Nude scenes…
-
fico_of_arboria — 21 years ago(July 02, 2004 09:25 AM)
Well, attempting to remain above a level of bickering, with regards to the title of my post, I genuinely thought that you were being sacastic and mocking those with slightly less liberal views. Furthermore, you undermine your criticism by trying to make completely unfounded personal insults. The boards are intended for discussion and debates, and I enjoy reading and participating in them, but comments such as yours really lower the standard, particularly on a board such as this.
If you look up Jenny Aggutter on the imdb, you'll find she was born in 1952, Roeg didn't delay the release for five years, so she was not 14.
I'm not a nudist, but am comfortable enough with my own body and other people's not to be offended when I see one. As my lecturers would hammer into us, context is everything.
Nearly every discussion on the boards consists of opinions. Please remember that the earlier posters' opinions are just as valid as your's or mine and that one is not obliged to contest a previous poster's opinion by default. In my case and many others, I was merely adding my opinion. If it differs to yours, I'm not neccesarily attacking you, so refrain from being so defensive and aggressive as a result. If you aren't as comfortable with nudity as others are, then that doesn't automatically make them perverts.
Who is anyone to say whether nudity is right of wrong? It differs in culture to culture, and, of course, context is everything. What is the difference in showing a naked swimmer of a swimmer in the skimpiest of cossies? One can still see the dimensions and imagination can fill in the rest. -
eolson22 — 21 years ago(July 04, 2004 12:14 AM)
I have no interest in this debate, I only want to remark that art has no business depicting nude human bodies. Never has, never will. Why people seem to think that it does is beyond me. Excuse me now while I go put curtains over the paintings and statues.
-
polexia — 21 years ago(March 23, 2005 04:24 PM)
Wow I just read MJKI's amaing post and the very next post was neanderthal cussing and personal attacks.
What a contrast! One post: intelligent, thoughtful, educated. The next: pigslop and product of the lowest common denominator.
MJKI I love your assessment and it's obvious you've given thought to this. I think you brought up some angles I hadn't thought of, and believe me, I've written a lot on this subject in my blog. Enough to make people tired of reading about Walkabout, lol.
It's strange how the Girl does not ever really try to communicate with him and she continually pushes his culture away as if it is just a necessary inconvenience. She does not learn his language to speak with him other than the word for "water", she does not seem to ever seek him out to learn from him or ask him things. She gets her brother to ask him when she needs to know something. Through the film, she seems scared of him in a way and intimidated, and keeps herself away from him (except for just a smattering of scenes like the gum trees and when he carries her across the river). It's weird to me because at once she seems comfortable, but she never really is. And at the end, she is all wound up and won't let him in at all. They wander through the house and do not communicate, though the Boy watches her and then sits sadly as she walks past, ignoring him. It's kind of heartbreaking, actually. Like she doesn't even SEE him. He can see all of the potential in her and between them, but she is blind.
What a difference in her "memory" the children there seem so natural and free and unburdened by all of these other things. As it was meant to be.
Even when he died, she showed no emotion. It was pick up a mango, flick some ants and get to the road. After all of that time he'd helped them, she has nothing to say about his death, no appreciation of him at all. And when she takes the road, it's as if he never existed.
Don't threaten ME with a dead fish! -
fico_of_arboria — 21 years ago(July 08, 2004 02:51 PM)
Please, keep posting, you are giving my mates and me the best laugh in ages.
By the way, I apparently am misjudging you, yet again and again you make unsubstatiated assertions about others with some ease.
Paedophilia is no joke, so do not throw around a phrase that transparently shows you possess little understanding of if you can use it with such ease.
Again, I can only reiterate I am not attacking you, but defending the opinions of others.
"But anyone with any sense can see that there is NO such scenario where a nude scene is necessary." That does suggest discomfort.
No comment with regards to the subject's age, I note.
I enjoyed your quotation from the art book.
I am retiring from this 'debate' now. This is to little interest of other readers of the Walkabout board. I apologise to future readers for what has deteriorated into mindless drivel.
The main reason I added to this debate, and regrettfully failed to make this explicit to begin with (I hold my hands up) was that I did not find the scene to be sexual in the least. -
-
The-FerrisBueller-Institute — 21 years ago(July 16, 2004 02:56 AM)
Mr Movie Guy is clearly a race car in the red,a couple more revs and he'll be blowing a gasket.I have a vision of him typing while sitting in his 'woman suit'"it rubs the lotion on it's skin,or else it gets the hose again"
-
jjkmusic — 21 years ago(July 19, 2004 06:08 PM)
Just wanted to make two comments, as I've just finished watching this movie for the first time. I am not interested in having a discussion, so this will be my only comment, nor offering any opinions on discussions that preceded mine, so don't read anything into my comments - just use it as fyi and food for thought. First, from checking around a little bit ago, it appears the movie was filmed in 1969 and since Jenny's birth day was December 1952, she was most likely 16 or had just turned 17. Second, with all of Jenny's nudity, I was not sexually aroused at all during the movie. I think it's because I was too involved in the movie and just found her to be a beautiful part of the scenes of nature in the movie. I have always found her very attractive and have been turned on by her in other movies, but here it's different. I'm not sure how to explain it but there are times when I find a nude girl beautiful without being sexually stimulated, as was the case here (I'm not an animal who automatically gets turned on simply because I see a naked or scantilly dressed girl). I know I can watch it again and be sexually aroused if I want to, especially since it's Jenny, but that's another case. I was saddened by the aborigine's death (even though it's just a movie) and had a hard time with the animal killings and cutting up (which was real). Yes, the director didn't have to show the nudity or the actual butcheries but he chose to. With both the nudity and the animal butcherings, I found them to be all right and justified in the way this movie was filmed (yes, including the focus on her butt when she was swimming). I can't tell what was in the director's mind when he filmed her nude scenes - perhaps he was trying to make it sexually stimulating and perhaps he wasn't. I just know it wasn't stimulating for me the way it was filmed but I can easily see how it could be for others (just like paintings or statues of nude women that were created hundreds of years ago or nude women in the National Geographic magazines - I'm not stimulated by them now but was when I was a teenager first learning about the differences between males and females). As for her being 16 or 17, did she look any different than she did at 18? Does she at 16 or 17 look any different than some girls at 18 or 19? If the answer to both is "no", then what's the problem if someone gets aroused by her (yes, there is a problem if a guy takes advantage of an underage girl but that's not what I'm writing about)? The only reason her age makes a difference is because there are rules in the USA about female nudity in movies - you can appear nude when you're at least 18 (not much difference, I assume, from when a girl is 17, particularly when she's almost 18), you can appear nude at any age on television if it's not considered sexually arousing (note the miniseries "Roots", which displayed young girls nude, particularly one who was 15 at the time - just fyi, I wasn't turned on by any of those girls either), you can appear nude from when you're born to around five years old, etc. Again, I'm not looking for an argument with anyone, none of you know me, and there is no way I can explain my rationale within this area, so just take it as an opinion for you to think about, if you wish - you can value however you like, as we are all different and it is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this web site.
-
Bitter_Almonds — 21 years ago(March 05, 2005 10:29 AM)
This sounds about right. Not all nudity is pornographic and not all violence is for pure entertainment.
It's funny that this discussion even exists seeing as to how in the movie, there is a contrast of context between the young people swimming nude and the older geologists trying to take a peek at the woman's breasts
Do The Mussolini! Headkick!