When I was watching the films of Lars von Trier recently, I made the bold decision to watch Nymphomaniac with someone else. All I and they knew about the film, besides its runtime of close to five and a half hours, was that it had real sex scenes that were created by digitally compositing the actor/actress’s upper half with the lower half of porn actors/actresses. After we’d finished the film, we had plenty to discuss but one thing they said that really struck me was “I don’t think the real sex was necessary. It was gratuitous.” I understood what they were saying but I also had the thought “Why not?” and so I decided that I’d express my thoughts today on why I believe that gratuitousness isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Let’s start off by defining what gratuitousness is and, in particular, what it means to the greater population. The term itself, gratuitousness, is defined as “the state or quality of being unnecessary or with no cause” which can be quite general. For instance, I could describe a story arc in a film as gratuitous if I think it didn’t contribute to the work. However, with regards to the general population, I’ve often heard the term gratuitous applied to film, TV and video games with graphic violence or sex. When I ask why they consider those things to be gratuitous, I’m often met with the response “Because I don’t need to see it”. While I understand that seeing these things might not strictly be important when it comes to story, I do think they can be very important when it comes to themes and impact.
