No sex in Slumdog
I got a movie gift card for Christmas so we saw Slumdog Millionaire. It hit me like a Mack truck. I also learned a thing or two about India off the tourist track. I grew in admiration for a female friend of mine who is a missionary in the slums of Uttar Pradesh. And now I know that the Hindu god Rama holds a bow and arrow in her hand, in case I ever get asked on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
Something I learned that didn’t strike me till after I got back home is that director Danny Boyle managed to make a film with no sex scenes in it—and it worked just fine. If ever there was a movie that called for sex scenes, it’s Slumdog. There is plausibility at every stage of the story—from the anti-Muslim raid during Salim and Jamal’s childhood, to gangster Maman’s orphanage, to the tourist-hustling period at the Taj Mahal.
I cannot tell you how edified I am. Before, I could have almost bought the lie that in some movies you just have to show a sex scene if sexuality is “integral” to the action, if it is necessary to make the story realistic, if to not do so would be to portray an airbrushed view of reality. But I see now that subtle suggestion can be powerful and sufficient, with no loss whatsoever to the power or authenticity of the director’s vision.
And one is not left with a permanent hangover of images that can never be expunged from the mind, and which the devil is happy to use as trap doors to your soul.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top48 Comments to “No sex in Slumdog”
What a bizarre element to focus on.
For the record though, there are a lot of movies made without sex scenes. There are also a lot of movies made with sex scenes. Life is like that.
Report comment to moderator
Andree,
Please limit your future essay topics to only those in which SteveG is interested.
Thank you,
Puritanical sex-obsessed reader
Report comment to moderator
It WAS very good, yes! Very exiting story and you were really rooting for the characters. And it even came with the obligatory little Bollywood dance number at the end!
Report comment to moderator
Man, now I really want to see this movie. I’m always glad when I leave the movie theater with my head full of tough things to think about and not unnecessary flesh.
Report comment to moderator
I hear nothing but good things about this movie from everyone who’s seen it except for this from Catholic screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi who reviewed the movie on her blog, Church of the Masses. (Scroll down to the second review.)
Her summation of the movie–”People who think this movie contains a triumph of the human spirit need to leave their felonious life of meth addiction for the comfort of some domestic abuse and maybe an eating disorder. That is, if this movie makes you feel good, you need to resign from your current life.”
I’m not sure whether I’ll see the movie or not, but her review definitely gives me pause about whether I really want to.
Anyway, she certainly has opinions.
Report comment to moderator
Mock me if you will, but the movie has some violence and torture scenes — enough to earn an R rating — and I guess that’s ok, as long as you don’t have to glimpse any “unnecessary flesh.”
And Christians wonder why people think they’re negative about sex.
Report comment to moderator
And Christians wonder why people think they’re negative about sex.
Could you explain a little more why you think Christians are negative about sex?
Report comment to moderator
Let’s say it was heartbreaking and uplifting at the same time. The closest things I could compare to it would be “Life is Beautiful” or “Working Girl”, although it is more epic in scope, spanning about 20 years of Indian history. Regular people thrust into extraordinary circumstances and facing it with grit and good humor and faith that they are right.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: I have explained sufficiently. He who has ears, let him hear.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Can you link to the thread where you explained?
Report comment to moderator
Comment #6 in this thread, Yeah. If you don’t get it, it’s because you don’t want to.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I don’t want to speak indelicately of Ms. Seu, but her aversion to seeing sex portrayed on screen says nothing one way or another about her attitude toward sex itself.
And the fact is, you don’t get it.
You think you’re omniscient. What a joke.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: I’m not talking about Andree. I’m talking about the general consensus that torture and violence is ok, but even a brief glimpse of nudity would be objectionable. I was referencing comment #4 in my #6.
This is just a small example. Do you deny that traditional Christians reject all sexuality other than between heterosexual married couples?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: You’re so careless. I don’t deny Christians consider sex outside of marriage a sin. I deny that that means they’re negative about sex itself. Read the Song of Solomon.
But it doesn’t matter how it’s discussed, you will always assume Christians can only be motivated by self-righteous prudishness when talking about sex. You’re freakin’ omniscient, man!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Did you read the review I linked to?
Report comment to moderator
Actually Yeah, I’ve known enough Christians to know that Christians in general are not all negative about sex. But it does puzzle me — maybe you can explain it to me — that this particular film’s violence and torture scenes are fine with the Christian viewers, but a glimpse of an unclothed body part would be worrisome.
As for people who think they’re omniscient, you’re mighty quick to tell me what I will “always assume.” I was mostly just tweaking the irony rather than making a serious statement.
Ree: Yes, I read it. Interesting contrast between that one and this one.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
I haven’t seen the movie; I don’t know the nature of the violence or torture scenes. I can say as a general principle that Scripture doesn’t warn of the titillation of violence in the same way it does sexual lust. Also, generally, movies portray sex between unmarried couples positively, or merely indifferently; violence not as much so. Hey, I even allow for the possibility Andree should be more critical of the film!
But regardless! How does it follow that not decrying violence means that one is “negative about sex”?
And I thought you’d be familiar with the literary device called “hyperbole.”
Report comment to moderator
Sex filled movies often are considered par for the course in movies that want to draw in that teen/young adult crowd. I know there are all sorts of exceptions to this rule, but I was always intrigued by how a silly off center movie like Napoleon Dynamite could be the rage with young people when it contained no sex scenes and no nudity.
If ever there was a typical teen movie that called for one sex or nude scene, this was the it. Not that it was completely “puritanical” as used previously by others here, but this was a silly teen movie that was a great success (and still is) despite having no sex or nudity. It puts egg on the face of the movie producers who always defend their sex and nude scenes by stating “that’s what sells to younh people”.
Indeed it does sell, but there are other ways to sell movie tickets to teens and young adults.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think anyone has voiced their approval of the torture or violence scenes. The article that started this was an article about the lack of sex and nudity in the movie. Perhaps if the movie had contained no violence/torture but did contain sex/nudity this article might have been about the joy over not having to see people maimed and brutalized as is the status quo for many of the movies in our theaters.
The omission of violence in a movie is an equal and valid noteworthy point to be made just like the omission of sex and nudity is too.
Sadly, this movie decided it needed to illustrate torture and violence and so rightfully so, did not find it’s way to worldontheweb because in this regard (violence) it is just like all the other movies out there.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz: Sadly, this movie decided it needed to illustrate torture and violence and so rightfully so, did not find it’s way to worldontheweb because in this regard (violence) it is just like all the other movies out there.
Here’s another idea. … maybe we accept that sex and violence both are part of the human experience, and part of any realistic portrayal of human conflict (which is what both drama and comedy are all about) and that there’s nothing sinful in telling true stories about human nature.
The Bible itself is filled with sex and violence both. The story of David and Bathsheba has nudity, adultery and murder-by-proxy. If it were made into a movie it would make Basic Instinct look tame. Should we regard it as unsuitable for Christian readers?
The reason so much Christian entertainment is so bad is that once you remove everything that might offend the Mrs. Grundies in the pews, you’re left with white toast and weak tea. Steve Taylor used to get a lot of grief for having an edge in his lyrics, but he was one of the very few Christian musicians who had interesting things to say.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, my. #20 is Musing-esque.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll just chime in again: when I watch torture or violence in movies, more often than not it is redemptive because it forces me to look at the horror of sin in the world, contemplate the meaning & reality of violence, and it spurs me on to seek justice for those who suffer violence. When I watch a lot of violence onscreen, I am not tempted to hate or hurt others in my mind or otherwise. When violence is used well in a movie, I think it’s good.
When I watch sexuality or nudity in movies, more often than not it is not redemptive because it tempts me to lust in my mind after the movie is over. I have no problem with movies that deal with sex & sexual topics in a frank way, but the explicit portrayal of sex acts or the parade of body parts usually doesn’t contribute to the movie. A recent example of this is the movie Appaloosa, which had sexual tension running very high throughout but used brief nudity from a distance to get its point across rather than titillating audiences.
I will admit that there is some hypocrisy here, but mostly in movies like Die Hard. And that is because it is fun to watch stuff blow up, and I’m not going to analyze that any more.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also say that I’ve watched movies where the violence & gore was excessive and not redemptive, and I certainly don’t want to defend any of those movies at all.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG.–Yes, I read it. Interesting contrast between that one and this one.
Your link represents the kinds of reviews she was referring to when she said that the movie was way overrated, and particularly by Christians, so of course there’s a contrast.
I asked if you read my review, though, because she’s criticizing the violence in a way that you seem to feel that Christians should be doing. It’s an answer to your complaint.
Anyway, I don’t know if I would agree with Barbara Nicolosi that the depressing and violent scenes make the movie unredeemable because I haven’t seen it, but I do agree with the posters who say that the effect of watching explicit sexuality is very different from the effect of watching explicit violence. And there would be a huge difference in effect, especially for men, but even for women, between reading about David’s sin with Bathsheba, and watching her bathing on her rooftop terrace with David ogling her, followed by a seduction scene, complete with nudity and glimpses of them having sex.
Report comment to moderator
I avoid movies with sex, nudity, and violence. (I just refrained from watching a video over Christmas with my family, because I was told it had war scenes.) But honestly, one difference between nudity and violence in movies as that real people are not hurt or killed in the making of the movie; it’s pretend violence. It is, however, real nudity or near nudity. It’s the difference between watching kids play cowboys and Indians (with the addition of fake blood) and watching a strip tease. I can’t stomach even fake violence, so I don’t watch it, even in war movies where it’s appropriate. But watching violence is watching acting; watching people strip in front of a camera or perform simulated sex acts with other actors is watching people perform real sin.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Yes, her observations were more in line with what I would think is appropriate. I don’t object to either violence or sex/nudity in films, being the pagan sinner that I am, and I think you can tell better and truer stories about human nature when you can be more explicit.
(In the hands of a good filmmaker of course. It is entirely too easy to make films where the violence and sex substitutes for a good story rather than tells one, but that’s not what I’m talking about.)
I think I ultimately come down on the side of moderation. Because I don’t believe it is sinful to appreciate the sight of unclothed human bodies, I don’t object to sex and nudity. But if a movie is poorly written, badly directed and populated by talentless actors, to the point where the sex/nudity is there just because they don’t have anything better to offer, I’ll turn it off.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.–But honestly, one difference between nudity and violence in movies as that real people are not hurt or killed in the making of the movie; it’s pretend violence. It is, however, real nudity or near nudity.
That’s another very good point that I hadn’t really given much thought to. But I heard that for the movie Fireproof, the final scene called for a passionate kiss between Kirk Cameron and the actress who played his wife. Since Kirk Cameron refuses to kiss a woman who isn’t his wife even when he’s “just acting,” they staged the scene in such a way that his real wife could play his wife for the movie in just that scene. I very much admire him for that.
Report comment to moderator
I think you can tell better and truer stories about human nature when you can be more explicit.
Don’t you think that the same things can be implied without explicitly showing them? Older movies were generally much better artistically in that regard by implying rather than showing these things.
Because I don’t believe it is sinful to appreciate the sight of unclothed human bodies, I don’t object to sex and nudity.
Are you saying that you can “appreciate the sight of unclothed human bodies” (and not only the sight of their bodies, but images of them engaging in sex) without mentally objectifying women and lusting after them or are you saying that objectifying and lusting after women is spiritually harmless?
Report comment to moderator
#20 SteveG The Bible itself is filled with sex and violence both … The reason so much Christian entertainment is so bad is that once you remove everything that might offend the Mrs. Grundies in the pews, you’re left with white toast and weak tea
I agree. Ted Turner (who says he detests Christians) did a series of Bible movies that didn’t shy away from the sex and violence. The mandate to the director was to be as accurate as possible.
I think they are the best most accurate Bible videos ever made!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl gets to the root of the matter in #25. Nudity is quite a different thing than violence. Nudity is real, the violence is fake. The number of people enticed to commit violence by watching it is very low. The opposite is true for sex. Ask any boy between the ages of 13 and 73.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Don’t you think that the same things can be implied without explicitly showing them? Older movies were generally much better artistically in that regard by implying rather than showing these things.
They can be implied and sometimes that is indeed more effective, but I don’t agree with it as a generalization. As I said, I don’t think there’s any value in being more explicit just because you can be, but I do think there can be value in being more explicit when it can convey the power of the story more effectively.
Case in point: I’m currently watching the DVD collection of the first season of the show Saving Grace. It’s about God’s pursuit of a very sinful woman (Holly Hunter), who is among other things, engaged in an affair.
The show is pretty explicit, about as much as it’s possible to be on network television, but there’s a point to it. It conveys the rawness of the sexual passion between her and her married lover much more viscerally that would the occasional coy look or brief kiss. And as a result, it makes the depth of her needed repentance that much more vivid.
The sexual explicitness is not necessary, but it is purposeful and effective. If someone tried to make the same show in a way that would appeal to the more prudish Christian audience, I do not think it would be “much better artistically.” I think it would suffer.
On the other hand, if you’re telling a simple love story, like in a romantic comedy film, you usually don’t really need explicit sex scenes. If I were watching Along Came Polly or Music and Lyrics and the main characters ended up naked and in bed and the scene were done explicitly, it would be out of place. The filmmakers did not include such scenes because they wouldn’t work.
Are you saying that you can “appreciate the sight of unclothed human bodies” (and not only the sight of their bodies, but images of them engaging in sex) without mentally objectifying women and lusting after them or are you saying that objectifying and lusting after women is spiritually harmless?
I think sexual attraction is spiritually enriching. In my theology, sex can be quite powerful and, as long as it is not done irresponsibly or deceitfully, is not morally wrong. I do not agree that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful.
I don’t agree with your pairing objectifying and lusting as if they are a set. Lust does not require objectifying. (For that matter, objectifying does not always lead to lust.) I don’t think objectifying people is ever really a good thing, but I see no harm in seeing an image of an attractive woman unclothed and appreciating her beauty and, yes, sexual allure.
Report comment to moderator
Therefore, Christians are negative about sex. It’s so obvious.
Report comment to moderator
I am uncomfortable watching a naked woman in a movie when I am with my wife. I am uncomfortable watching a naked woman when I am not with my wife.
“Proverbs 5:18-20 (New International Version)
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.
20 Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man’s wife?”
SteveG
I realize you don’t hold to this , but, may I? I don’t think it is wise to disregard what the Bible says, but that is your choice, not mine. I spent 2 years in the US Army so you could choose. What have you done for me?
Report comment to moderator
Bob: I am not telling you what you should and should not view. I am merely explaining my reasons for reaching a different conclusion.
Report comment to moderator
Boy, I am sure glad that we can both be reasonable. We might even be able to talk face to face and enjoy it. You have an open invitation when you come to see the Coastal Redwoods. Free room and board!
I am driving from Crescent City to home (Los Angeles) tomorrow. My wife and I have to decide a whole bunch of stuff about our new house that is being built. I never knew that there would be so many decisions in building. We hope that we run out of house to build before the money is gone.
Good night.
Report comment to moderator
If someone tried to make the same show in a way that would appeal to the more prudish Christian audience, I do not think it would be “much better artistically.” I think it would suffer.
Based on the promotional ads for that show, I’d say that it has far more integral problems from a Christian perspective than just its explicit sexuality. In any case, there are still ways to indicate “raw sexuality” on screen other than explicitly showing it. The older movies were able to do this as well.
It’s not that Christians have an aversion to sex. In fact it’s precisely the opposite. It’s that we acknowledge the beauty and sanctity of sex as God designed it. Watching people engaging in sex just cheapens it. It’s a violation of the sacred.
I don’t agree with your pairing objectifying and lusting as if they are a set. Lust does not require objectifying. (For that matter, objectifying does not always lead to lust.)
Objectification of people isn’t always associated with lust, but I would say that lust is always associated with objectification.
I don’t think objectifying people is ever really a good thing, but I see no harm in seeing an image of an attractive woman unclothed and appreciating her beauty and, yes, sexual allure.
Talk to people whose marriages have been destroyed by pornography and then tell me how harmless it is.
Report comment to moderator
As to nudity (and no kissing, even): this appears to reflect the traditional Bollywood standards for such things. I find it interesting to note those points an American film might differ.
There was a lot in the film that was dazzling, but the violence –eh!– I confess I tend to turn my head.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Based on the promotional ads for that show, I’d say that it has far more integral problems from a Christian perspective than just its explicit sexuality.
Oh it does. God’s a universalist in that show, at least according to Grace’s angel. But that’s not the point: The point is, Grace is a woman caught up in serious personal problems. She’s messed up in several different ways, and the explicitness punches you in the gut with the depths of it in a way that a more subtle presentation couldn’t do.
Of course I’m not saying that more explicit is always better than less. It’s not always, but it is sometimes.
Talk to people whose marriages have been destroyed by pornography and then tell me how harmless it is.
That would fall well over the line of irresponsibility, which I already addressed. Why do you leap right for the most extreme example? Talk to people who spent five minutes looking at a Playboy centerfold and then went home and loved their wives and children, and tell me how destructive it is.
This leap of yours is akin to my saying ‘I see no harm in jumping from the second step to the floor,’ and your responding, ‘talk to people whose spouses jumped out of skyscraper windows and tell me how harmless it is.’
Report comment to moderator
Ree: Objectification of people isn’t always associated with lust, but I would say that lust is always associated with objectification.
Even of a spouse?
Another point that occurred to me: Sex and nudity are not always arousing nor intended to be. Is it still objectionable if the purpose is to evoke revulsion rather than attraction? One example that comes to mind is the rape scene in The Accused with Jodie Foster. It’s pretty explicit, but its purpose is to leave no ambiguity about the savagery of the crime … something that would be hard to do if it was not able to be so open in showing it.
Or in Saving Grace, less explicit because it is television, but as explicit as it can be, the purpose is to leave no question how carnal the character is and why the spiritual challenge laid out for her is such a mountain to climb.
Does context matter at all, or is it just that any nudity is always wrong? And if the latter, perhaps you should talk to Michaelangelo.
Report comment to moderator
Talk to people who spent five minutes looking at a Playboy centerfold and then went home and loved their wives and children, and tell me how destructive it is.
And in the midst of passion, the husband lovingly assures his wife, “The girl in the nudie magazine turned me on so much, I just had to come home and get me some lovin’.”
Also, Christians are negative about sex.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Also, Christians are negative about sex.
Let it go, will ya?
Here’s the thing: Most people see images of naked people now and then, and many of them even seek them out now and then, and for the most part, it causes no harm.
Every once in a while you encounter someone who is obsessed with porn or actually driven to do something harmful by some interaction between those images and an existing mental illness. But sexuality in general is good and healthy.
Report comment to moderator
Let it go, will ya?
Fair enough. I’m over it now, even though I dispute whether any harm is done by violating Christ’s command regarding lust. But OK, I’ll just read through your post to see what the next topic is….
Da-what???
But sexuality in general is good and healthy.
Had to get that in there, eh? Who you talkin’ to? Who’s disagreeing with you?
Report comment to moderator
Who’s disagreeing with you?
It is possible to make a statement without assuming it’s disagreed with.
Report comment to moderator
Impressive argue-ology: Make some aspersive comment; neglect to support it even when requested; never retract; tell requestor to let it go. Next step: visit other threads in the future and repeat the process.
Report comment to moderator
Uh oh. Yeah is onto me.
Report comment to moderator
But here’s a challenge for you, Yeah: Find the quote where I said Christians are negative about sex (which is I assume the “aspersive comment” you refer to.)
Report comment to moderator
. . . images that can never be expunged from the mind, and which the devil is happy to use as trap doors to your soul.
Time for intervention. The devil doesn’t make you do it.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe I’m perverted, but to me no porn is hotter or more indelible than Authorized literary texts. Reger’s Version, for example. Or a picture of the one I love, even.
Some people complain they are obsessed by porn. They may be obsessed, but the porn is not what does it.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!