You sir, are a philistine!

Ah, Sunday morning. I read the funnies and opened The Parade, a delightful weekend magazine which comes with The Denver Post. The first page is Personality Parade, a section devoted to painfully dumb questions on celebrities. This innocent enough looking page has never rankled me before today.

After insinuating that the Olson twins are little sluts, informing America that Darrel Hammond is the longest-running member of SNL, and giving Condoleezza Rice "a gentlewoman's C" for a grade, Walter Scott answered a question regarding nude scenes.

The question asked why so many good actresses are in nude scenes. Scott said there are two reasons: Because of the paycheck, or because they like being naked on camera. He paints a fairly bleak picture, and implies that only high-budget films have nudity, and there is no such thing as tasteful nudity. Au Contraire, buster! *pushes glasses higher on nose, straightens papers*

First of all, most nude scenes I have seen were in independent films where the actors worked for peanuts. Secondly, many movies have nude scenes which are no fun, and were probably not a stroll in the park for the actors. However, they are still tasteful. Example: The critically acclaimed Mysterious Skin. It is based on a true story and follows two boys who were sexually abused. It was not romanticized or flashy, but it was very explicit. In my humble opinion that's the only way you could have told the story, and it should be told. One's not enough for you? Try watching Adaptation, Little Children, Mean Streets, Do the Right Thing, and Leaving Las Vegas and tell me they're trash. (For the record they are not.)

I would suggest this Walter Scott character open his mind a little, and start acknowledging even art with mankind's "icky parts" can be true, tactful, and moving. Either that or take it up with Michelangelo.