Iván Lapadula Montes (Spanish Actor)

[EyesWideCum]

yo que me entiendo de cine y de actuaciòn y he estudiado y escrito sobre el tema del desnudo masculino en el cine digo que todo esto es una tonterìa... ya no se puede màs de eso de "depende del proyecto y de si realmente es necesario para la historia". Un desnudo sirve a sexualizar y no hay nada malo en hacerlo... no veo todo esta reflexiòn a qué viene... No le ve sentido? Pues entonces no ha entendido nada del papel del cuerpo en un actor... y tenemos a jòvenes actores con un idea muy infantil de actuaciòn... pues, afortunadamente no todos la piensan asì. El problema es que hoy entre el coordinador de la intimad y las pròtesis està jodido el uso del cuerpo en el cine... qué làstima.

I agree that it's a bit childish that a young actor doesn't think of his body as a tool for work. It's not about sexualization, sex is an big part of our lives. Why limit yourself in the sense that if someone is looking for a little more skin in a movie, you don't want to do it. The whole film is the vision of the director and the screenwriter, it would have been better if the two were in synergy. Also, that sex scene is the vision of the director and the screenwriter. If it's a couple who has a preference to do it in bed and be completely naked, they walk around, smoke a cigar. Why hold it back and put it in some uncomfortable frames? It's got to be real. But I hope he was just referring to the frontal nudity, the penis. Because showing your ass is so harmless these days. It's about professionals, not kids or maniacs. It's a predator and we can't ignore it. But that's why something is reported, and it doesn't limit you.

Edit: But I completely understand that there are situations where it is very unnecessary and stupid. We've seen this in decades of exploitation of women's nudity. It's starting to happen with men, too.

 

[JotaT]

I believe that nudity, even in erection or real sex in mainstream films is never gratuitous. The mere fact that the director chooses to show a naked actor is a reason (scandal, chatter, functional to the plot, provocation, etc.
For example, in one of the chapters of the boring saga of A través de mi ventana you can see from afar that Julio Pena lowers his costume, but you can't see anything because we are far away and he is backlit. You can sense that something is moving... and that's it.
So? What's the point of this scene? Either you show it or you don't show it... or you leave this scene to "introduce" his nudity and the intimacy of the characters, but later you show everything up close.
Hitchcock said that we like cinema because deep down we are all voyeurs... enough moralizing about nudity and the hypothetical exploitation of the naked body. They do much worse on OF...

I agree that it's a bit childish that a young actor doesn't think of his body as a tool for work. It's not about sexualization, sex is an big part of our lives. Why limit yourself in the sense that if someone is looking for a little more skin in a movie, you don't want to do it. The whole film is the vision of the director and the screenwriter, it would have been better if the two were in synergy. Also, that sex scene is the vision of the director and the screenwriter. If it's a couple who has a preference to do it in bed and be completely naked, they walk around, smoke a cigar. Why hold it back and put it in some uncomfortable frames? It's got to be real. But I hope he was just referring to the frontal nudity, the penis. Because showing your ass is so harmless these days. It's about professionals, not kids or maniacs. It's a predator and we can't ignore it. But that's why something is reported, and it doesn't limit you.

Edit: But I completely understand that there are situations where it is very unnecessary and stupid. We've seen this in decades of exploitation of women's nudity. It's starting to happen with men, too.

 

[EyesWideCum]

I believe that nudity, even in erection or real sex in mainstream films is never gratuitous. The mere fact that the director chooses to show a naked actor is a reason (scandal, chatter, functional to the plot, provocation, etc.
For example, in one of the chapters of the boring saga of A través de mi ventana you can see from afar that Julio Pena lowers his costume, but you can't see anything because we are far away and he is backlit. You can sense that something is moving... and that's it.
So? What's the point of this scene? Either you show it or you don't show it... or you leave this scene to "introduce" his nudity and the intimacy of the characters, but later you show everything up close.
Hitchcock said that we like cinema because deep down we are all voyeurs... enough moralizing about nudity and the hypothetical exploitation of the naked body. They do much worse on OF...

The nudity of actors and actresses is exploited, and that's a fact. I can think of thousands of movies where I could have done it without it. I'm just saying that an actor shouldn't distance himself from nudity because that way he rejects the real image. It's okay not to do it, in life it's important to have a choice and stand behind it. But these speeches sound more like something different, like playing hard to get. Let's be realistic, all young actors and actresses would strip for a good role. Or most of them are seduced by current events and popular culture, trends.

 

[EyesWideCum]

I agree that it's a bit childish that a young actor doesn't think of his body as a tool for work. It's not about sexualization, sex is an big part of our lives. Why limit yourself in the sense that if someone is looking for a little more skin in a movie, you don't want to do it. The whole film is the vision of the director and the screenwriter, it would have been better if the two were in synergy. Also, that sex scene is the vision of the director and the screenwriter. If it's a couple who has a preference to do it in bed and be completely naked, they walk around, smoke a cigar. Why hold it back and put it in some uncomfortable frames? It's got to be real. But I hope he was just referring to the frontal nudity, the penis. Because showing your ass is so harmless these days. It's about professionals, not kids or maniacs. It's a predator and we can't ignore it. But that's why something is reported, and it doesn't limit you.

Edit: But I completely understand that there are situations where it is very unnecessary and stupid. We've seen this in decades of exploitation of women's nudity. It's starting to happen with men, too.

I thought the pros work on the set. Not some idiots and amateurs.

 

[JotaT]

I remain convinced that "exploiting" the naked body of an actor or actress is nothing wrong.

 

[EyesWideCum]

What a shame, he is so passionate in love scenes in Manual para senoritas (The Lady's Companion) but there is not nudity. But his character returns in episode 7 and 8, so that means if series gets a renewal he will be series regular in season 2.

 

[Ladum]

What a shame, he is so passionate in love scenes in Manual para senoritas (The Lady's Companion) but there is not nudity. But his character returns in episode 7 and 8, so that means if series gets a renewal he will be series regular in season 2.

What's the point? He ain't gonna get nude in it, so let's hope no season 2 instead he get cast in something that requires his 50% sreentime to be butt naked

 

[EyesWideCum]

What's the point? He ain't gonna get nude in it, so let's hope no season 2 instead he get cast in something that requires his 50% sreentime to be butt naked

Because maybe he gets nude because his screen time wasn't long in this seasom. As I said, he only haves couple of scenes in three episodes. Also, 1880s fashion suits him well and I found it more attractive to fuck in 1880s aristocrat style.

 

[EyesWideCum]