How to write a subtextual Sex Scene...(example: “Young Royals”)

Somebody had asked me a while ago if I could explain why Stella was flirting with Rosh in season three of ‘Young Royals’, and I’m pretty sure this lovely commenter wasn’t referring to the surface-text explanation (because she likes her, duh!) but was actually asking about the subtextual meaning of this little flirt: What does it represent…symbolically speaking? Why this strange writing decision, that ultimately never seems to go anywhere for these two girls? What does all of this tell us in the subtext?

My answer to this comment got longer and longer and eventually grew into a full-blown post of its own, which you are getting below now.

Because, as it turns out, understanding why Stella flirts with Rosh means understanding that sex scene between Wilhelm and Simon in episode three a bit better. You want to know what goes on in Wilhelm’s bedroom in that certain scene, you gotta pay close attention to what Stella and Rosh are doing. Also…the slinky. That rainbow slinky. (What a dirty little sexual metaphor. Tssss.) Well, and did you know where Simon’s fingers ventured off to during that sex scene? No? Wanna know?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Four teenage boys, Wilhelm and Valter and Simon and Henry, are sitting in front of a campfire in a dark forest in episode two of season three of ‘Young Royals’.

They are roasting sausages on a stick, sitting in pairs: Wilhelm with Valter and Simon with Henry.

Over on Simon and Henry’s side of the campfire, we hear the following highly suggestive exchange:

“You won’t have a hot dog left.”

“I’ve got to heat it up.”

“Sure.”

I think you would have to be blind, deaf, and brain dead not to understand that this – this exchange right there – is about that sex scene, Wilhelm and Simon’s sex scene in the next episode.

This is obviously just a bit of thinly veiled symbolism, i.e. the way in which the writers have chosen to communicate with us throughout this entire show: They are telling us exactly what is going on between Wilhelm and Simon in bed in that episode three sex scene.

This ‘hot dog discussion’ is about as subtle as a brick to the face in a Bud Spencer movie.

The sex scene in episode three is a scene between two boys…You do understand the anatomy- and process-related implications of that whole ‘sausage’ subtext, don’t you? You do understand why we’re seeing Wilhelm and Simon roasting their two sausages here, right?

Yes, this is about, uhm, ‘heating up’ the, ahem, ‘sausage’ you intend to use in a, uhm, certain situation. Obviously!

(How on earth the actors were saying these lines with a straight face is anyone’s guess, to be honest.)

I think the sexual meaning of this ‘hot dog discussion’ is really hard to miss. Which is why I’m sure you all picked up on this one.

And this, in turn, should tell you something about that whole camping trip/spring hike or whatever they’re calling it these days (hee hee):

Subtextually, this entire trip is, of course, a sex scene.

The sex scene.

The one between Simon and Wilhelm one episode later.

It’s just that the writers hid this meaning, the whole sexual stuff, inside a completely different and seemingly innocuous scene: the camping trip scene – or rather that whole sequence of scenes.

In fact, this is most likely the only reason why that whole spring hike exists in the narrative in the first place: to have a seemingly innocuous scene to hide the sexual meaning in.

Yes, writers do that.

All the time.

Whenever they can’t or won’t explicitly show you a sex scene (or at least won’t show it in its entirety), they will hide that sex scene within another (usually pretty harmless looking) scene or shot. They will simply imply the sexual activity in question without an explicit depiction (or with just a minimum thereof).

One of the most legendary and infamous sex scenes in film history happens in this exact subtextual way:

The iconic Alfred Hitchcock thriller ‘North by Northwest’ (1959) starring Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint ends like this. (Please take a look at this very brief scene; it’s only 45 seconds long, and I’m absolutely certain you will get a good laugh out of this if you don’t know it already.)

So, Cary Grant’s character and Eva Marie Saint’s character climb the upper berth in the sleeper car of a train, and as she sinks into his arms, practically melting into his kiss…we get a sudden cut and then an outside shot of the train itself entering a tunnel.

Yep. Good old Alfred really went there. And I hope that, like every film aficionado in the history of film aficionados, you’ve just howled with laughter at that sight.

This film has a truly happy ending (ahem) in store for everyone involved. And let’s not even go into the fact that the female character did need a tad longer to reach the, uhm, highest peak of that mountain top in the scene preceding the ‘sleeper car scene’, shall we? (Yes, of course, that too is intentional. This is a Hitchcock! What did you think?!...The cut from the two characters on that mountain to the same two characters in the sleeper car is a perfect ‘match cut’, by the way, for the film fans amongst you. Brilliantly executed, too. So, yes, this is how you transition from Mount Rushmore to sex, my friends.)

How about the soundtrack in this scene? Isn’t it just so nice how we get these languishing violins waxing lyrical in the background as the couple sink down on that berth of the sleeper car and melt into each other’s kiss…and then suddenly the full brass and drums practically explode the very moment the phallic train comes barrelling into that dark, expectant tunnel, followed by a rhythmic thumping beat that’s supposed to whip the audience up into a frenzy and reference the obvious climax here. Very clever soundtrack choices.

So, yes, let’s give it up for the Hitch and this timeless classic he created.

(And while you’re at it, clap for Eva Marie Saint, too. The old guard film star has just turned 101 years old on the fourth of July - when else.)

This famous shot of the train entering the tunnel has been referenced, copied, parodied and satirized hundreds of times throughout film history.

One such homage can be admired in a great and unique ‘Sopranos’ episode, for example.

Unfortunately I couldn’t find the scene itself on youtube, but if you watch the episode ‘Moe n’ Joe’ (season six, episode ten), you’ll get to a scene in which the gay mafioso Vito Spatafore is lying in bed, kissing his boyfriend Jim ‘Johnny Cakes’. And just as Johnny Cakes flips Vito over in order to spoon him from behind (the whole setup obviously insinuating where this scene is going sexually)…we suddenly cut away from the two lovers and to, I kid you not, a model railway in someone’s garage: A miniature train is barrelling full speed into a toy tunnel. The loud sound effect of the train whistle over this hilarious shot just takes the biscuit, to be honest.

There is no way anyone could watch the scene of the two men suggestively cuddling followed by that ridiculous ‘choo-choo train shot’ without involuntarily snorting. (I usually recommend not drinking anything while watching this entire episode; I know someone who almost choked on a hearty gulp of port watching this ‘toy train scene’ back in the day, just saying.)

This train-tunnel imagery isn’t the only kind of imagery used for this subtextual purpose, of course.

Do you know the famous ‘fireworks scene’ from Hitchcock’s ‘To Catch a Thief’ with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly?

What a sizzling scene!

And what does Grace Kelly say there?

“If you really want to see the fireworks, it’s better with the lights out.” And then she switches off those lamps.

Yeeeeah, I do remember that girls often want the lights off when you’re…uhm…enjoying the, ahem, fireworks together. Hee.

Just listen to the way the music surges and swells each time we cut to the explosive fireworks erupting outside the window, and you’ll know what this scene actually represents…

…aaaand now she’s softly kissing the very tips of his fingers, that, I’m sure, aren’t supposed to represent any other part of his anatomy. Nuh-uh. Totally innocent scene, that.

“Tell me you don’t know what I’m talking about.”

Oh, man, Hitchcock was a cheeky bastard, wasn’t he?

Or…do you know the famous ‘quarry scene’ from the 1949 film ‘The Fountainhead’?

What, you don’t? Oh, man. You’ve got to see this one!

I mean, I’m sure Patricia Neal’s character is just really fascinated by the way Gary Cooper’s character is drilling into that block of stone in the quarry. Mmm-hm. Nothing to see here.

She just really likes drills. And drilling. Sooooo much drilling. And strong, muscular forearms holding that hard, unrelenting, rigid, thumping power tool. Oh, my!

Drill, baby, drill, indeed.

I’m sure she’s just really, really into manual labour. Uh-huh.

That’s also why she’s protectively shielding her pelvic area with her very noticeable, very, very bright, white hat in this scene…and fantasizing about that drill in her boudoir in front of the mirror later on, with her quivering lips slightly parted, her breaths coming faster and her bosom heaving.

Man, some gals are really into masonry, aren’t they? Tee-hee.

Note that that certain shot at the quarry at first pans (horizontally) along that long, long drill, then frames Gary Cooper in such a way that we basically see his chest, forearms, crotch area and the drill – but cuts off his head. Like…the lady is literally looking at his, uhm, tool first before she even checks out his face.

(If you’ve read my post on the ‘Cinematic Language of Sexual Desire’, then you know that this is actually the typical way in which women are usually framed in shots of this kind: their bodies cut into pieces, separate body parts presented to the viewer to be ogled, with the face often cut out of the frame.)

In that ‘quarry shot’, we then even get Patricia Neal’s little once-over when the camera – representing her point of view – tilts (vertically) upwards, giving us the view of Gary Cooper’s sweaty face and upper body.

(I hope you all remember the difference between panning and tilting in a shot? Well, here you get both.)

Throughout this entire very long shot, we aren’t left in any doubt that it is actually shown from her perspective. Well, so much for the ‘female gaze’, I suppose. (But I think I’ve said my piece about that whole notion in the post mentioned above already.)

Note also when exactly the violins begin to play in that ‘quarry scene’: The soundtrack is specifically used to give us this impression of her daydreaming about his body and, uhm, tool. It starts up exactly at the right point, doesn’t it?

So, whatever you might otherwise think of the ‘Fountainhead’, this scene alone with the ‘flipped gaze’ is certainly worth your time, don’t you think?

Sorry, ladies and gents, gonna go take a long, cold shower now. Scenes where there’s so much drilling going on really make you all sweaty, wouldn’t you agree?

Okay…But on a more serious note, I think we’re at a point in this post where we need to nip a certain notion in the bud, and I think it’s best if we do this right here and now before we all go home with some widespread misconceptions and persistent urban myths festering on in our minds.

There’s this internet truth that you will sometimes hear repeated even from film students: It’s the idea that veiled sex scenes with hidden symbolism (such as in the scenes described above) were a result of the so-called Hays Code established in the 1930s. The claim basically goes something like this: Clever filmmakers came up with the idea of using subtext in the way described above to evade the strict regulations of the film industry’s self-censorship enshrined in the Motion Picture Production Code (often simply referred to as the ‘Hays Code’, named after William Hays). Sometimes you will read people literally claiming: Subtext was invented by filmmakers in the 1930s to circumvent the Hays Code.

Now, while the Hays Code (which famously forbade the explicit depiction of such phenomena as, say, drug use, prostitution, swearing, homosexuality and many other social ‘ills’ considered morally repulsive at the time, as well as the depiction of nudity, sex, passionate kissing, etc.), so while the production code certainly reinforced and intensified the efforts undertaken by creative filmmakers to evade censorship, this type of subtextual language was by no means an invention of that era, nor was it limited to it. It didn’t begin with the Hays Code era, and it didn’t end with it either.

If you skim over the paragraphs above again, you’ll realize that the ‘Sopranos’ scene with the miniature train and the toy tunnel we’ve discussed there was filmed long after the end of the Hays Code: in 2006. The Code had been a thing of the past for nearly half a century at this point, having been abolished in 1968.

So, sexual symbolism of this kind has always existed. It had existed before the Hays Code and is still being used today, long after the end of the Code.

Do you know how many of your favourite, contemporary TV shows contain hidden sex scenes that you might not be aware of until you start analyzing the subtext? Scenes like those ‘camping trip scenes’ in episode two of season three of ‘Young Royals’, which so obviously serve as mirror scenes for Wilhelm and Simon’s sex scene in the following episode…

(And no worries, we will get back to that in a sec. Just as we will get back to Henry and Simon’s highly suggestive ‘hot dog discussion’ at the campfire and the question of why Stella is flirting with Rosh during the rave and why there’s this long argument about the sleeping arrangements in the three-person tents. Hell, we will even discuss why those are three-person tents in the first place.

Most importantly, we will talk about the meaning of the slinky! That rainbow slinky. Because boy, did I not expect that thing to have a sexual meaning. Oh, my…

All of these things do, of course, have a hidden, subtextual meaning apart from the literal, textual one presented on the surface of the text.

Oh, and we still have to address the question of what Simon’s fingers started to explore during that sex scene. Possibly. Potentially.

So… all of that and more, you will find under the cut in a second.)