Godard himself said that the history of cinema is the history of boys photographing girls, and in some ways that is true. Nothing in the world is as captivating as the right woman, and innumerable films have been sold on the basis of having found the right woman for a large segment of the population and giving her something to do. The interesting thing is how many movies fail to do a decent job of this. Finding the right woman is not just a matter of selecting the prettiest face, a model may be able to look interesting in a photograph no matter how little she has going on upstairs, but an actress has to either have something in her head and energy or a fantastic script and masterful director to pull it off for 90-120 minutes. There's also the matter of what women are given to do in movies, which so often amounts to standing around and looking pretty, or fulfilling some directorial fantasy of dubious value. It is, however, women who manage to break out of those limitations who end up being the most interesting and alluring. It's easy to take a girl with big breasts and make her look sexy on film, but it's a cheap kind of sexy. It may be harder to do the same with a woman of smaller chest size and greater complexity, but it's so worth it. Putting a sexy blonde in a low cut dress is like cooking with a microwave, you get pleasant consistent results without much effort. Allowing a woman to be both sexy and competent without the cheap ingredient of nudity? Harder, but infinitely more rewarding.
None of this is particularly groundbreaking material, but it's an important thing for me to remember. I intend to make movies and I very much would like not to fall into those cheap traps so many movie makers end up letting rule their work. I just wanted to write a little note to remind myself that silicone tits in a wonder bra are just as cheap and ineffective a technique as cutting every 15 seconds or spackling dialog over with ancient cliches.