Beepster
...
Her body, her choice and it's great to see that kind of fortitude in the face of what must must be a deluge of pressure from skeevy studio jaggo's out to make an extra buck from skeevy nerdlinging weirdos (like me and youze) who want another quick glimpse at teh nekkid purty lady again.
...
If you ever have a chance ... you must watch The Actor's Studio thing with all the interviews ... and one of the best EVER, was Sharon Stone during her 10 minutes talking to the actors and actresses. Inevitably one asked about her exposing herself ... and her answer (slightly paraphrased ... you can't get these videos ... I WISH!!!! Some of them are magnificent!) ... "You gotta be kidding me. How can you confuse ME with that character on the stage? Can you define "acting" now?"
I can see where a world, thousands of years ago, without TV and Radio and Film, nudity might not be an issue, but in the end, she is probably getting so many "advances" and "questions" and stuff that does not relate to the role she plays, but is only looking for the peekaboo ... and after a while this is really boring ... and for the ladies, it only takes one bad one ... to close the book on things ... and I do not blame her.
In the end, this is all about how comfortable the person is with her body ... none of us has ever asked Meryl Streep to go nekkid, either ... and then Dame Helen Mirren, had no worries about her many roles where she went buff. And she now says her naughties are strictly for her husband ... with a smile! Some can handle it. Some can't separate themselves from their role within a production ... some can. And this usually defines the acting side of things ... it's not about the words and posing ... there is a physical side to it all ... that some are not comfortable with. But then, I think that the taking advantage of things for the sake of the film art ... is a bit beyond good manners and good taste.
European films tend to look at nudity very differently, and watching them in French, German and Spanish films is quite interesting ... they seem to know how to make it "natural", and sometimes even make it not attractive at all (Gaspar Noe's LOVE) with its "reality" ... but this is probably something that will get more and more natural as time goes by.
But while the nudity was there, the real issue is how it is seen and the camera captures it ... in many cases, it does not have to do a straight on shot ... and sometimes this is the part that kinda tells you that the director is simply watching for the shot that gets everyone stuck on the show ... so, seeing the Khaleesi coming out of the burning building and stop at the door and every one watching, it was rather bad directing for the camera to be placed on the $50,000 dollar seat straight in front of her ... and it didn't have to in order to make a point.
The point is, that some of the nudity was almost gratuitous, and not "natural".
However, over all, the directing of the show is very good and well done. It has some small moments here and there where the directing is just filling time and space, but in general, fairly well trimmed and cleaned up for the best work. I have no issues with the nudity, and we're making an issue of GoT ... I hate to see some of the reactions of folks here in some Peter Greenaway films. I think that some of us will run out of the theater, more than likely ... or if watching at home ... ohhh, the wife can't see that ... or ... it's horrible ... absolutely terrible! Go watch that piece on the Mozart film ... the choreography is Bob Fosse in hell and then some! It's insane and amazing to watch at the same time!
It's a part of the whole thing ... not a separate bit or piece.