A female character takes her shoes off--or puts them on--and the camera focuses on her feet. Or perhaps she's walking around barefooted, or doing something interesting with her feet, and there's a close-up. Don't you love those scenes in movies! And if you think about it, there's often no real reason for them! So why does the director put them in? In Tarrentino's case, the reason is obvious! But it could be other reasons. Perhaps the director wants to suggest a certain amount of sensuality by showing the actresses' feet. Maybe he wants to show that she's vunerable by being barefooted. Or, in some cases, she's strong. But to me, these scenes prove that directors know that female feet are sexual objects. Besides, how many movies have you seen that have had close-ups of male character's feet!
Posted by octoberbaseball (Member # 20977) on :
Maybe because there's nothing else to show or so the director doesn't lead the audience wondering when did she put her shoes on lol.
Posted by bluetoelover (Member # 14736) on :
I have often wondered this too doug! Like when a girl puts their shirt on...why don't they zoom in on their elbow..or arm?? Or when a chick puts ear rings on...same thing as them putting their shoes on so why not zoom in?? Some points to ponder...
Posted by Ophillia (Member # 29787) on :
i don't know either but i totally caught myself looking at Sigourny Weavers arches when i watched Ghostbusters last night! i was thinking damn....he's right they kinda honed in on her feet all flexing and stuff.
Posted by dougiezerts (Member # 6829) on :
quote:Originally posted by octoberbaseball: Maybe because there's nothing else to show or so the director doesn't lead the audience wondering when did she put her shoes on lol.
Actually, I've seen a few movie scenes where the actress has taken her shoes off, or put them on--and the camera DIDN'T focus on her feet! So like I said, there's got to be a reason why directors sometimes show close-ups of feet!
Posted by Lyrical (Member # 6603) on :
i like it
Posted by Cain (Member # 8492) on :
I think some directors also have fetishes too. I mean there are tons of director's out there who are into art and all that and some are just weird personalities so of course Tarantino is not the only one out there that has this fetish. I even think that Bryan Singer ,although gay, has a foot fetish cause there are two close up shots of Kate Bosworth barefoot in Superman Returns.
Posted by guitardrew (Member # 6635) on :
yeah, it is awesome there a lot of classic movie scenes (repeated ideas throughout lots of movies) that revolve around the sensuality of female feet. for example one of my favorite cliches that i would die to live out and will arrange it in the near future is the resturaunt scene with a guy and girl, and the girl looks sexually into the man's eyes, slips her shoe off under the table and puts her foot in his crotch to persuade him of something or to enjoy watching him try to keep it together in a public place. before foot fetish was so widely known about too i think directors who liked it would put toe sucking or light foot kissing in the beginning of sex scenes and sneak that under people's noses, so it kind of seems like a movie cliche to me... and i dont know if anyone's ever noticed but in african american comedies ive seen and other african american movies, it seems to be kind of commonplace for the man to suck or want to suck the woman's toes in foreplay, and for the woman to want the man to suck the woman's toes, dont know how realistic that is in real life, if so i wish i were black lolll. another cliche portraying womens' feet in a sensual light is the classic woman on the bed on her stomach, on the phone or looking up at a man or whatever, with her soles up behind her playfully wiggling! i wonder how much it was just seen as sensual in general before everyone became more aware that men trully wanted girls' feet sexually, or if there have always been true footmen behind these type of scenes. i think these types of directors are amazing because they are responsible for the low level of tolerance for the fetish and positive light that we get at all...
Posted by guitardrew (Member # 6635) on :
i loved the kate bosworth superman scene, and im a fan of some goldie hawn scenes of seen, like in the movie Banger Sisters where she does an amazing sole tease, she has had great feet in most of the movies ive seen her in, gotta be getting on a little now, her daughter seems to have decent feet too, oddly im not that into uma thurman's feet but the way tarrantino has portrayed them has gotten me into them, like in pulp fiction those shots make her soles look amazing to me.
Posted by guitardrew (Member # 6635) on :
sorry badly worded on the first post, the directors are responsible for making a little bit of a sensual vibe with womens' feet more commonplace
Posted by Toetapper (Member # 6473) on :
I have addressed this frequently in a number of threads. It's no secret in Hollywood but lets do some history:
When movies were first made for mass appeal, there were no laws governing what could be shown on-screen and nudity (within the morays of the time) was not uncommon as directors, producers, and production companies knew then what we know now: SEX SELLS. This, of course, was not to be tolerated by a vocal bunch of people and, to be brief, a variety of strict laws were passed limiting what could be shown (right down to defining what a "hero" and a "villain" was - the former could not die in the flick while the latter MUST die to pay for his sins).
What was a writer or a director to do?
Well...One of the dirtiest songs of 1910 was "Mary Took Her Calves to the Fair". This had nothing to do with cattle but rather with exposed lower limbs. In western civilization, going back to the Dark Ages, there has always been a fascination with women's legs. It didn't take long for Hollywood to figure out that bare legs were sexy (the display of which, often, was still forbidden by law) but bare feet weren't.
Who'd-a-thunk-it? A woman's bare feet were enough to bring sex/sexy back to the cinema. By the 30's and certainly the 40's, a woman whose feet were bare was the sexual center of the scene. She was the one who was sexually available or vulnerable. Not only has this carried over to our more modern movies but now she can be sexually pro-active.
Don't believe me? I understand. Please watch some older movies (I recommend the Swashbuckler genre) with this in mind. The movies didn't over-play it as the laws were still in effect.
Next time in this (unintended) lecture series: Barefoot women in advertisement.
Posted by footjoyboy (Member # 26478) on :
"Barefoot women in advertisement." Comment by Toetapper
_fjb_ Posted by J.J. (Member # 24686) on :
Three hundred yearqs ago women couldn't show their feet in public either, not even their ankles, there's always been a clear sexual connotation to the elegance and beauty of the female foot. Even today in the societies where they make women cover themselves up it's a crime to show as much as an ankle, a crime severely punished at that. I'm pretty sure that feet are sexy even to non fetishists -up to a degree, as for and example the ears of a woman can be sooo sexy, or the nape of her neck.
Posted by dougiezerts (Member # 6829) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toetapper: I have addressed this frequently in a number of threads. It's no secret in Hollywood but lets do some history:
When movies were first made for mass appeal, there were no laws governing what could be shown on-screen and nudity (within the morays of the time) was not uncommon as directors, producers, and production companies knew then what we know now: SEX SELLS. This, of course, was not to be tolerated by a vocal bunch of people and, to be brief, a variety of strict laws were passed limiting what could be shown (right down to defining what a "hero" and a "villain" was - the former could not die in the flick while the latter MUST die to pay for his sins).
What was a writer or a director to do?
Well...One of the dirtiest songs of 1910 was "Mary Took Her Calves to the Fair". This had nothing to do with cattle but rather with exposed lower limbs. In western civilization, going back to the Dark Ages, there has always been a fascination with women's legs. It didn't take long for Hollywood to figure out that bare legs were sexy (the display of which, often, was still forbidden by law) but bare feet weren't.
Who'd-a-thunk-it? A woman's bare feet were enough to bring sex/sexy back to the cinema. By the 30's and certainly the 40's, a woman whose feet were bare was the sexual center of the scene. She was the one who was sexually available or vulnerable. Not only has this carried over to our more modern movies but now she can be sexually pro-active.
Don't believe me? I understand. Please watch some older movies (I recommend the Swashbuckler genre) with this in mind. The movies didn't over-play it as the laws were still in effect.
Next time in this (unintended) lecture series: Barefoot women in advertisement.
I've seen where you've made that point before, and I totally agree with you. I especially love the jungle and South Seas movies that were made in the 30's and 40's!
Posted by deputy chief koizumi (Member # 20344) on :
As someone who has some experience in directing, I feel obliged to respond. There could be several reasons for a closeup of anything, including an acresses' feet. The best reason is because something of interest is going on, or is about to, so the director zooms in. As in a girl taking off/putting on shoes, I think it sets a mood rather than making everyone look at her feet. If you take your shoes off, there is a sense of comfort in the location, vs. leaving them on. Also, maybe she has to take her shoes off (or put them on) to do something, like in National Treasure, when the actress takes her shoes off before trying to run off with the Declaration of Independance. Showing her feet only can give an indication of her mood, too; like if a girl pops her foot up behind her when she talks to someone she's attracted to, like in the Princess Diaries, Anne Hathaway talks about a 'foot popping kiss'. It doesn't necissarily have anything to do with having a fetish. Just because there are closeups of someone's feet doesn't mean the director has a thing for feet unless it's QT!
Posted by Elvzz (Member # 14178) on :
Is there anything obligatory in film? U can see foreshadowing everywhere since they don't waste one frame.
Posted by Toetapper (Member # 6473) on :
You bring up an interesting point. You're absolutely right that not one frame is wasted; to add to that, each film moment is intended to accomplish many things at one time. Even Tarentino, who may dwell on feet, is getting more done than just looking at the feet (Uma Thurmond's moment in the backseat of a car - "Kill Bill, Pt. 1 - jumps to the fore as a good example).
In a certain sense, you're right, that there is nothing "obligatory" about a foot-shot. In another sense, there are certain cinematic tools that work very effectively and quickly. The "barefoot girl" is probably among them.
I keep hoping it will be used more often.
Posted by DownUnderFeet (Member # 31117) on :
Feet are very evocative is all.
Posted by dougiezerts (Member # 6829) on :
Good point, DownUnderFeet.
Posted by dougiezerts (Member # 6829) on :
Here's a few of my favorite scenes, from pre-1980 movies: BREAKFAST AT TIFFONYS Audrey Hepburn flashes her feet in a cab, while putting on stockings.(Technically not a close up, as you can see her face. Still, a fantastic scene!) THE KREMLIN LETTER A girl opens a combination safe--with her toes!) POLTERGEIST JonaBeth Williams' muddy feet are shown, as she climbs up an embankment in the rain. THE GRADUATE Ann Bancroft shows off her feet, while she's putting on black stockings. MURDER There's a great close-up of a girl's bare feet, at the beginning of this Hitchcock film.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But it could be other reasons. Perhaps the director wants to suggest a certain amount of sensuality by showing the actresses' feet. Maybe he wants to show that she's vunerable by being barefooted. Or, in some cases, she's strong.![[Jerkoff]](graemlins/jerkoff.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)