New movie trend: sitting on the toilet scenes
Jaime M. de Castellvi
> Has anyone else noticed this new trend of both sexes sitting on the toilet
> complete with sound effects? In particular, we're now seeing more women on the
> john.
> For a long time in the movies, we would see men peeing with their backs to us,
> minus the sound. Then someone said, "Hey, it's too quiet in here. Nobody pees
> like that. We need some noise!" Along came the peeing sounds and the
> audiences were flabbergasted to see such realism even though they do it and
> hear it everyday themselves.
> So then audiences began to see more male characters peeing and farting in
> the bathroom. Some of these characters would actually be sitting down and
> reading a magazine, taking a dump. Ever notice that no character farts in
> the bathroom unless it's a "Dumb and Dumber" case of diarrhea? And no
> woman has yet farted in the bathroom onscreen, either. That will be the
> next ground-breaking cinematic effect, I predict.
> By now, audiences have seen these scenes so often that they have grown
> bored with this type of bathroom voyeurism. Men and their noisy, smelly
> bodies is not a secret to anyone these days. Yawn.
> However, women shitting on the can is very much a new idea to many
> audiences. It's more shocking to see a woman peeing because women always
> have to go hide behind a tree or a door to do their business, thereby
> rendering it as being one of those mysterious female things that women do
> when they're in the bathroom. (the audience I saw "Panic Room" with
> started giggling when they saw Jodie Foster sleepily sit on the toilet and
> pee---complete with tinkling sound effects!). But you can't forget the
> tinkling sound effects because not too many women can pee quietly unless
> they manage to pee on the inside of the bowl, thereby avoiding direct
> toilet bowl water contact.
> I'm really looking forward to seeing more intimate bathroom scenes in
> movies. Now that we've reached the peeing stage, perhaps we'll graduate to
> the wiping-your-ass-and-flush stage. You just can't go far enough for the
> sake of realism and "art."
Before we get there, we have to first pass through what one might term
the perspective of the can (i.e. a camera inside the john, recording
the actual purging act).
The logistics of this are bound to be somewhat challenging. For one
thing, the minute the actor's or actress's cheeks plonk down onto the
seat, total darkness ensues in the inside of the bowl. So you will
need some illumination, but not so much that it blatantly compromises
realism (then again, depends on the effect you are aiming for as you
shoot; Hollywood's idea of a bathroom tends to be unrealistically
pristine so lots of cold white light and unreasonably clean and
reflecting bowl walls would seem in order, whereas Europeans would
likely favour a warm, amber effect and grungier walls).
Also, the positioning and angling of the camera will constitute a
critical factor. You can't have much of a scene if the lens gets
thoroughly splooged or even lightly splattered in the very first
volley. But you can't just place a protective glass pane haphazardly
and without forethought, since obvious smears and splatters will pose
a distracting detail for the audience and detract from the desired
effect of transparent verisimilitude. You therefore need to consider
angles and positioning as well as lighting. If you are aiming for an
explicit shot of the arsshole churning out its magic towards you
(without clogging the lens), this could be particularly tricky (1). I
have confidence, however, on the ability of Hollywood's mix of
glitter, expert know-how and propensity to throw money at a problem
until it goes away, to see this through in a seemly and thoroughly
realistic fashion.
Then and only then could we, as you so aptly observed, move on towards
the wiping your butt and flushing stage. You do have to kinda walk
first before you can run, y'know?
Cheers,
Jaime
(1) For a preview of what this may look like (particularly useful if
you are an aspiring cinematographer considering the eventual
application of this technique), go take a dump without actually
sitting on the toilet, that is to say, leaving enough space so that
you can hold a mirror in your right hand, angling it properly so you
can see your orifice at work. No matter what you might have pictured
n your mind beforehand, you are guaranteed to be surprised by the
results (particularly if you've got a hairy ass). I encourage anyone
trying out this experiment to get back here and report with a
follow-up on the experience and how you were impacted by it.
extempore
18:15:56 GMT,
spewed forth in message <3ca9ecf9...@news.cis.dfn.de>
and told us all:
>The logistics of this are bound to be somewhat challenging. For one
>thing, the minute the actor's or actress's cheeks plonk down onto the
>seat, total darkness ensues in the inside of the bowl. So you will
>need some illumination, but not so much that it blatantly compromises
>realism (then again, depends on the effect you are aiming for as you
>shoot; Hollywood's idea of a bathroom tends to be unrealistically
>pristine so lots of cold white light and unreasonably clean and
>reflecting bowl walls would seem in order, whereas Europeans would
>likely favour a warm, amber effect and grungier walls).
This won't work for every production, but the solution is really easy.
Use the perspective of the Tidy Bowl Man, and use his flashlight to
show the action. Maybe bring the Toilet Duck and Terrence and Philip
on board with them, too. CGI the whole thing. Preferably with "The
Log Driver's Waltz" or the theme from "The Beachcombers" as background
music.
(And if you writers for South Park don't credit me on this one, I'm
gonna fuckin' sue.)
extempore
Just Lori
>3c...@home.com (Jaime M. de Castellvi) wrote:
>
>>This follow-up is fondly dedicated to the wicked Hole.
>
>This browneyed-girl appreciates the crosspost.
Whoops, accidentally snipped abp. Sorry.
--
"No, I'm not complaining that it's too long. I rather like it
that way." - Antifrance
Just Lori
>This follow-up is fondly dedicated to the wicked Hole.
This browneyed-girl appreciates the crosspost.
--
thew...@unagi.cybernothing.org
> 3c...@home.com (Jaime M. de Castellvi) wrote:
>
>>This follow-up is fondly dedicated to the wicked Hole.
>
> This browneyed-girl appreciates the crosspost.
Noted. In the future I'll attempt to remember to add afb-g when I post.
:)
--
TheWitch
"It costs extra to carve the word "SCHMUCK" on a tombstone, but you would
definitely be worth the expense."
- Lee Remick
Just Lori
>In alt.fan.tom-servo Just Lori <80s_...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> 3c...@home.com (Jaime M. de Castellvi) wrote:
>>
>>>This follow-up is fondly dedicated to the wicked Hole.
>>
>> This browneyed-girl appreciates the crosspost.
>
>Noted. In the future I'll attempt to remember to add afb-g when I post.
>:)
You don't really have to unless you want to. Even though it's no longer
Sergey's vanity froup, I'm still subscribed for nostalgia's sake.
Jaime M. de Castellvi
wrote:
>3c...@home.com (Jaime M. de Castellvi) wrote:
>
>>This follow-up is fondly dedicated to the wicked Hole.
>
>This browneyed-girl appreciates the crosspost.
It seemed oddly apropos, and since I noted your earlier reminder to
Brendan on another thread I didn't want to get myself in shit with
you. We are happy to serve.
Cheers,
Jaime
Just Lori
>I didn't want to get myself in shit with you.
With your poo fetish? I think I've just been insulted!
Jaime M. de Castellvi
wrote:
>3c...@home.com (Jaime M. de Castellvi) wrote:
>
>>I didn't want to get myself in shit with you.
>
>With your poo fetish? I think I've just been insulted!
Not really. It is just that married men are only allowed to look.
Cheers,
Jaime