NBC has edited out a shot of an elderly woman's breasts from tonight's episode of "ER," to the consternation of the show's producer. This is being held up as an example of America's puritanism post-Super Bowl. What's wrong with seeing a woman's breast, some people are asking. It's natural, it's just a body part, what's the big deal?
They're right. As I said about J---t J-----n's breast (she's gotten enough free publicity- let her pay for it now), I'm not offended by breasts. I'm not even all that horrified that children would see it- what harm could possibly come to a child who sees a bare female breast? But I'm unsympathetic to the "ER" folks, and here's why:
Did they have to show an elderly woman's breast in that show? No. Is it essential to the plot? No. Does it enhance verisimilitude? Not really- the show doesn't need more. So why did they put it in there to begin with?
Simple- for controversy's sake. Controversy sells, right? So they throw a breast shot- an elderly woman's breast, at that- and they hope people will buzz about it. In short, the only reason they put it in there is because it's taboo. If everyone thought the way the producers (and me, at that) think about naked breasts, they wouldn't even THINK of bothering to show them. But they KNOW it's offensive to some people, and they want to throw it in those prudes' faces.
THAT'S offensive.
Nudity in art is fine. Nudity where it's intrinsic to the plot or scenario makes sense. But you don't expect to see nudity on "ER." You don't, even though they've evidently slipped some in before. You don't NEED it. The producers are using breasts as a cheap ploy for attention, nothing more. That they act as if they're above that is laughable. They can trot out the "appropriate and in context" thing and "if you don't like it, turn the channel" and "this is why people turn to HBO," and these are all fine and they still don't wash, because this ISN'T HBO and they AREN'T making "The Sopranos" and they KNOW that. It's a different game, and it's still a breast-free zone.
Not that I think it SHOULD be. It IS stupid that we have these taboos, and that network TV has to be programmed, to an extent, as "safe for children." But if I'm John Wells and my show has to cut a gratuitous breast shot (oh, yes, it is- losing it won't change tonight's episode one iota, will it?), I don't whine about it. I'd go to Congress and the FCC and ask them to delineate the standards by which a naked breast is harmful to children, and I'd be entertained by their inability to do so. But I wouldn't want the return question to be "why DID you need to put the breast in there?," because there's no good answer for that, either.
No heroes in this one, folks. Except for the breast.
Share