On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:19 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > Someone mentioned the frequent, never-nude sex scenes. There is no doubt > that if this show were made 7 years ago the three main female leads would > have each had double digit minutes total of revealed breasts and buttox. > Since the main lead is an actress I can’t help but still think of as 10 > years old, I was glad they kept her mostly covered up (a few seconds of > side boob, and one lingering, majestic full ass shot which could easily > have been one of the famous butt doubles. I had the feeling that this was > the kind of production where the female lead had the juice to preclude most > nude scenes, they were not going to force lesser billed actresses to take > up the slack, which is always kind of creepy. > > But this also seemed consistent with the ideological line they were > trying to walk, maintaining the focus on the predatory and coercive nature > of male sexuality while avoiding the neo-Puritanism of some varieties of > feminism. I think that also explains the ratio of sexual nudity (low) to > sexual verbal profanity (high). People are not naked very much but they say > words like “fuc*”, “coc*” and “cun*” a lot. >
Elle Fanning has an executive producer credit and it's possible that she had the clout to nix any proposed nudity. It's also possible that the producers in general or Hulu decided that nudity was not necessary to tell the story. Like I said in my previous comment, fully clothed sex is a good visual way of showing no intimacy between Peter and Catherine when they do their duty to produce an heir. And I accept it could be a way to show the lack of intimacy if the act is coercive. But there are times in the series where it's done for mutually consented sex and that's what I don't get. Just start the scene with tem under a sheet or in the tall grass or something where we know they are naked even if we cannot see it. > > I am not expert on Russian history, but in addition to changes they made > to Catherine’s story, they seemed to have played fast and lose with her > husband Peter III, who was as I understand the grandson of Peter the Great, > not his son. Not sure why they did this, possibly to underline another > anachronism, a post Freudian understanding of fathers and sons (also sets > up what seems to be a line the screenplay is proud of, the King of Sweden > commiserating with Peter that at least his own father was only know as Olaf > the Okay). > > I’m not mad that I spent the time watching it, but somewhat irritated the > considerable talents of the actors and production team were not spent on a > better executed story. > Going through the history gives a much different story. Peter and Catherine were second cousins who grew up in "Germany." Quotes because Catherine's Prussian hometown is in Poland today. Peter grew up in Holstein near the border with Denmark. Peter's mother was Peter the Great's daughter and that was his path to the throne. Catherine grew up as Princess Sophie and had her name changed when she converted to Russian Orthodoxy before her betrothal (and that really should have been shown in the series). Peter ruled for only six months before the coup. I read an interview with Tony McNamara where he said the historical Peter was nothing like his character but he wrote him that way to be an antagonist to Catherine. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiG2MnGeTdNK05ux%3DX5hOnHw478GMs%3DbSb%2B2xRNP1YXU-A%40mail.gmail.com.
