That was pretty gratuitous. She defended it at the time, but I don't know how she feels now. A lot of actresses dilute themselves into thinking nudity isn't gratuitous if it's in a good project. I'm not against nudity, I'm just bein honest.
shareI felt it was not nearly enough.
1-she is not that explosive, the guy was getting pussy left and right, she brings nothing extra.
2-such a tame flash for, again, a total pig like belfort. She just stands there naked, in the era of 9 1/2 weeks and porn vhs. Just a fuddy daddy like Scorsese would find that hot. It's lame and boring.
I remember another interview where Margot said her agents had to talk her into taking this role because she was apprehensive about playing a "sex object."
shareNudity in a seduction scene is about as opposite of gratuitous as you can get.
shareSince it is easy to create “artificial nudity” with CGI these days, I suspect that this technique was used in this film as well. In general, I don’t believe that any nude scene is real.
shareI think she wore either a merkin or one of those fake frontal vags though.
shareHer role in the movie pretty much launched her career. Right move at the time.
shareWhy do people bitch about “gratuitous” nude scenes? Who the hell cares why they’re naked?
Are nude paintings by Renaissance artists gratuitous? I mean, there was no reason for those women to be naked, right?
Just enjoy the female form and stop crapping in everyone’s punch bowl, grandma.
Completely unnecessary. What's worse, I'm not even a fan of Margot Robbie, so the scene pretty off-putting.
share