with Kidman and the boy causing a lot of trouble.

    Btw, the Daily Mail has pictures of his gf being very upset with him. Oh I wonder why? Because actors are douches who sometimes need to take a step back and stop taking this make belief job of theirs so seriously. They’re batshit crazy.

    Labeouf’s breakthrough was in a damn robot film, you can have as much explicit sex for dumb arthouse films as you want, but people won’t forget that. Besides, it has be done many times before. They are not special for doing this in 2012. Caligula anyone?

  17. Talie says:

    Lars has already said he’s using porn stars for the explicitly scenes.

  18. Adrien says:

    Charlotte was terrific in “Anti-Christ”. Her acting made the movie memorable.

  19. Hécate says:

    OMG! This story must have a warning, i must bleach my eyes now!
    REal sex= PORN
    This is a lot of intelectual crap, like look at me, I’m so revolutionary, my actors have real sex!! I think that Shia laCrap is a fame whore that dress as “intelectual artist”
    I wouldn’t touch him even with a stick! If every thing will be real, Lilo want to act the crack scenes, call her please Lars!

  20. serena says:

    I wish he would clean up and cut his hair. Also I’ll never want to see that beard again ugh

  21. Isabella Notarfrancesco says:

    I’ve come to realize that I like Lars more than I like his movies. He’s a funny guy and I like how he tries to push the boundaries. But his movies are pretty hit and miss.

  22. Gwen says:

    There will be two versions of the film – one w/o any real sex and one with.

    Personally I love Von Trier’s work and the fact that quite a few brilliant and very talented actors want to keep working with him, say a lot about him and his qualities IMO.

  23. TheOriginalKitten says:

    Oh my god, people, we haven’t even seen the movie yet. Jesus……

    I think releasing the info about it being “real sex” is a strategic move on Von Trier’s part to evoke a lot of pearl-clutching (which is clearly working) in hopes of generating enough buzz to secure a domestic distributor. Pretty smart move if that’s the case…

  24. Ella says:

    “(von Trier’s) dangerous. He scares me. And I’m only going to work now when I’m terrified.” Actors are people who pretend to do stuff for entertainment. I think it’s time this guy did a Muppet Movie or something.

  25. Aud says:

    Charlotte Gainsbourg must have a few issues herself. When she was a kid, she appeared in a music film clip with her own father, song titled ‘Lemon Incest’. It seems as though she prefers the ‘edgier’ or ‘sick’ side of the street – depending on whatever view you take.
    Anyway, Lars isn’t doing anything different here with respect to real as opposed to simulated sex scenes. 9 Songs (Michael Winterbottom) did that years ago, and?
    This is just sensationalism. Not art.
    The idea of watching Shia LaDouche engaging in real sex is as gross as watching and listening to ‘Lemon Incest’.

  26. Elizabeth says:

    Doesn’t the actors actually having sex on screen make it “hard pr0n” (as opposed to soft pr0n where they are faking it)?

    Soft pr0n is hilariously portrayed in the film “Love Actually” where a couple meet and fall for each other whle starring in a soft pr0n film together. They later tell friends that they met “at work”. :)

  27. Jaded says:

    You know your career is starting to tank when you sink this low and try to intellectually justify real sex in a movie as real art. Ewwwwww. Just ewwwww.

  28. MST says:

    Shia’s mother is Jewish, which according to tradition makes him Jewish. I wonder how he feels about Von Trier’s remarks.

  29. Kate says:

    How can anyone be a fan of Von Trier’s or Shia’s?? Anyone who says publicly that they sympathize will Hitler (they both did) is a piece of shi-!! And Antichrist was one of the worst movies I have EVER seen.

  30. A- says:

    Von Teir is deep misogyny masquerading as avant garde.

    • ds says:

      And yet he has created some of the most interesting female heroins on film…

      • Kate says:

        so do not agree – like who? The Antichrist wife??? Nicole in Dogville??? Such forgettable crappy roles – horrible movies!

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        You guys realize that after all the backlash he received from his previous movies that Von Trier hired a misogyny expert to consult on AntiChrist right? Guess that aspect was conveniently forgotten..

        There was nothing misogynistic about AntiChrist. The movie was about the repercussions of severe depression, it wasn’t about male/female. Gainsbourg’s character was a study of a woman who had become unhinged due to the all-encompassing sadness that followed a life-changing event: the loss of her child. The movie itself was a dissection of depression, which Von Trier himself has suffered from.

        But then again, why think critically/objectively about something when you can just dismiss it as “misogynistic”.

        BTW, I think some people really undermine the true and devastating aspects of the word “misogynist” by using it so cavalierly. A true misogynist (and I have known several) does not have enough self-awareness or enough respect for women to care whether his artwork is seen as misogynistic or not. Von Trier has expressed many times that it hurt him deeply to be perceived as misogynistic especially when his female characters are all based on facets of his own persona. In fact he has said that he thinks women are “better and more understanding” than men.

      • ds says:

        Bess from Breaking the Waves, Justine from Melancholia, Medea (individual view), Selma (Dancer in the Dark)… They are all shown as victims ’cause society sees them as such but are in the end the only strong elements. I guess it’s individual. Either way I don’t get the fuss about the film that’s not even filmed yet. Good promo.

      • NM6804 says:

        Oh TOK, I would love to have a debate about Antichrist!

        I saw a lot of religious themes (Eden, fox, crow, the tree…), nature (forest) vs. nurture (husband’s therapy), science (husband) vs. spiritual (wife) and also male/female because of the the sex scene + the clitoris cutting and penis smashing scene.

        I think the depression that came with the death of the child was the katalysator that brought all these topics on the surface. If you remember, the child was wearing his shoes wrong when she was staying in the cabin another time. She had done things before that weren’t sane.

        She was exploring the “gendercide” theme and I think she thought of herself as evil. Her husband said it too and then she completely lost her mind.

        Letting her child plummet to his death (or so she thought, it could have played in her head to blame herself) while she was enjoying sexual pleasure and her cutting “it” off was very symbolic and raw (though I was too scared to watch at that point!).

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @ NM6804- Totally missed the wrong shoes on the kid thing. So you think that was proof of her having an existing “weakness” for mental instability? Or do you think it meant that she was just a preoccupied/distracted mother?

        I always assumed Von Trier used the death of a child as a catalyst for depression because it’s a more “accessible” scenario for the average person. Meaning, we can all empathize with the horror of losing a child. Versus showing her battle depression without any incident clearly precipitating it which is actually a reality for a lot of people that suffer from depression but harder to convey to an audience.

        I found the sex to not be gratuitous at all. In fact, I think sex was an imperative element as LVT needed to show her shame and disgust with sex and what it represented to her-a haunting reminder of her oversight and perceived selfishness when it came to attending to her child.

        ITA! This was a movie that I watched with one hand over my mouth and the other hand right by my eyes in case I needed to cover them. Even if one hates this movie, you cannot argue that it is incredibly provocative and very intense.

      • NM6804 says:


        A bit late but I’ll post it anyway :) .

        When her husband goes into a cabin, he finds pictures from before (and a drawing of an “fears pyramid”) and she is behind him, angry. He confronts her with the shoes. Then he tries to argue that what she researches should not mean it is true. I think he kept his sanity because of this, stepping away from the pain instead of embracing it.

        It’s been a while but again, he uses his rational thinking as a psychologist while she reasons from an emotional subjective point of view albeit supported by her research, which was twisted even more when her child died.

        I actually thought so too. Nothing worse than losing a child. Depression has a social stigma and a lot of ignorance so the dramatic scene definitely made you sympathize with both parents although I found her much more relatable and genuine. But then the wrong shoes picture comes up and you wonder, if they both weren’t a bit…damaged. In the end, as long as the film pushed your buttons and opens debate, it doesn’t matter what your opinion is because their is no wrong opinion.

        In this film, I didn’t found it gratuitous either. Agreed with all your points.

        The beginning scene is poignant. I saw this film a few times and concluded that him entering her (like he tries to enters her emotionally later) wich concludes in pleasure, togetherness love and warmth runs parallel with the child exiting concluded in pain, loneliness and death (coldness). Not to mention, the darkness of the forest, the actions that play at night (dark again) and the dark emotions are in stark contrast with the beginning scenes (snow = white; innocent and loss of innocence).

        I’m no critic, but like you said, it provokes a lot of thoughts and it’s just fun. Rarely do films shake me to the core like Von Trier’s do! Van Sant is also a fav of mine. But I’m not looking forward to his next project.
        Thomas Vinterberg, his friend-ish, is also amazing (Festen and Submarino, crazy emotional rides!)

  31. Ravensdaughter says:

    It’s Lars Von Trier-he is a wunderkind gone mad, yet actors still flock to work with him.
    Ever see “Breaking the Waves” with Emily Watson? The most disturbing, misogynistic film I have ever seen.
    Why is A-list Nicole Kidman signed up with Lars for at least a second time? She’s the one who should really be getting the questions-why would any actress who has her choice of films go through working with him twice?
    Gainsbourg-I don’t know if it’s volition with her-she DOES have issues. I know there have been at least two movies in the past 2-3 years that have involved her being sexually defiled in one way or another. Such a beautiful, talented actress-why does she do this to herself?
    According to Bjork, he tried to break her psychologically during “Dancer in the Dark”. No more Von Trier films for her.
    This director is a man who does not hesitate to devalue women in any way conceivable on film.
    The title itself-”N-nymphomaniac”-shifts the burden of “responsibility” for sexual acts -if that is what it could be called-firmly on the woman.
    PS: If you ever want to watch the most bizarre and twisted TV miniseries EVER, rent “Kingdom” (Von Trier’s, in Swedish and Danish with subtitles….)

    • Kath says:

      I totally agree. Von Trier has got some very weird attitudes towards women and seems to get off by depicting otherwise “strong” women in humiliating and debasing situations. He has admitted in past interviews that he is obsessed with rape and porn, and seems to get his kicks by “humbling” famous actresses. Ugh.

  32. Cheryl says:

    I will not be watching this movie, as my brother looks EXACTLY like Shia, and I don’t want to know what it looks like when he has sex. Ewwwsgllaaaaahhhhh…..

  33. Kristen says:

    Also, he’s a really bad actor.

  34. eric says:

    You know who else did real sex scenes
    Marlon Brando “Last Tango in Paris”, the concept is controversial but outdated.
    They should have hired Aaron Johnson from “Kick Ass” instead of Shia Labouf or even Keanu Reeves, anyone but Shia Labouf.

  35. eric says:

    Antichrist the worst movie I’ve ever seen, I fell asleep watching that slow-motion garbage, and Von trier’s films are pretentious Mediocrity masquerading as high concept film art.

  36. Rux says:

    Shia Labouef’s name reminds of a Romanian dish called Salata de Bouef which is beef salad. The salad overly mayonnaised, served at holidays but everybody eats it because its conformity. That’s basically how I feel about Labouef – overly saturated and unnecessary.

  37. judyjudy says:

    I’m so tired of the ‘sex is art’ crap. People have all kinds of sex all the time. Sex is no big whoop but these “artists” have convinced themselves that they’re so edgy and creative for doing it. Pfffft….whatever.

  38. Jordi says:


    SHIA: So, yeah.. As an actor, I really want to push those limits… Find those lessons, you know… If I HAVE to make the real sex, then, for me that will be okay, man… I’ll go there. Whatever Lars wants.

    (An assistant comes up and whispers in his ear that he’d be having sex with Lindsay Lohan. He looks pissed.)

    SHIA: Know what? I’m good. I’m just gonna do ‘Holes 2′.

    (THE END!)

  39. maemay says:

    Seems he wants to justify his unearned a-list status by being edgy. A good actor can make a bad movie good or at least give a good performance, Shia just whines.

  40. tru tru says:

    HONESTLY, he doesn’t look like he can last doing sex scenes all day…

    he is not in shape, he almost looks flabby, unless he plans on using viagra, LOL!!

    I’ve never understood his appeal, you ladies can have this one…quite full of himself.

    he looks like he is serving up “pencil loving”
    (HARD side eye)

    no maam and no thanks


    trying to be all artsy and stuff, hmph.

  41. didoodah_(france) says:

    Charlotte’s father was jewish (and her husband Yvan Attal is, too). Von Trier is not a Hitler sympathizer. Also, he had thought for a long time to be partly jewish too, that’s why it’s ridiculous polemic. Melancholia is a masterpiece, I can’t get this movie out of my head. But Charlotte in a porn… She just shouldn’t. There’s no risk there, at all, just sadness. “Last tango in Paris” proved enough of it.

  42. DIANE says:

    I hate this guy’s films. I got through ten minutes of Antichrist. It was revolting. A hack in ‘auteur’s’ clothing. I managed to get all the way through Melancholia, waiting for the payoff and all I got for my time and energy was a Bergmann wannabe director obsessed with Wagner’s ‘Liebestod’ and Kirsten Dunst beating a horse to his knees. And then he went and tacked on some scifi gimmick, which seemed to be an afterthought. He probably knew the picture stank. His films are nauseating.

  43. Anna says:

    I admire and respect Lars von Trier’s films immensely. That the man has been battling severe depression for years and occasionally acts out, well, who cares. The Hitler comments were bizarre for sure, but it was blown way out of proportion and doesn’t reflect on the visions and messages in his films, in my opinion. I also don’t think he sympathises with Nazis. I saw those interviews and he got misunderstood from the get-go and then kept digging a hole for himself, most likely because of some language issues. There was nothing truly pro-Nazi in there and I think people just don’t get his dark humour and he has troubles expressing himself clearly.
    In Antichrist, there is indeed real penetration at the beginning of the movie, but those are porn actors acting as sex stunt doubles. While it is pushing the envelope a bit further to have real sex happening in his new movie, I don’t see why that’s a bad thing. Shortbus has only real sex scenes and it’s one of the best movies about self-discovery and self-acceptance ever made. Just because it’s unpalatable or exotic to the average American audience doesn’t make it a sleazy or weird thing. Actors already kiss for real, if a director wants to have them have sex for real and they are up for it, more power to them. Nobody’s putting a gun to anybody’s head here. And as far as showing wang for art goes, the world needs more Shia LaBeouf and a whole lot less Jason Segel.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      I don’t even get the porn comparison at all. Porn is the definition of gratuitous sex as there is no point to the movie beyond watching two people bump uglies.
      But if sex is an integral element of a plot sequence, why should a director not include it?
      The difference is intention. In the former it is sex for the sake of sex, in the latter it is part of story-telling. This is what delineates porn from art. If Von Trier thinks that *real* scrumping is integral to the authenticity of his movie and the message that he is trying to convey and the actors are on board then why the criticism?

      This country is so odd in our approach to sex-it’s not shameful, it’s an aspect of life like birth, death, or anything else. I don’t understand people that are scared of things that make them feel uncomfortable. I revel in the idea of art forcing me to confront the unsavory aspects of life or of my own self-perception, I personally find it fascinating and exhilerating. But then again, I’m an art geek..*shrugs*

      • Lisa says:

        The problem, though, becomes an ethical one about the actors. Many, many an actor has had difficulty drawing a clear line between the heightened reality of their character and their own life and personality/choices/tastes. Many have argued that the role of the Joker got in so deep with Heath Ledger that it led to his madness. When you encourage actors to blur those lines it becomes an issue of sanity and well-being of the actor. While sex is not vile or shameful, it is an intimate act, and it’s asking an awful lot of an actor, psychologically and physically. Bottom line…as long as all parties are consenting I guess it’s okay – I just see it as a more delicate situation than most actors/directors would be able to handle, and I also see it as something that could veer the industry in an undesirable direction…

      • ds says:

        TOK can I please just agree to everything you write on this subject? You just said everything I wanted to say. I’m a film geek though

      • Mira says:

        @Kitten – I’m a film geek and I like Von Trier. Seen all his films. Don’t agree with everything he has to say or the way he presents his movies. Having said that, I have to disagree with you on the real-sex versus art debate. I don’t think ANY story requires real-sex performance by actors to prove how authentic the director’s story or his/her vision of story-telling is. Frankly, a lot of the “it’s art” debate is hubris. Much as I like Von Trier, he is self-indulgent. That’s the problem with a lot of directors and they don’t see it.

        None of Von Trier’s movies require graphic sex scenes. I have thought about it a lot and in my mind, if I remove those sex scenes, it does not make any difference in the end to what he wants to say through his movies. Provoking need not be literal and in fact it’s always more exhilarating when it’s suggested and not literal.

        I agree with you about pr0n. It’s sex for sex’s sake but pr0n actors know about it. They are aware. Shedding clothes for a fictional character is not the easiest thing to do and directors should know when not to do it. All this is art, authentic, required as per the script argument is BS, imo. It’s a bandwagon that actors and directors get on.

        The best way to analyze whether or not graphic violence or sex scenes are needed for story-telling is to remove those scenes from the script and see if they make any difference to the movie. IMO, for a LOT of movies, they don’t make any difference. The intention aspect is always in the head of the director who most often than not uses the ‘it’s art’ argument. Film-making is not as much art as it is about technique – how the director and actors translate the story/emotions to the audience. The approach can be suggestive instead of literal. In fact the art of film-making lies in its technique.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @ Lisa-you bring up a very interesting point (and one I hadn’t thought of) in regards to actors separating themselves from their character. I guess I would say that they’re adults and (hopefully) true professionals-if they’re ok with it-then that’s their choice. But again-I get the potential risk there.

        @ Ds-Definitely! Back-up is ALWAYS welcome! :)

        @Mira-your point was well-made and obviously I can’t argue with you-that’s your perception which is as valid as anyone’s. Personally, I think sex is a very useful tool for a director-it is versatile in the sense that it can be very carnal or very tender and it’s a facet of human life (it is what CREATES human life) that cannot be ignored. The juxtaposition of birth/death are not new elements for a director to explore but it certainly remains an important one. I personally can’t fathom Antichrist having anywhere NEAR the level of polarization without the sex scenes. Just my opinion-but I feel like it would have rang false without it. I needed to see how madly in love the 2 central characters were to fully feel the impact of the dissolution of their relationship.

        Finally, I would counter with the basic fact that directors like Von Trier don’t make movies for people to like. It’s not about a Rom Com or a happy ending wrapped up in a pretty bow. It’s about going to a dark place and I think when you go to a dark place you have a responsibility to shine a bright light on everything-which might include illuminating some of the less savory aspects of the human condition. To me, LVT does this brilliantly.

        Like most of my favorite directors, when I watch a Von Trier film I WANT to see his vision, however self-indulgent it may be. I’m there to see his visual commentary, HIS art. When I visit his world, I check my preconceived notions at the door and let him bring me where he wants to.If he feels that REAL sex is integral for the actors to fully understand the characters then I trust him. We haven’t seen the movie yet-maybe there are scenes that require certain *ahem* technical shots that can’t be achieved through “fake” sex.

        Sorry for geeking out AGAIN but I really enjoyed reading your thoughtful responses! It’s nice to read comments about movies instead of comments about the movie star’s personal lives. :)

      • NM6804 says:

        @Lisa: true. Many actors lose themselves in roles. How many of them use method which is a fancy way of describing someone who becomes the part for better or worse?

        the G. Oldman:

        [i]Any actor who tells you that they have become the people they play, unless they`re clearly diagnosed as a schizophrenic, is bullsh-tting you.[/i]

        Nic Cage also said something along those lines.

        I also think it’s an excuse to do things that you wouldn’t normally do but under the guise of “art” it’s allowed (e.g. having affairs like most actors do).

        Fact is, acting is make belief. It is already so hard for actors to divide themselves from fiction and reality, how far can they go with things like method and real vs. simulated sex?

        Nothing is ever real so why pretend it is? In the end, it’s a fictional story [b]not[/b] a documentary. I want to see actors who are able to perform any action without having to succumb to actually doing it for real . Like somebody said upthread, you wouldn’t kill somebody for real either, or beat them senseless so why should sex be a real aspect?

        Shooting sex scenes are already so horrendous if you hear actors talk about it, why take another step further. With nudity there is already a lot of vulnerability and a close interaction with the viewers, by making actors have sex for real, any kind of boundaries and emotional integrity of the actors (not their characters) are laid bare for the sake of art? What about the art of acting and maintaining some sort of mystique?

        You can make a point without resorting to real sex, just ask Steve McQueen.

      • Mira says:

        @Kitten – Agree, it’s fun to geek out about movies than gossip. Of course that does not stop me from commenting on gossip :D

        I didn’t say your point was invalid. I just disagreed with your POV and it’s great to agree/disagree because it brings out many great points. Your point is well taken. However, that’s exactly the one I’m always conflicted about. Yes, sex is what creates life and it’s the most intimate, personal facet of human life. However, each time I see movies that explore emotions of sex and violence in a graphic manner, I keep thinking – does this movie really need this to say the particular story? What are the other ways to show mad love between two people? I think of this because, like I said, a lot of film-making is about aesthetics and technique. When I think of the latter, all the real-sex acts by actors seems unnecessary to me. There are many movies that have provoked me without going literal. This is why I tend to disagree with directors like Von Trier and many others who argue it out as something needed for art. A lot of it what’s there in their head and their insistence for showing it.

        Like Lisa said these techniques result in immense stress among actors. To say that they are adults and they are responsible for the risk they undertake is denying agency to the director. It’s the director’s job to identify and stop the blurring of lines between acting and reality. I say this because I have done stage for 6 years and I have worked with some very good directors. Overall they are all brilliant but it’s the way they get actors to meet/exceed their expectations is what makes them a great director. Most of us who were assigned roles as leads and supporting leads were required to operate in a space of imagination because it’s impossible to go through or relate to every emotion by doing it in a literal sense. And what we tap from our imagination may not match the one in the director’s mind. So it’s a constant process of thinking, feeling, observing, juggling. Having said that, film-acting and stage-acting are vastly different and require different levels of energy but there were several days where we were frustrated with some of the directors and their approach in extracting what their require from us.

        Yes, directors like Von Trier don’t make movies for people to like. It’s not about a Rom Com or a happy ending wrapped up in a pretty bow. LVT provokes me but he also frustrates me with his self-indulgence because that self-indulgence takes away an awful lot from the central argument/core/arch of the story. This topic makes for great discussion though :)


        Method is the most misunderstood form of “acting technique.” The Method is NOT literal. Any good actor who practices the Method does not live the character’s experience literally. The Method is more about sensory and tapping from one’s imagination. Of course there are some things actors can do literally and most often than not they are as extreme as they are made out to be in the media. That’s why Day-Lewis refuses to talk about his technique for the simple reason that it’s made to be what it’s not. Some of the literal things actors do are mere “details” that’s required of the character. For example, learning accents is one of them. That’s just a detail, not Method like how it’s understood in popular media. Similarly losing and gaining weight. It’s just a detail because it’s something that can be done literally whereas an actor need not, should not inject heroin to know what a junkie feels like. In film-making an external environment is created around the actor, which if done well, enhances the feel and mood of what the actor is portraying. For example, in Trainspotting, an external environment of a drug den where they hang out is done in a terrific manner. Plus Danny used different colored lights (red especially) to achieve the dingy, groovy, high feeling. The toilet scene is another example.

        Basically, the Method is more sensory than literal. What is done literally is usually considered to be mere details. If any actor tries to replicate the character’s life in “real sense,” then they are not considered as actors and it’s not Method acting.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Mira-your insights are amazing!

        Seriously-thanks for all the explanations about a lot of elements I either hadn’t considered or didn’t know about-especially the thorough explanation of Method. Very cool to hear your take on things since you have a more personal perspective and you clearly have studied acting and film on a level that I have not. My comments are based purely on a viewer perspective and admittedly, are likely lacking as far as considering the “total picture”. Your point about the director’s responsibility stands out for me as something I hadn’t really considered.

        I’ll definitely be looking for your comments on any movie-related C/B posts in the future. One thing I love about this site is LEARNING from some of the very smart and thoughtful posters and I can truly say that you have opened up my eyes to things I hadn’t thought about before. Thanks! :)

      • NM6804 says:

        Mira knows.
        Intelligent posts!

      • Mira says:

        @Kitten, NM6804:

        Thanks for your comments. I’m flattered :)

        I haven’t studied film, Kitten. Only stage. Films are from a viewer perspective. But most often when doing stage, directors talk about aspects of stage and on what levels it differs from films. That helps me scrutinize movies in a slightly detailed way. I intend to make the great leap however. That’s the biggest decision-making I’m dealing with right now – basically to leave school and get into another :)

        The Method understanding in popular media is frustrating beyond explanation. To say Heath Ledger became the Joker is insulting to him as an actor. From what I see of TDK, Ledger was having enormous fun playing the Joker. He gave the Joker a voice, a walking style, facial mannerism and worked all of that with the Joker’s philosophy on chaos, anarchy etc. Joker is dark but nearly not as dark as say what Jared Leto played in Requiem for a Dream. Ledger died because of lifestyle issues just like River Phoenix. Not because of playing the Joker. Yes, he may have experienced stress playing the Joker but that does not take away the problem of his drug usage.

        Thanks for your responses. I also enjoy learning from posters on CB. Look forward to more movie-related discussions. The Master, I suppose. Can’t wait to see Joaquin back on screen. God, I things I would do to him ;)

  44. Chria says:

    Yeah so he’s a little gross looking these days, but he’s not a horrible actor. I’m a little creeped out by the whole pornographic aspect of the movie, but in all honesty I haven’t seen a movie he has been in I didn’t dislike. I think Kant’s west is a horrible person I’m real life, but he’s a very talented musician. The things people do in their personal lives shouldn’t make you judge their talents.

  45. Jordan says:

    Gross. That’s not acting, that’s porn so if I wanted to see that, I’d watch real porn (better looking characters, better sex).

  46. Sammihami says:

    If it were actually a good movie with good actors, there would be no need to have “real” sex occur on screen. This is a desperate ploy to gain attention and notoriety to bolster what is evidently going to be a movie with no real depth to it. Hence, the casting of Shia LeBouef, as he is a) unattractive and b) a lousy actor. Oh, and c) full of himself—a trait he seems to share with LvT.

  47. Jag says:

    How is it not going to be pr0n? Is it because they’re calling it art? I don’t understand the difference. How can that movie open in actual theaters, but yet other pr9n be forced to be sold at certain shops or online, with XXX all over them? Hypocrisy. (I don’t have a problem with pr0n as long as it contains consenting adults.)

  48. Amanda_M87 says:

    If he’s having sex for real, wouldn’t that be considered porn?

  49. Mooshi says:

    I never could understand the interest in porn.

    Porn and meaningless sex videos are about as interesting to me as watching youtube videos of monkeys peeing in their own mouths.

    Nothing shocking or stimulating.

  50. void says:

    Aftet the Sigur Ros video, I don’t know what to say. I always hated him and fully intended to hate him in the video, but it was beautiful and he did an amazing job. Who am I?

  51. Rena says:

    He has gone over the edge of a cliff and can’t climb back up.

  52. barb says:

    Acting is just that…..acting. You act ‘as if’. Method is one thing, but having sex with your partner in a movie is just disturbing. Although other actors have done it. My friend was a PA on a movie set in Vancouver, and she was on the set with Ellen Barkin and Samuel Jackson, and she said that they were actually doing it for real. Ew. Turns me off completely.

  53. skuddles says:

    The thought is grossing me out for some reason. Maybe it’s Shia? One of my absolute all time favorite movies (tres French, tons of the naked and naughty) features what I’m convinced are actual sex scenes and that doesn’t gross me out. So yeah, it must be Shia.

  54. Suzy (from Ontario, Canada) says:

    I thought acting was about pretending to be someone or something or pretend to be doing something. If you are actually doing it, then are you acting?