It's wasn't that good of a documentary and I tell you why. The movie is supposed to a humorous movie of one artist's risky controversial art work, as he travels across America and takes photographs of nude Americans. The movie is supposed to expose America's current attitude towards nudity and how we shouldn't be ashamed of it. The movie makes America seek like the backward pre-Sexual Revolution's state of union, where all ordinary citizens are closed-minded about nudity as if we were still Puritans. Believing that taking one's clothes off in public is somehow avante garde is merely a reflection of just how naïve pseudo-intellectuals like artist Spencer Tunick are. It's clear that artist like him, don't know America and its general population's attitude towards sex. Pornography, art or no art has entered the mainstream and cannot easily be separated from the rest of entertainment. It's not always the fact that they are still religionists, or close-minded. They might just be sick of it. The mainstream media is full of nearly naked body forms, and sex is still continue to sell anything from watches to the latest video game. No matter if you call it art or porn. It's both. While, the movie is supposed to be a no peep show for sexual gratification: as the nude are supposed to though provocative works of art. There will always be sexual tension to nudity. As some people will view it, in disgust. Others will look at it as art. While others will look at something to masturbate to. Anybody who doesn't think there is a bit of eroticism in this film, need to re-watched it. Not all his photos are desexualised. During the documentary we met and talk to several of his models, one obese lady is having a very moving personal moment about how being a model was a pleasing experience and how worthy she felt in her heart and mind. The response in most cases was the same, it gave them a feeling of new found freedom. One has to feel sorry for the confused individuals who actually buy the idea that stripping is liberating. It certainly would be if you're an exhibitionist, but for the average person it is merely a sign of a pathetic longing for attention. By exposing your private parts, doesn't give your freedom, but the lack of freedom because your body is being use to sell books and movies. You're a sheep, a slave, an pawn to Spencer Tunick. The people that expose themselves, act like Spencer is the Messiah to all their faults. It's scary to watch. Don't get me wrong, Spencer Tunick's work is artsy, but behind the whole free-spirited hippie view of nudity, there is a sinister reason why Spencer Tunick does this: sex sells. Why else is he allowing this DVD to be sold to the public? He's also publishing nude books for money. He's clearly doing it for the money. Do you really believe that he does this for "art for art's sake". If he did, he would be living on a street corner, poor peeping tom sex-offender bum climbing on trees looking at windows. Anybody who doesn't think he isn't, is in a state of denial. Where does his money come from? Spencer Tunick is such an arrogant jerk that not once, as I am to believe did he ever pose nude himself. Tunick also comes over as selfish, rude, pushy and full of his own sense of self-importance. He loves the media and he acts up for the camera, seemingly overjoyed at the chance to talk argue with police on camera or anybody against his views. I hate the fact, he does pay the models for their sacrifices while making money off their nude bodies. He became overexposure as a gimmick artist that his art work has really die down. He's pretty much known as the 'Messiah of the Nudes'. Some of the photographs are quite good. As an amateur photographer, I found the color, and their beautiful surroundings interesting, and the black and white final photographs of them to be a fascinating contrast. Others photos are bit trite and far too cute and gimmicky. What is so interesting about a naked very pregnant white woman standing with a poor black man, fully clothed, beside his grocery cart full of cans? I'm still looking for the meaning to that. And why does a rape victim need to let me see her naked? She tells the documentary maker that doing these shots was great therapy for her. I champion her passion, but not everyone's lives have to be made public. This movie is clearly not for everybody. Seeing a body after force rape is chilling and knowing that photo will get sold is just makes it feel awful worst. It's like selling your body. Seeing all those naked bodies lying around as if they were dead struck me as rather bizarre, and I had to turn it off for a few minutes, as it remind me of old videos of the piles of Holocaust victims. Spencer Tunick clearly has an idea of what the images should look like, but even as they're being constructed in front of the documentary camera it's difficult to see his vision. It's so camcorder gritty. I don't like the fact, that some public places are use like Time Squares, where young children can see these live nude acts. I don't think it's healthy for them just yet. Great insight into Burning Man, I have to say. I really can't believe this is Rated R and not NC-17 due to the large amount of nudity. Overalls, it's a movie that debates sexuality in the arts, but it's reap the rewards over the premise of average folks posing nude. I just can't find myself, liking that.
Review of Naked States
