Christopher Nolan is often hailed as one of the greatest filmmakers of modern cinema. His latest film, Oppenheimer, recently broke the record for highest-grossing biopic at the box office, bringing in more than $900 million. A common thread runs through his impressive filmography: he doesn’t write sex scenes or nudity into his films. Oppenheimer cut the thread.
[S]exuality has long been a central theme in cinema, even when it was taboo, but its depiction has become increasingly brazen and startlingly gratuitous.
Nolan’s latest film comes alongside a host of others which utilize sexuality and nudity as a so-called plotpoint. (In Oppenheimer, the use of nudity and sex is not crucial to the plot, though its stars argue the contrary.) Nolan’s stark departure from what The Guardian calls his typical “antiseptic” approach to romance once more sparks a needful question: is there ever a good reason for sex and nudity in film?
Sexuality in Film Throughout the Years
Sexuality in film is as new as sexual desire in humanity—not at all. The first on-screen sex scene is ninety years old, in Ecstasy (1933). Though the scene itself was minimal (without showing any nudity), it was scandalous at the time, and the film was banned from the United States and Germany. The first appearance of a nude woman is older, credited to the now-lost film A Daughter of the Gods (1916). Early films—such as Ecstasy and Rebecca (1940)—prove that sexuality has long been a central theme in cinema, even when it was taboo, but its depiction has become increasingly brazen and startlingly gratuitous.
Over-sexualization in film has been simmering for decades, steadily reaching a boiling point. A tangible example is Paul Schrader’s Cat People (1982), which rebooted an earlier sex-centric story from 1942—this time far more erotic and excessive. Of course, sexuality in film occurs on a spectrum: Martin Scorsese’s After Hours (1985) has a few brief instances of sex and nudity, seemingly unimportant to the plot, while the crime thriller Basic Instinct (1992) utilizes sexuality and romance as a central plotpoint, with gratuitous content throughout.
In the twenty-first century, such content in cinema is pervasive. Don’t Worry Darling (2022), Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022), and Asteroid City (2023), are recent cases where sexual content could be removed—or at least implied rather than depicted on-screen—and the plot left unscathed. Yet moviegoers encounter the spectrum of sexual content in film almost constantly. Cinematic history seems to indicate that future filmmakers and viewers won’t shy away from such content, but will only embrace it more happily.
Nudity and Sex Depicted in a Non-Sexual Manner
Despite the connotation that the terms “nudity” and “sexual content” bring to mind, an important distinction must be made. Nudity and sex scenes in film are not always depicted in a sexual manner that intends to titillate. Perhaps the strongest example of this is Schindler’s List (1993). The 1994 Best Picture winner undertakes the brutal portrayal of Jewish persecution in World War II Germany, and the difficulty of resisting the Nazi Regime. The film is rated R for “language, some sexuality, and actuality [sic] violence.” The majority of nudity in the film is non-sexual, depicting the humiliation of Jews by Nazis before they were killed.
Non-sexual nudity should be used sparingly, intentionally, and solemnly—if at all.
The choice to depict such heinous, dehumanizing moments in history is not for pleasure, but rather to thrust depravity upon the viewers, that they may bear the weight of senseless acts not far removed from the present day. In this regard, my ensuing argument—that nudity be avoided and sexual scenes merely implied—loses some of its bite. I must be clear: the only concession I believe may be made for depicting nudity on-screen is for non-sexual, historical purposes. Even then, it would be my preference that such scenes are not gratuitous or drawn out.
Non-sexual nudity in crime and crime scene settings runs in a similar vein with historical non-sexual nudity. Those scenes depicting victims of murder or sexual crimes may find justification for the same reasons Schindler’s List did. In any case under this category, specific caution must be made for viewers’ mental health. Nudity and sex rendered in a non-sexual manner must be approached knowing that many people have experienced the traumas portrayed in such films; care must be given to bringing tragic historical events to the silver screen. Non-sexual nudity should be used sparingly, intentionally, and solemnly—if at all.
Nudity and Sex Depicted in a Sexual Manner
Predictably, nudity and sexual content in film are most often depicted in a sexual manner for the purpose of arousing desire; films spanning various genres centralize the use of nudity and sex scenes for the purpose of a sexualized plot. Examples include Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Shame (2011), X (2022), and the epitomic Fifty Shades of Grey series. Yet again, however, the use of nudity and sex in a sexual manner occurs on a spectrum, ranging from “central to the plot” to “needless to the plot.” (The latter is the category I believe Oppenheimer falls under.)
Films like Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) and Babylon (2022) may technically fall under the “needless to the plot” category, but they utilize it gratuitously—to an unbearable extent. Some of the most unabashed moments occur in these movies, though the more common use of such content is very brief, even only a split second or moment on-screen. Thus the pervasive use of content in film often feels pointless—either because the short scene could have merely been implied or removed entirely, or because its presence is so overwhelming and shameless that the film’s plot and purpose is ruined.
This category of content in film is highly influenced by—and simultaneously perpetuates—the over-sexualized culture we live in today. Statistics on the general sexual ethic in the United States are bleak, making such ubiquitous content unsurprising.
Seeking a One-Size-Fits-Most Framework
On the basis of these two distinctions, and with the notion that sexual content in film is not shrinking away, we Christians must assess every film—regardless of how innocent one may seem—and determine for ourselves whether they are worth watching.
Exploitation and abuse are historically bonded with sex in filmmaking. Indulging in such scenes is celebrating the harm of an image-bearer.
Christians in the past have taken diverse positions on this subject; some fundamentalist churches (similar to the one I grew up in) argue that it is unwise for Christians to even grace the doorstep of a theater because of the perception people may have of the movie-goers. (The question I often heard was, “How do we know they’re not watching a bad movie?”—though “bad” was not clearly defined.) Others argue that R-rated movies are always off limits. While my approach to film in general is typically more nuanced—a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work in cinema—I believe that sexuality in film can be approached more generally, perhaps with a one-size-fits-most framework. Barring historical films which use nudity in a non-sexual manner, Christians should earnestly avoid sex scenes and nudity in film.
To start, Christians should generally blacklist explicitly sex-centric films. Deciding to avoid screenplays which, when filmed and polished and distributed, primarily seek to glorify (typically extra-marital) sex in explicit ways, should not be a point of contention. The media we consume directly impacts our minds, hearts, and souls. To resist a pornography-ridden, non-committal, and objectified sexual lifestyle is to promote the Christian sexual ethic. We can start by avoiding blatant contributions to that culture.
A more poignant reason to campaign against sex-centric films (and sex scenes in general) was made shortly after Redeeming Love (2022) was released. The Gospel Coalition published an article contra the book-turned-film which is a modern retelling of Hosea. Its strongest argument is that sex scenes exploit the actors who portray them. The author writes:
If there’s a problem with a movie like Redeeming Love, it’s not the subject matter (prostitution), nor the characters (prostitutes and lecherous men), nor the grievous and immoral acts explored (rape, sexual slavery, etc.). No, the problem is the sexual objectification of human beings made in the image of God—all for a message designed to point people to God.
Thus, sexual topics in film are not always problematic, but how they are filmed and displayed graphically is. The exploitation of actors for sexual scenes goes back to Ecstasy. Hedy Lamarr contested director Gustav Machatý’s instructions to film in the nude, so the filmmakers promised “long shots” with “no intimate details” shown. She learned they used telephoto lenses for close-up shots—exploiting her—at the film’s preview in Prague. While filming the sex scene, Machatý jabbed Lamarr with a pin to cause the desired facial expressions during the scene. Exploitation and abuse are historically bonded with sex in filmmaking. Indulging in such scenes is celebrating the harm of an image-bearer.
Refraining from explicit, sex-centric films is not an act of rigorous discretion. The apostle Paul wrote extensively on guarding oneself against—indeed, even fleeing from—sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:22). Avoiding an obviously sex-centric film is rudimentary. Further along the spectrum, however, is where discretion and wisdom are required.
(1) Does this bring glory to Christ or praise the True, Good, and Beautiful?
(2) Will this hydrate or dehydrate my soul?
Take Oppenheimer for example. The three-hour biopic is not sex-centric, and the film is otherwise substantive and well worth viewing. (Indeed, Christ and Pop Culture has already surveyed its substance in “The Moral Fission of Oppenheimer” and “Oppenheimer: The Burden of Guilt and the Limits of the Immanent Frame.”) Christopher Nolan’s choice to include gratuitous content in a sexual manner is one I consider a great failure in his otherwise impressive career. Robert J. Oppenheimer’s affair was key to his life, but it would have sufficed to imply those moments—behind closed doors with the viewer locked out.
As with Oppenheimer, many films do not afford viewers such a luxury, but inevitably contain anything from a sliver to full portions of sexual content. A couple of questions are worth contemplating for films which might include content:
- Does this bring glory to Christ or praise the True, Good, and Beautiful?
- Will this hydrate or dehydrate my soul?
These questions go hand-in-hand. There have been many substantive secular movies which point to the “True, Good, and Beautiful” in life, as Peter Kreeft calls it. Fewer depict Christ or Christianity, but I’ve done my research to compile a list that functions as a “cinematic study in the Christian religion.” It has been my goal when writing on film to draw out and praise such things. People watch movies for various reasons—to learn or distract or empathize or be angry—but the primary reason Christians should watch movies is to embrace truths that ultimately draw us closer to God and make us more like him.
“This is the will of God,” the Apostle Paul wrote, “your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality” (1 Thess. 4:3). Briefly defined, sanctification is progressive conformity to the holiness of Christ. It is God’s will that our lives reflect the person of Jesus Christ, based on the historia salutis (his accomplished work on the cross). A lady at my church stated that if we as Christians are not actively pursuing Christ, we are drifting from him. As the old hymn says, we’re “prone to wander,” “prone to leave the One [we] love.” In other words, the Christian life is like a growing plant. It grows in the sunlight when watered, but when such care is neglected, it will become dehydrated and begin to wilt. Engaging with film can either hydrate or dehydrate.
Practical ways to engage with films that may otherwise be dehydrating include checking the MPAA rating and content list for films before seeing them, watching trailers and reading reviews from websites that will approach them from a Christian worldview, and utilizing streaming tools such as VidAngel or ClearPlay that filter selected graphic content. However, content filtering should not be used to turn a blind eye to exploitation for the sake of consuming whatever we want. It provides a family-friendly experience, but shouldn’t elevate a sense of purity while neglecting care for those exploited; neighbor-love outweighs entertainment.
As sojourners in an increasingly strange land, we can’t expect all content in movies to be as “antiseptic” as Christopher Nolan’s historical approach to romance. But, understanding the different purposes and portrayals of sexual content in film can help us use discretion in what films we should watch. Let us stand firm where we must, seeking out the Good, True, and Beautiful in cinema.
