Friday, July 13, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Tell Me You Love Me: Does It Matter If They Did It?
HBO photo: Doug Hyun
HBO has held its TCA press tour session in LA (headlines: Deadwood movies possible but don't bet on it; Curb Your Enthusiasm coming back in September; nobody knows if Tony's dead) and brought out the stars and producers of Tell Me You Love Me, its new fall drama that the New York Times has already dubbed "that sex show." The sex scenes in this couples-therapy show are so graphic--organs, angles, fluids--that it's led some viewers to wonder if the actors are, in fact, doing the deed on screen.
The answer? Nomaybenocomment. Asked the question at the HBO conference, costar Michelle Borth said, "We're not porn stars," while creator Cynthia Mort said that she would not "ask anything of [the actors] that they are uncomfortable doing." Mind you, I was not in the room (I'm in New York and not attending TCA). But it appears, from the coverage I've read, that being in the room wouldn't have helped. Aaron Barnhart says the show depicts "real sex." Rob Owen said it probably doesn't. Ellen Gray says there were no answers.
The producers purport to be surprised and flustered by all the attention to the sex. (Though if they are--and why would they be, exactly?--the coy non-answers aren't exactly helping to dissipate it.) And I can understand that. From what I've seen so far, Tell Me is a thought-provoking, subtle, adult (in the non-XXX sense of the word) series that will lend itself to far more questions than those about whether tab A went into slot B.
But we may as well get those out of the way first. Here's mine: Why, exactly, does it matter if the actors are having actual sex, anyway? I'd say that it doesn't (and I'm sure I'm in the minority, having already argued with a colleague about this yesterday). I mean, it matters in the sense of inquiring-minds-want-to-know. But in a work of fiction, if the images are otherwise the same, if the same story and emotions are conveyed, the actors' external reality shouldn't matter: not whether they're having real sex, nor what their personal lives are like, nor if they're lifelike animatronic robots. What Chloe Sevigny actually did with Vincent Gallo did not make The Brown Bunny any worse a movie than it already was.
Whether the subjects are having real sex matters, obviously, in child-porn cases, where real sex would constitute a crime involving a real person. But that has to do with the welfare of the subject, not the effect on the audience. And I'd argue that that's the real difference between art (defined broadly) and porn. In porn, it's essential to make clear to the viewer that actual sex between live humans is taking place, or the audience won't pay up. (That's why they call it a "money shot.") Porn is a substitute for imagination; art is a stimulus to imagination.
I'm curious in the usual nosy way to know just what the actors in Tell Me did, and how the producers simulated the effects if they didn't. But I also know that in the end, that's trivia. To insist, Starr Report-style, that knowing what penetrated what is essential to understanding the work is to reduce art to the level of porn.
So is Tell Me You Love Me porn? To paraphrase Potter Stewart, we'll know it when we see how we see it.
42 Comments to “Tell Me You Love Me: Does It Matter If They Did It?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About Tuned In
James Poniewozik writes TIME magazine's Tuned In column, about pop culture and society. Tuned In, the blog version, is about the stuff we used to call "TV," whether it's in your living room, on your computer or -- once the networks figure out the technology and line up the advertisers -- in your dreams themselves. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
Recent Posts
Tuned In - TIME.com Archives
Blogroll
- Aaron Barnhart’s TV Barn
- About Last Night
- Alan Sepinwall
- Arts & Letters Daily
- Blogher Career
- Brazen Careerist
- BuzzMachine
- Defamer
- Heather Havrilesky
- James Wolcott
- Matt Zoller Seitz
- Maureen Ryan
- Melanie McFarland
- Metafilter
- Peter Ames Carlin
- Popwatch
- Romenesko
- Television Without Pity
- Tim Goodman
- TV Guide blogs
- TV Newser
- TV Tattle
- Undercover Black Man
- Virginia Heffernan
- Zap2It’s TV Blog
More TIME Blogs
http://rss.time.com/web/time/rss/top/index.xml
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Top Photoessays and Slideshows
- Venice Floods
- 20th Century Britain in Pictures
- Pictures of the Week
- Mumbai Sifts Through the Rubble
- Two Days of Terror in Mumbai
- Over 100 Dead as Terrorist Attacks Overwhelm Mumbai
- Photos: The Kitsch of Thanksgiving
- Animated Movies: Not Just for Kids
- Photos: Anbar Sheiks Come Together
- Photos: Two Decades of Guns N' Roses
Friday, July 13, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I personally think that the "are they doing it" controvery is HBO's way of avoiding what would otherwise be extremely controversial. From your description, it sound like they are showing not merely penises, but erect penises....
and ordinarily, that simple fact would have people screaming bloody murder. But by creating this "are they or aren't they" mystery, they are skipping over the OTHER issue -- and when HBO finally gets around to saying "they aren't", the whole "penises on HBO" thing will be no big deal.
Friday, July 13, 2007 at 7:23 pm
A hard month avoiding any mention of what happens in the final episode of The Sopranos because I do not have HBO and was a relatively late starter to the greatest show on earth bandwagon. I've seen three seasons on DVD and maybe it is, so why would I want to find out how it ends? Avoiding CNN, any and all newspapers, political ads, Journey news, radio, whatever form of media there is and will ever be, and you spill the beans in the second line of a review on a completely unrelated topic. So, thank you.
At least I'm caught up on my Harry Potter.
Saturday, July 14, 2007 at 12:25 am
Pro tip for Alex -- stay off the intraweb if you're worried about spoilers.
Anyway, maybe this should be highlighted in TIME's "Milestones" feature:
COITUS'D: New HBO drama thrusts TV sex into the public spotlight once again. Journalists and fans are erupting with speculation regarding the controversial scenes, while HBO brass are sticking firmly to ambiguity.
Sunday, July 15, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I think it matters b/c, most people agree there are things we won't to do for money; because it's either damaging OR it ultimately violates privacy (doing it for art makes no difference).
Being physically injured is one -- and I think we all know no matter how many times or how hard Bond got his balls beaten in "Casino" it wasn't real. And actual sex is another, which is as physically intimate as you can get. Isn't that why strippers get payed so much? It's undesirable work and no one will do it for $400 per/wk (ok, crack attics will). That's *strippers* NOT *hookers*. And porn stars are prone to take drugs and alcohol to dull the experience.
If it's real I bet these actors are gonna regret this down the pike.
One other thing if it's no big deal, why not just come out and say it.
Sunday, July 15, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Ya'll knew I'm meant *addict* NOT *attic* right?
Monday, July 16, 2007 at 4:25 am
To say that whether or not the performers are engaging in actual sex for our viewing matters only if one or both performers are underage children is to another way of saying just wait, kids, when you're grown up you can have sex in public all you want. Focusing on age just makes things which no person should need into something children specifically look forward to. If it were more honestly pornographic it would be more respectable than this shilly-shallying "no, it's art" mock hurt.
In any case, HBO is clearly groping (pun) for direction in the post-Sopranos world, and is currently in the "even more sex and even more violence" mode (except for "John From Cincinnatti", although that does have the "real child does real drugs on TV!" angle. Yet more of the age-aspirational issue.) Hopefully they will calm down soon. (The real people get really killed angle is pretty much filled up already on the reality entertainment shows known as news.)
Monday, July 16, 2007 at 10:06 am
Didn't Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman (back when they were married) have real onscreen sex in Eyes Wide Shut? I didn't see the movie but remember hearing some hubbub about it, but nobody really seemed that worked up about it, it was treated as art. Anybody remember?
Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I canceled HBO from dish network because they insist on showing me what i consider homosexual content, it is no secret that HBO caters exclusively to the gay community. I'm glad it was a three month free period and I did not pay one red cent for HBO, I would not take it back even if they offered it free for a lifetime. Here is a question for everyone, if HBO is so obsessed with the male member and thats what their audience wants then why don't they just become the first gay porn network and stop beating around the bush and acting like thats not what their about.
Sunday, July 22, 2007 at 10:38 am
Bill,
Generally Showtime is known as the "gay network" with shows like The L Word and Queer as Folk. DId you get confused between the two? The Sopranos did not cater to the gay community. The only show that really did was maybe Six Feet Under.
Sunday, July 22, 2007 at 2:33 pm
WHEN does this show Premiere?
-MrCeleb
Sunday, July 22, 2007 at 5:00 pm
HBO has a obvious fixation with the male member, just watch any of their documentaries and you will see that, heck even oz was very homosexual in nature even though they made it up to look very heterosexual, HBO always goes back to the same thing, let's get a shoot of some guys sex organs, if that is not homosexual in nature then what is? Why does HBO even have to take pictures of nude men, and even women to take it a step farther, are they not confident enough with their art to just get by on talent alone? seriously HBO needs to get back on track, if it's porn you want the internet should be more then enough, TV should be left to real entertainment value and porn should be left to the internet. But thats my opinion, I want quality on my TV not some guy getting a hand job.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 10:51 am
People are so hypocritical and homophobic. I don't see why it's such a big deal to see a penis on television when we see female breasts and occasionally pubic regions all the time (I'm talking pay channels, obviously, not network television). I don't feel that depicting sex, or even nudity, in shows is just for shock value or "taking it one step further". Personally, I don't see how it's possible, or realistic, to have a television show about relationships without sexual content as it is a large, real, factor in any of them. That's the beauty of pay channels, they can take us into the bedroom and let us gain a better understanding of the couples and relationships they are in without having the FCC breathing down their necks. And if you don't like it, then you don't have to pay.
Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Hey Nick, I can see that your into guys and thats fine, all I'm saying is that as a straight man I will not ever pay one red cent to see a penis. As for your comment to the fact we show breasts and pubic region all the time on tv, thats true. however we do not show vulva's all the time on tv, let's not compare apples to oranges okay. if you want penis on tv thats fine just as long as we can have vulva on tv as well. Also I did not insult anyone I just stated my opinion, you should get use to that their will be many people with opinions you do not like, so by saying People are so hypocritical and homophobic all you are doing is insulting me, that's really uncalled for. would it be nice if I said everyone who disagrees with me is heterophobic, no it would not so don't do to me what you would not want done to yourself, okay.
Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I haven't read any of the above comments but I just got " buzzed" about the content of this upcoming show and I wanna know from you middle class white people - Is this the way you really live? do you really have lives where you never interact with or have substantial relationships with any people who are not white, not heterosexual, not middle class (if they are not your extebded family)? It amazes me that it is 2007, seven years after the new millienium, forty years after MARTIN'S death, almost 40 years after the Stonewall revolt and a new series is premiering about couples, sex and relationship, but WITHOUT any diversity. You all don't have a clue about the rest of us and that is a detriment.
Monday, August 6, 2007 at 12:02 am
You people should check with siteadvisor.com, time-blog.com is a worthless site run by corporate America in order to promote their propaganda. They are also loading you down with cookies when you visit their site, the cookies are from timeinc.net, time.com, atwola.com. not to mention so few people actually read this trash it don't even show up as having any users.
Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 4:20 am
The new series being discussed hasn't even aired yet. I hope it's a success and that I will like it. There is nothing wrong with depicting nudity in a story about married or otherwise committed people. From what I've read about the upcoming show, the nudity is presented in context and is (I think) likely to be more true-to-life than it's portrayed in productions that are designed to serve as "porn" (sorry, I couldn't think of a better word).
We are all divided into males and females and we all live our lives, nudity and all. Why shouldn't that be shown in a series that gives us a frank look about human relationships (and a series we may even learn some things from)?
The human sexual organs, including the evil 'male member' are not bad. They are part of the human anatomy and I am glad that I know how to see a penis in that light. Men have penises and external gonads contained within the scrotum. What's the problem? (yeah bill, I'm "into guys")
Sincerely,
John David Martin, 46, Fort Worth, Texas
Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 4:57 am
bill,
I'm just reviewing the earlier posts here. I do agree with you that showing nudity, male or female, just for the 'ratings factor' in itself is not a good idea. I say: write a good story and if we see a nekkid person, that's OK. Just write a good story. Many of the paid series I have seen lately are not good and just because we see a body part here and there, male or female, doesn't make up for that.
Respectfully,
John Martin, 46
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 5:33 am
Hey Bill,
I couldn't agree with you more. I thought I was the only one getting sick of seeing penises. Although HBO is one of the manin avenue for this, they are not alone. From Showtime to MTV to any movies that claims to be daring, the trendy things is to show unnecessary male nudity. Especially the penis. I am not against nudity, not even male nudity, but but there is only some sausage that a normal heterosexual male can take. The least they could do is balance it out with similar female nudity. Yeah Right!! America almost came to a stand still when one boob popped out at the Super Bowl. The unbalance is highlighted if you think of how many main-stream american actor have shown their penis versus how many main-stream american actress that have shown vulva. The most you can get from a main-stream american actress is a boob and maybe a butt. Hell, no even playboy gives you a good look a female genitals anymore. I guess normal heterosexual men interested in 'real' female nudity will just have to stick to hardcore porno.
Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 1:51 am
Bill,
Afraid you might like what you see?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 11:09 pm
"Bill"--you're an idiot. Film and pay cable are nothing but a parade of female bodies. Does that make them lesbian media?
Showing penises is not gay--50 percent of the population has one. Not being able to look at a penis on-screen (let alone a gay kiss) without flipping out and crying for mommy is a sign of immaturity and god knows what else. You strike me as the kind of guy who watches TV with one hand on the remote and the other down his pants, boiling everything down to how much "bush" or "tits" you can see.
Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 10:56 pm
You are incorrect to say it matters only if the children are underage. It also is not acceptable to say the actors agreed to have real sex (as in Short Bus). Here's why: actors need to work. Not want to work. Need to work. It is unfair and oppressive to expect this of them. Both male and female actors. Not just female actors. What about the actors who would not agree to have sex? No job, I guess. So that's why it matters. And as someone who works with actors, I can assure you it does not take much to get them to "agree". This should not be expected of actors.
Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 12:46 am
Bill and Kasey are the epitome of the dumb, unsophisticated American male. Seeing a penis makes you gay? Well since you are constantly beating off (and therefore touching a penis), I guess that makes you pretty damn gay! Women are constantly being shown naked on TV and in movies -it's about time they showed some penis too!
And I love how Kasey wrote "I guess normal heterosexual men interested in 'real' female nudity will just have to stick to hardcore porno."
Damn straight, because you are NEVER gonna see a naked woman in person!
Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 12:49 am
"actors need to work. Not want to work. Need to work"
Everyone needs to work. If, at any time, being an actor is not paying the bills, that person can get a real job - just like the rest of us! You make them sound like starving children in Africa. That's laughable!
Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Bill, get out of that closet, please....
You idiot!
Monday, September 10, 2007 at 12:28 am
It's cool that they finally show some male genitals! It's about time..they've been doing this in Europe and South America for years.
But the story line about the infertile couple who've been trying for over a year to concieve? And they never though of testing his sperm count?
That's just plain dumb! Any upper-middle-class couple would do this quickly, I would think. But then you wouldn't have as many sex scenes.
I like the show, and I like the sex! I will continue to watch.
Just think about what real people would do, please, to make the story line more realistic.
Monday, September 10, 2007 at 12:41 am
Oh yeah, and one other thing: it would seem that all the males in this show seem to suffer from premature ejaculation, since none of the sex seems to last for more than 30 seconds or so. Maybe they should all go to the therapist for that, too.
I guess that's just how they do it on HBO.
Monday, September 10, 2007 at 2:10 am
The show is porn with a bad plot line. If it's about the intimacy of couples as the creator or producers state, the raw sex scenes invade and destroy that intimacy by making the audience uncomfortable voyeurs in the same intimate space. I'd rather watch a good show about intimacy, or a good porn, but mixing the two is a recipe for changing the channel.
Monday, September 10, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Haha...Bill made my day! What a douche!
Monday, September 10, 2007 at 11:43 pm
I don't see why is out there on the public I mean come on HBO !!! If you wanna make porn, then make porn. Dont waste your time plotting the story. You Disgrace all your great shows in the past . Just imagine how tv shows will be like in the near future when all of them are totally explicit.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Hey let's all chip in and get Bill a subscription to a real gay porn channel so he can start dealing with his 'fear' of penises. I wonder if he can even look at his own without thinking he's gay.
Saturday, September 15, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Bill was just upset because something moved "down there" when he was watching OZ, enough so, he had to watch it again and again. His buddies walking in on him didn't help...
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Why is it ok (and has always been ok) to show a woman completely nude and view her as a sex object , but when they show a man nude and in this light, it's offensive? Either they should show both men and women's nudity in the same way or none at all.
Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 7:23 am
Everyone here seems to have missed the point that myself, and I think Bill, tried to make. That being, though there is nothing wrong about a penis, there is nothing wrong with showing a penis, and there is certainly nothing wrong with liking penises or with being gay; as a heterosexual male the only penis that interests me is my own. The complaint I have is that it is becoming all too common to see penises being showcased by various entertainment media. I believe that my feelings about penises are representative of a vast majority of heterosexual men, and since we make up a very large segment of the viewing public, our complaints carry weight. Futhermore, visiual depictions of sexuality have historically been used to appeal primarily to heterosexual men. So as a consumer, what myself and other like me are saying is: "We're not buying what you are selling." My complaint is not a comment on homosexuality, nor is it meant to deny anyone equal access to male nudity. It is simple a statement about what I (a heterosexual man) like to see and what I don't like to see. I like to see hot naked women. But not just boobs or butts and certainly not just pubic hair. To put it plainly; I LOVE P***Y.
p.s. The show sucks
Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 8:34 am
In response to Gena: Althoug nude women have always been generally on display in the MAINSTREAM entertainment media, there has always been a seldomly crossed line when it comes to showing female genitals (ie vulva). The main venue for complete female nudity has always been some form of pornograhy. My comment about 'sticking to hardcore porno' was meant to be facetious. I find most hardcore porno sad, distrubing and hard to watch. However, if one enjoys viewing the nude female form in its entirety then hardcore porn is the primary venue. I wish that wasn't the case.
Sunday, September 23, 2007 at 9:04 am
In response to Amanda: Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing wrong with men viewing women as objects, sexual or otherwise. As human beings we objectify each other all the time. The most common and accepted way is by paying someone to do a job. Just about all forms of general labor reduce a person to little more than a robot. Hence why in todays modern society many people lose their jobs to robots. Additionally, it is the modern woman that practises the most extreme form of sexual objectification. So much so that she doesn't even need the entire man, just 2 AA batteries. Thats right, vibrators and even dildos. At least when men sexually objectify women, we objectify the entire woman. Women wouldn't even give us men the courtesy of including the testicles in these obivous forms of male sexual objectification; they are only interested in the MEAT of the matter. Pun intended.
Friday, September 28, 2007 at 12:44 am
I have yet to see a movie where they show female genitals. Even though a lot of the female population shaves this area there is always a bush strategically in the way. It is not an even trade. Breasts are not genitals. They provide nourishment for newborns and a stimulous for intercourse much in the same way brawd shoulder and chisled abs on a man stimulate women.
I am tired of seeing graphic sexual content on TV. The only good thing on TV is live sports. GO YANKS!!!!!!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 6:57 pm
The series finale just aired on Sunday, and I watched every episode multiple times. The nudity and sex scenes, while graphic, are really intregal to the story lines, and I must admit (being a person in lots of therapy at the present time....) that watching this show was like having an additional therapy session every week. In a good way. I haven't seen a dramatic show with writing this good since I can't remember. and yeah, I was a huge Sopranos fan, still am, but it's like comparing apples and oranges. This is entirely different and isn't meant to be a replacement for Sopranos at all. God willing there will be many more seasons to come for this show.
Monday, November 19, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I'm an actor in L.A. and know through other actor friends who have first-hand knowledge about what goes on in the sex scenes for this show and I can tell you the honest truth about it -- IT IS TOTALLY REAL. There are no props, and no digitalizing. Matter of fact, the female lead for this show thinks it is her talent to be able to "turn on" the other fellow actor -- and she feels insulted for anyone to think what they are doing is not real.
In the room where I heard all of this, you should have heard the gasps from the other actors. Why gasps? Because to those of us who are not porn actors, it is hardly imaginable that you can call yourself anything but a porn actor when you A) really do the sex in the scene and B) enjoy turning on the other actor. Bottom line: This is porn.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 8:52 am
L.A., i think it depends on what do you think it´s porn. Personally, I think that porn is something you watch to get off or as a prop for sexual arousement.In porn there´s no story. In porn the cast were picked up on the line for food for the homeless. In porn, the movie is shot in one single day. Therefor, this not porn. it´s a fantastic tv show with an incredible story, incredible cast and beautifully directed.
The fact you mentioned that the actors are really doing it... well, I actually praise them for such commitment witht the project and i´m pretty sure they were not asked to do it in front of the cameras since the actual penetration is never shown. Maybe some of them decided to go on with it while others didnt... or else there would be a lot of trials having HBO as defendant.
BTW, sorry for the lousy english.
Friday, December 7, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Please, if it wasn't for the very real looking and graphic sex in "Tell Me You Love Me" there would be little interest in the show. It certainly wouldn't be considered "revolutionary" or special. On the other hand showing married people having sex, I suppose that could be revolutionary.
BTW if we didn't have the "bourgeois" boundaries of not showing porn (soft core {which doesn't depend financially upon the "money shot"} or otherwise) on network TV, "the shock the bourgeoisie" delinquents wouldn't be giddy with self-absorbed glee over this new show.
So saying that the sex (including its questionable reality) doesn't matter to a show whose whole existence depends upon it, is a really tedious game.
BTW WHAT a strange world we live in, when it is most likely someone's job to construct plastic genitalia so other people can pay to watch others pretend to have sex? HOW f'd up a culture are we.
Friday, December 7, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Fcobento,
I'd say that your descriptions of porn don't really fit for today, not in the impossible shaved physical stds. of the new millenium. Especially for female porn, which does have a sizeable plot. (Think Zalmon king.) I think I'd respect Tell Me You Love Me and its makers if it weren't pretending to be more, unlike something like Zalmon King. Porn stars are picked for their bodies and looks-a food line seems like a very unpleasant kind of a crap shoot for a producer. Porn stars at the least are auditioned. Moreover, given all the fetishes out there, any material is potentially mastrubatory. When an actor gives up their privacy and boundaries on film they put themselves out there to be used in such a way.
In this case, the actors in TMYLM are selling themselves for the plot line, for the "art," and, in the case of the older actors in agist Hollywood, for work.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 4:22 am
What? Series about sex? Boring! It's time to shock the audience with same-sex relationships zoomed on the screen! People, Let's fall!
signature: "Nothing makes you forget about love like adult toys"