Nude scenes…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Walkabout
konky2000 — 22 years ago(April 01, 2004 08:54 AM)
It seems that there is a lot of commentary in the review section about the nudity in this film. I thought it would be better to bring that discussion out to the message boards so that an ongoing conversation could actually take place.
The bottom line for me is that Jenny Agutter, on her DVD commentary track, doesn't seem to be bothered by them. She does express that when she saw the final cut she was a little surprised about the length of the scenes, and she warned her parents about it. Overall, though, she seems to be in full agreement that the scenes were necessary and never once suggests that she objects to the scenes.
If she doesn't care, then I'm not sure why I should care or be bothered by them?
Thoughtsopinions?
Beware! Beware of the big green dragon that sits on your doorstep. He eats little boys -
psychicaudio — 21 years ago(April 10, 2004 10:53 AM)
I don't see any problem at all. Some people are so depraved that they can't look at anything with a fresh perspective and an open mind and admit to themselves that what they are looking at is actually beautifulor for that matter see that the film actually questions, explores and even makes fun of the whole issue of the sexual gaze. The aesthetics alone of the swimming scene justifies it in my view, but the thematic content beyond that takes it way out of the realm of exploitation.
-
fico_of_arboria — 21 years ago(June 30, 2004 01:27 PM)
For starters, Aggutter was 17 when the film was released, and almost certainly 16 when it was filmed.
Secondly, look at the context. She's deserted in the wilderness. Oh, and she has a young brother with her. She's hot and thirsty and dry. there's a lake. No, don't swim in it, a lizard might observe(!) Had she planned this disequliibrium more thoroughly she might have packed a cossy (and some water, and a compass) The camera doesn't focus on a particular part of her body at all. Anyway, by law, by individual maturity and even by her own integrity, so what if it did? What difference would it make if she were 17 or 47? It is not a sexual situation, just one of the most natural things in the worldtaking a bath. The scene is justified by the plot.
In terms of a previous poster's comment as to the aesthetic value: there is nothing more beautiful than nature and little more natural than the naked form. If we were meant to be covered up, we would be born in either thick body hair or a romper suit.
Might I advise you: next time you want to contest another poster's view, might you do it in a more civilised manner (ie. without the personal insults or unneccesary use of expletives) as it devalues your own post. -
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"