Elena Radonicich was topless in the last two episodes (7 and 8) of Il Grande Gioco

This nudity was totally unnecessary to the plot, added by the director only for the purpose of titillation.

He is our kind of guy!

image host image host

4 thoughts on “Elena Radonicich was topless in the last two episodes (7 and 8) of Il Grande Gioco

  1. Actually there really isn’t any shot that is necessary for a plot. The whole story could be told in a book. Dialogue could be used in a film to explain something instead of showing it. Since it is a visual medium, the director should creatively add whatever artistic elements they want. A beautiful sunset, a stunning landscape or a beautiful nude woman. It’s a visual art, there are no rules other than those set down by censors.

    What’s more difficult for Hollywood to explain is how often women are nude during love scenes but somehow manage to never show a nipple or their ass. The director and editors sure have to spend a lot of time making it almost, but not quite. Maybe someday that time will be better spent on making quality scripts.

    1. Never? Obviously there are occasionally times when nudity is totally necessary. Three words: The Crying Game.

      More important, there are many times when nudity is necessary to avoid breaking the fourth wall. If a couple is having sex, then it is a violation of the fourth wall to have one of those scenes where the woman holds the covers or sheets over her butt, because nobody has sex like that. People don’t have to hide their butts from the dresser drawers, so it’s obviously a violation of the fourth wall – an instance of the actor playing to the camera. In that case you can’t say that nudity is necessary in an absolute sense, but it is certainly necessary to realistic and proper story-telling. There is no rule that says one must never break the fourth wall, but doing so is certainly amateurish unless it is intentional for some type of artifice (like Marty Feldman making faces and asides to the audience).

      And there are plenty of cases where nudity is completely inappropriate in story-telling. In the case of this show, the director added a meaningless scene that provided no information to the audience of any kind, and in fact slowed down the action for no reason other than to show a woman naked. (As I said, our kind of guy!) Imagine watching a taut thriller about a subway hijacking, and then the camera, which had been following our hero’s POV as he hurries down into the tunnel, suddenly stops for a full minute to show him ogling a naked ad on a billboard, or a naked flasher on the street, with the camera zooming in lasciviously on her most intimate body parts. That’s the general idea of gratuitous nudity, exaggerated of course, and that’s basically what happened here.

      As bad story-telling goes, though, I certainly have my preferences. If the director includes one of those clumsy scenes where we have to watch every step for sixty seconds as the character gets up from a bed and walks slowly through two other rooms to get to the kitchen (instead of just cutting to the next scene in the kitchen), I would normally take that opportunity to open a new tab and check my e-mail, but I will pay attention if the character in question is a beautiful naked woman!

      1. Five words: The Blimp That Ate Ohio. Three words: The Superfluous Idiom. What I mean is, since when are we to expect that giving one example would be long & involved?

      2. Actually, Die Hard has a couple of scenes that are similar to what you describe (John McClane in the middle of fighting terrorists stops for a second to watch a girl undressing in a window or ogle a centerfold).

        Of course this doesn’t refute the point you were making, as these were clearly meant to provide character insight and a little comic relief. But it is possible to do this with a real purpose.

Comments are closed.