Addressing a panel at the Television Critics Association Winter Session in Pasadena, THE WRAP reporter Tim Malloy questioned why Lena Dunham’s character in the HBO show GIRLS was so often nude.
This drew a heated response from the show’s producer. Judd Apatow. The confrontation, that might otherwise have remained unnoticed, was featured on DRUDGE REPORT and has created a much larger than expected stir.
Apatow accused Malloy of being sexist and misogynistic (hating women) for asking such a question.
While Malloy doesn’t work for Movieguide®, but rather THE WRAP, it’s interesting that this question that millions of parents would love the answer to came from a secular reporter.
The vitriolic response reveals just how out of touch with America some television producers can be. There are a lot of men and women displeased by the increase in both nudity and foul language on television. They don’t hate women. Neither are they “sexist.”
It isn’t a sign of respect for women to desire to see them naked on television. Quite the opposite, actually.
Women are degraded when they are presented as sex objects. Compare the part played by Lena Dunham on GIRLS with the part played by Sandra Bullock in THE BLIND SIDE. Sandra Bullock plays a bright, confident, compassionate woman. She sets a solid example for young girls to emulate. Had she strut around naked for portions of the movie, to be more “realistic” in Judd Apatow’s eyes, it would have been a degrading travesty. Instead of attracting and inspiring a huge family audience, the movie would have bombed.
According to Movieguide®’s research, movies with no sexual nudity earn much more money than movies with such explicit content. There may be a private home market for pornography, but mainstream movies and television suffer from its inclusion.
Being “realistic” isn’t what makes a movie good. Strong, entertaining storytelling is what’s truly essential. Better yet, entertaining movies with family-friendly content do the best.