'Gratuitous (i.e., $N@TCH)' nudity…
-
gribfritz2 — 12 years ago(November 11, 2013 09:55 PM)
Did you see "girl" checking out "black boy's" package? Did you see the chick ready and willing at the aboriginal sweatshop? Or the weather balloon hottie and the reactions she generates? I don't know why everyone is surprised at nudity in a film that is completely sexually driven.
-
amsdragons-2 — 12 years ago(November 14, 2013 03:07 AM)
NYcruise,
First, did you not watch the whole movie? There were far more revealing "full frontal" scenes than that brief glimpse.
Second, why would Peter Weir put anything in this movie? He had nothing to do with it; he wasn't the director or producer.
Carol Kester Bondurant: He's never been late this early before. RIP, Marcia -
lazarillo — 12 years ago(November 27, 2013 06:41 PM)
Why is it surprising there is sex or sexual tension in what is really a coming-of-age movie?
Why is terrible or shameful to think that a women who is 15 years older than me had a great body when she was teenager? So did Helen Mirren, by the way, who is only a few years older then Agutter. So did my high school girlfriend back in 80's for that matter.
Also, Agutter swims nude for about ten minutes later in the movie (well. it seemed like ten minutes). So why even mention a nearly subliminal shot of pubic hair? Unless you're one of those weird guys that does freeze frames on his DVD or hangs out at high school football games trying to catch a "beaver shot" of the underage cheerleaders and has therefore had a lot of practice at this
I think a lot of people "doth protest too much" about this particular subject. But the OP could always write an angry letter to Peter Weir, who would no doubt be just as perplexed as I am. . . -
spookyrat1 — 12 years ago(December 11, 2013 06:03 AM)
It lasts only for about 1-3 frames - but it's there (I wonder if the film was edited to allow for that BRIEF glimpse of $N@TCH).
Someone definitely has too much time on his hands to be going to so much trouble to over-scrutenize. -
jd-276 — 12 years ago(March 17, 2014 11:10 PM)
1971 movie with a bit of a snatch shot. Over 40 years later, Americans are still offended.
Seems that the ones most offended have a far more intimate - i.e.: frame by frame - knowledge of the movie than the rest of us! -
L0GAN5 — 12 years ago(February 28, 2014 12:32 PM)
I have uploaded the frames in question at
http://postimg.org/gallery/5nhb0jiy/
.
As you can see, there are literally two frames where you briefly see the top of some pubic hair. What is gratuitous though is an underwater shot where her vaginal lips are fairly visible for several frames (which I've also included in the gallery solely for the purposes of a mature comparison). I think a frame or two of pubic hair is ok, but considering Jenny Agutter was only 16 when she made this movie I think showing her labia was a bit exploitative. -
Uvtha — 11 years ago(November 01, 2014 05:05 AM)
What is gratuitous though is an underwater shot where her vaginal lips are fairly visible for several frames (which I've also included in the gallery solely for the purposes of a mature comparison). I think a frame or two of pubic hair is ok, but considering Jenny Agutter was only 16 when she made this movie I think showing her labia was a bit exploitative.
Hah, well its a good thing you went through the film and posted the "gratuitous" frames on the internet where they can be thoroughly reviewed.
Just boy. -
franzkabuki — 11 years ago(April 08, 2014 02:30 PM)
I protest the gratuitous clothedness going on in the rest of the movie. It
s not like the chick crawled out of his fathers butthole wearing a bloody uniform oh brothers.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
lilleblomst — 11 years ago(September 06, 2014 02:31 PM)
The problem here is that you can't even write pubic area or snatch or whatever else, you have to write it in that ridiculous way because a human beings body is dirty and sinful, a woman's body isn't anything but sexual - yeah, you don't even know the directors name and it's written on the page. I can't take you seriously.
-
raf-33 — 10 years ago(June 28, 2015 11:34 PM)
To be fair no one took him seriously, he clearly paused the film at an early briefest of brief glimpses of fanny fluff so he could come on here and troll before he had time to realise that Jenny Agutter's junk is given a proper unveiling a short while later while swimming.
Ya Kirk-loving Spocksucker! -
andyd-1 — 9 years ago(January 10, 2017 05:39 AM)
I know it'll upset some of the films fans, but the film does have quite a few gratuitous scenes in it - not necessarily featuring nudity, some of the camera work is sort of lingering. I don't think they'd make this film today with a 16 year old actress, and in the UK, they would not get a certificate if it was made this way today.
The film belongs to a different era, laws were different then. The age limit regarding indecent images was 16, but now it is 18 (since early 2000's I believe). It was debated whether or not a Bluwe Ray release would get a certificate, in the end it did of course, the film must surely stand as a significant work of art today.