London Study Rates LIT 9 Out of 10 Score forSexual Chemisty

Discuss the fabulous movie Lost In Translation!

Moderator: Bob

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
phillygalinutah
Lounge Singer
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: Utah

London Study Rates LIT 9 Out of 10 Score forSexual Chemisty

#1 Post by phillygalinutah » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:57 am

Hey yous...check out BBC News article below.

Personally, my vote is 10/10 for LIT...I loved their communication - verbal, eye contact, body languages, and the words and feelings that could of, should, might have been expressed, but weren't between Bob and Charlotte :wink:

I agree with the other films mentioned except Pretty Woman..hated it; and didn't find it believable when I first saw it at the movies.

Ahh..Bill can subtlely communicate with me anytime :D

Maryanne



Image

Formula found for film chemistry

Scientists say they have discovered a formula for creating sexual chemistry on the movie screen.
The experts, from King's College in London, watched romantic films to come up with the right formula.

They said voice, eye contact, body language and excitement could be used to measure sexual chemistry.

When Harry Met Sally, starring Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal, scored a top rating of 10 out of 10 for sexual chemistry, while Casablanca was second.


Chemistry couples
10/10 - When Harry Met Sally (Meg Ryan/Billy Crystal)
9.5/10 - Casablanca (Ingrid Bergman/Humphrey Bogart)
9/10 - Breakfast at Tiffany's (Audrey Hepburn/George Peppard)
9/10 - Lost in Translation (Scarlett Johansson/Bill Murray)
7/10 - Pretty Woman (Julia Roberts/Richard Gere)

The newest film in the study, Lost in Translation, scored nine out of ten for "the subtle relationship" portrayed by Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray.

Breakfast at Tiffany's and Pretty Woman also scored well, but Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock failed to light up the screen in Two Weeks Notice, which received just two out of 10.

The scientists also found that Titanic, starring Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, contained no sexual chemistry, despite winning a clutch of Oscars.

King's College psychiatrist Stephanie Charters said: "In Titanic, the way they speak to each other isn't natural. It just doesn't come across as genuine.

"In Ghost, Patrick Swayze's desperate and sad lines as he tries to communicate to his wife shows perfect use of voice."

Falling in love

The researchers also looked at how actors use their eyes to convey sexual attraction.

Ms Charters added: "When Meg Ryan's character Sally shows that it's easy to fake an orgasm by giving a demonstration in a restaurant, you can see Billy Crystal's character Harry look at her in a different way.

"For the first time, he looks at her with different eyes and the floodgates open."

The experts used the scene in Dirty Dancing where Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey take over the dance floor as the perfect example of body language.

Ms Charters said the sense of excitement and anticipation conveyed while falling in love was also important.

"When Harry finally confesses to Sally he is in love with her no one can help but feel a slight butterfly in their tummy," she said.

"In Titanic, there isn't any of that, they confess their love for each other pretty quickly."

The research was carried for Sky Movies.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/e ... 740076.stm
"Everyone wants to be found"

User avatar
jml2
WooHoo Guy
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Australia

#2 Post by jml2 » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:50 am

I disagree with alot of this. I don't think When Harry met Sally has all that much chemistry at all. And the Titanic scene at the bow of the ship had alot of chemistry, soft voices, soft hand touching. I think the rest of the movie did too. Breakfast at Tiffany's and Pretty Woman were at most equal to Titanic if you ask me.

User avatar
Rogue Angel
Awake
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Texas

#3 Post by Rogue Angel » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:10 pm

I didn't agree with too many of those either and what about the older movies? They mentioned Casablanca, but if anyone saw the Bogart/Lauren Bacall To Have and Have Not, thats the movie they met on and fell in love to, great flick! Also the one with Cary Grant and Deborah Carr, (Love in the Afternoon, I think) and it didn't get a nod. When Harry met Sally and Pretty Woman and begrudgingly Titanic were all at least decent movies on their own but didn't really floor me as being sexually charasmatic...I mean as movie goers we want to buy into that crap, and believe it and if you can't deliver we won't see.
Sometimes you have to go half way around the world to come full circle....

User avatar
hull_street
WooHoo Guy
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:05 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

#4 Post by hull_street » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:18 pm

Titanic sucked. Pretty Woman sucked. I liked When Harry Met Sally, but it's almost an exact opposite of LiT.

And will someone please explain to me why Bogart makes that "and I let her pretend" comment to Lazlo near the end of Casablanca. I've never been able to understand that one exchange in the film, and it's always sort of tainted the experience for me.

sooner77
Stocking Lipper
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 pm
Location: Texas

#5 Post by sooner77 » Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:56 am

Rick was doing a good deed for Ilsa's husband and also letting Ilsa off the hook. Rick didn't want to leave her with a husband with questions about her feelings for Rick. Her "God bless you" had double meaning for her, she was thanking Rick for the letters of transit and for not leaving her with any emotional dirty laundry to have to try and clean up.

The ending of LIT reminds me of the end of "Casablanca", two people with obvious feelings for each other but who can't get together because the timing is all wrong.

User avatar
hull_street
WooHoo Guy
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:05 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

#6 Post by hull_street » Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:16 pm

I guess I should have watched it recently, I may have picked up on that. :) I think it always struck me like he was trying to get a rise out of Lazlo; otherwise, why would he say anything at all ? Thanks, it gives me a reason to watch Casablanca again !

Yeah, I'm not sure who first made the connection between Casablanca and LiT, but the similarities are definitely there.

Post Reply