Talk:In the Cut (film)

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Australian / New Zealand

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force.

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

King, Mike (2008). "In the Cut and Rain Man". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 192–197. ISBN 0786439882.

Fellatio[edit]

Does the non-existent case of unsimulated fellatio deserve to be in the opening paragraph. -- Beardo (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whose words are these?[edit]

To whom do these words under the Nudity and Sex Scenes title belong? She appeared to really enjoy making this movie. I would say that it is her best film ever, she finally delivers a "one up" on "When Harry Met Sally". You all remember the diner scene in which she appears alongside Billy Cyrstal... "In The Cut" is a great 'late night' viewing experience, and also good to have on as a 2nd or 3rd date movie. It is strongly suggested to see this movie.

Don't tell me it's this article's writer!!! What stupidity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.143.199 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an erotic thriller, it is an erotic horror film. It seems like a first of its kind in that it shows titilating sex scenes amongst images of disembodiment. This is cinema that pushes the boundaries without a care for any consequences beyond the film itself. I guess that is the so called artistic licence. Like Tarantino has clever script and superb direction, Campion has skillful and artful photography; but both lack humanity.

Its the women directors who are pushing the sexual boundaries in film. The Night Porter comes to mind with the concentration camp scene where two emaciated bodies are doing a sex show. The felatio scene in Campions film was very realistic; but why did it have to be so graphic? She obviously wants to make a name for herself here. The main plot actually revolves around this scene as well. If critics think that this is a good film then they'll have to look at films like Baise Moi again.

Nudity and sex scenes[edit]

The unrated version is notorious for a scene of apparent unsimulated fellatio witnessed by Meg Ryan's character, although it was later revealed in the film commentary that the actress fellated a dildo. The film is noted for being the first time actress Meg Ryan appears fully nude in a film. Actor Mark Ruffalo is also noted for exposing his penis for a brief moment after his character performs oral sex on Meg Ryan.

Plot[edit]

I just watched the film for the 3rd? time, but I didn't record it, and there isn't another showing anytime soon. The first was a long time ago and the second this past week, but I can't check a recording right now, my bad. I do believe it is necessary to include mention of the fellatio since it is a major plot point, and this is an adult film. I have lots of problems with the film by itself, but the themes of romantic trappings vs. real love, love vs. sex, sexual assertiveness vs. aggression and violence, are real themes however well (or not) the are elucidated in the fim. In this 3rd viewing I just noticed the BIG GIANT RED lighthouse (both a crude phallic symbol and a hint about this film's similarity to the book, perhaps?) on the blackboard early on, and then the reference to the book, To the Lighthouse at the end, which I have not read. But this excerpt from wiki's article on the book suggests to me that the film might have a lot in common with it: "To the Lighthouse follows and extends the tradition of modernist novelists like Marcel Proust and James Joyce, where the plot is secondary to philosophical introspection, and the prose can be winding and hard to follow." I'm too tired to footnote that reference now, I just learned footnotes, and I'd like to do a Reception section later. But even if the book is a major reference the film doesn't show us why or how, it relies on the audience's literary knowledge, which is asking a lot these days. So I hope I haven't offended anyone, hope to do more and better later. Beadmatrix (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix[reply]

You can't question a tattoo.[edit]

"After questioning his 3 of spades tattoo ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C000:1A0:ED77:B193:FC0A:5FB2 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]