Nude scenes…
-
-
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! -
Masterprecious-1 — 21 years ago(September 15, 2004 06:06 PM)
Gee Mr Movie Guy 2004, you sure do know yourself pretty good. I mean that with all sincerity. Your perception of things have shaped your very "no gray area" attitude. There is nothing wrong with that. But is it not still "your" perception ? I sort of like this quip. "Who is anyone to say what was going on in the directors mind while filming or contemplating the scene". What his or her intentions or implications were is anyones guess. So what were left with is our own perception or opinion of what direction of reasoning was being portrayed. If you were the producer or director of the film, would you not have done it differently. Your replies in this forum scream a definate yes. And another person would yet again do the movie in a different way. In closing I will admittedly say that some of my written content here is opinionated. The truth known by all is that there is nothing factual in an opinion. That is the only fact that I can bring to a forum full of opinions.
-
Eldermount — 21 years ago(October 13, 2004 03:47 PM)
[
and I heard she was fourteen, I don't know where you got seventeen
]
Well, if you can handle a little math, you'll see that the movie came out in 1971, and according to the IMDB database (you know this website you're posting on) Jenny Agutter was born in December of 1952. So, she was at least 18 when this movie came out.
Perhaps you can make a small effort to check your facts next time rather than merely repeating what you "heard". -
casiocasanova-1 — 20 years ago(December 17, 2005 02:41 PM)
funny how no one opposing these nude scenes mentions anything about the nudity of the aboriginal people. small children, grown women, grown men all clad in next to nothing expressing curiosity about the charred automobile.
while i'm not making accusations, i can't help but believe it has something to do with the fact that in our culture, and most others, tubby unwashed female aboriginees aren't exactly an object of desire. they don't exactly sell national geographic in porn shops. nobody here seems to have a problem with it.
however, a sixteen year old white girl swims in a lake and you've got a message board debate that's lasted over a year.
obviously, if you are offended by the young girl's nudity, there's something in your mind that fired off warnings that you're watching something that could be potentially sexually arousing, and not so much that you're looking at unclothed bodies. otherwise, i would think the naked natives would cause just as much of a stink. -
phatkronikblunt — 21 years ago(January 10, 2005 09:36 PM)
Have you got an explanation of why the camera needs to hone in on a teenage girl's ass while she's swimming?
Because that is the gaze of the young boy watching her, dumbass!
Just because you cant look at a young girl naked without getting a boner and you hate yourself for it, dont go around ruining good films for the rest of us. -
k_vaughan3 — 21 years ago(February 25, 2005 07:20 AM)
Calling yourself Mr_Movie_Guy_2004 then of course you the knowledge to tell us where you found the information to prove that Jenny was 14 in the movie?
But then again would God be happy when he knows you are spewing the words "naive pricks" and I guess you never ever in your life ever seem a nude screen hold on you must have, didn't you watch Walkabout to come up with these comments? -
psychicaudio — 21 years ago(August 17, 2004 10:14 PM)
I am gradually learning to recognize and resist the temptation to engage trolls on message boards! The "ignore postings from" link available from any user's profile page has become my favorite feature of these boards, an invaluable time and energy saver.
http://about-vision.e-banshee.net/030819/Ot_troll_faq_long.html
I love to discuss topics with those who have opposing views, but it saves a lot of hassle to distinguish genuine participants in dialog from simple trolls. Why bother formulating a carefully reasoned argument for someone who isn't going to appreciate it and respond with civility? -
Unicorn-9 — 21 years ago(August 01, 2004 04:00 PM)
Well, it is a Jenny Agutter movie: I can't even think of one where she kept all her clothes on for the entire movie even in 'The Railway Children' I seem to remember her waving her knickers at a train to try to get it to stop.
As for the movie itself, for a story that's trying to contrast modern life with 'natural' living for an aborigine, it's hardly surprising that some nudity is involved. I think the puritanical responses to the nudity fully support the movie in that sense, showing just how far modern society has gone from that natural state. -
andrew-nunn — 21 years ago(August 18, 2004 08:08 AM)
I thought the film was very well photographed, with good cast-setting and scenes. The use of light was tremendous, and portrayed perfectly the sense of heat and desolation of the outback. The contrast between "civilisations" was well demonstrated, emphasising the inadequacy of today's society in surviving in the harsh realities of the scrub land.
Oh, and it was great to see Jenny with her kit off! What a body. Always fancied her!
Enjoyed the film. Scenes were breathtaking. The native Australian was cast brilliantly. Good story line. Jenny was amazing.
Art? What's that? I'll tell you what that is guys, its a room with a pile of bricks in one corner, that some arty-farty idiot says "I can see how the artist expresses himself, one can see what was in his mind when blah, blah, blah".
Crap! Absolute bollocks. I tell you what art is guys. Its Constable, it's Rembrandt, its Hieronymus Bosch.