MovieChat Forums > Tarzan and His Mate (1934) Discussion > Did I see what I think I saw??

Did I see what I think I saw??


No, I'm not talking about the uncut swimming scene...

I'm talking about one hour and 38 minutes into the film when Jane, alone against the lions, fires her last bullet and then drops to the ground to build a fire.

Now, Jane wears some skimpy clothing in this film...and what is it I THINK I see there as her "loincloth" flaps around with her movements?

I mean...did O'Sullivan go commando? It's hard to tell but I'm pretty sure I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing -- and plus I don't see how she could've hidden a pair of underwear beneath that loincloth. At any rate since her legs are bare all the way up to her butt it would appear that, indeed, she is bottomless.

Man, two scenes with full-frontal female nudity in one Tarzan film! Pre-Code Forever!

reply

...wow, please grow up. People like you are the reason nudity cant just be normal.

reply

...wow, please get a sense of humor. People like you are a reason why boards like this suck -- you take yourself too seriously. My question is valid. Have you watched the scene in question? Please do so. There is absolutely nothing immature about asking if there was in fact a flash of full-frontal nudity in that scene.

Next time think a bit before posting -- that way you'll look like less of an idiot. And I can already tell you need all the help you can get in that department.

reply

[deleted]

Then why bother responding? You are only further confirming my opinion (now a virtual certainty) of your idiocy.

And please, a "creepy obsession?" I'm a grown adult and like most married men I see nudity every day. We are talking here about what appears to be a flash of full-frontal female nudity in a movie from the early 1930s. This is not a "creepy obsession;" if I was only after nudity, I'd be watching porn, wouldn't I? No -- this is a valid question I have raised, and it's obvious you've not even seen the moment in the film I'm discussing.

reply

If nudity is no big deal to you then why take any notice to it at all? Why make a thread (and yes in this case it did sound a little obsessive) about a supposed half second flash of nudity, documenting the exact minute, rambling on about "oh does she have panties on?" etci read that in a rather excited voice in my head, perhaps thats not what tone you meant, internet is always hard to tell. You have to understand, there are a ton of stupid people on here, thats nice if you arent one of them, but you have to level and see why i would assume so. And no i never said you were only after nudity, among other words youve put in my mouth


"if I was only after nudity, I'd be watching porn, wouldn't I?"

Um no, if thats what you think you clearly dont know much about these things we call humans. Besides porn is about the act of sex, not nudity.

reply

hi, i have the Tarzan box set and am enjoying them immensely..just watched Tarzan and his Mate and to be honest i was shocked by some of the scenes in this film, not just cos i'm a prude cos im not,lol..but what they got away with for this period in time..i couldn't believe her costume was so revealing and it's just natural to look where your not supposed to,lol..and i know the scene you mean when she crouches with one knee up and one knee on the ground and i to believe she was naked under that loin cloth..very brave for a movie this early in time..good on them!
"all dressed up and no-one to blow"

reply

Glooey- you have got to be kidding. Pawny is an innocent film fan pointing out what is quite obviously a startling scene. (He pinpoints the runtime so that we might easily reference it, ya weirdo!) For you to define his point-of-view as "creepy" and then assign a lascivious inner-voice to his post clearly casts YOU as the fringe element here. Wipe the drool off yer chin and develop a sense of humor (like our dear chocky).

Seeyalaterbye.

reply

Exactly Bluto..sometimes you cant mention these things without being accused of something sinister..i have just watched Tarzan Escapes and you can so notice the costume difference with Jane and is much more covered up probabaly cos it was not allowed anymore but in my view it almost takes away some of the wildness of the jungle and the passion of Tarzan and Jane's all bearing relationship, so i much preferred the more revealing costume for realism and not just to see something i shouldn't

"all dressed up and no-one to blow"

reply

Dont really care, it sounded creepy and i stand by it.


"Wipe the drool off yer chin "

Yes the person whos telling people to relax because its just supposed flash of nudity is the one drooling, not the person whos gone over specific scenes over and over looking for dick all to make a thread about

reply

[deleted]

"You need to get laid! "

LOL! the last desperate stab. Not sure why you'd think that, im not the one pathetically searching for a split second shot at a girls crotch


"Or is sniffing glue okay whereas nudity is not"

Um what? where in any of my posts did i say nudity wasnt ok? My stance has been the exact opposite the entire time, do go back and reread as i think you're confused

Also good to know that someones username is a difinitive way to know who they are and what they do, good show! I wont be going to 42nd street any time soon, and i knew i should have told babygirl43's parents that babies shouldnt have computers at such a young age. Thank you so much FortySecondStreetFreak!

reply

Gloosniffer--people like u just astound me. U see a question u don't like and instead of ignoring it (like any reasonable person would do) u just attack and show everybody what a controlling jerk u are. Get a life.

reply

Um, isnt that what you're doing right now?

reply

Nope. I clicked on the link cause I was actually interested in the question. You just joined in to cause trouble and annoy total strangers (for some stupid reason). I'm just pointing out that you're a jerk and should get a life instaed of attacking other people for asking a simple question.

reply

Its a message board, for ya know, OPINIONS. Im giving mine whether you like it or not. No ones attacking anyone except for you calling names and rehashing an old post that no ones cares about

reply

LOL You STARTED it by attacking the original poster! And you're right--anyone can say anything that they want here. So I'm perfectly within my rights to call you a controlling, obnoxious jerk and offer my OPINION on your "opinions".

reply

I was just pointing out that youre totally hypocritical in rehashing an old post just to namecall, then to call me immature after to boot, hilarious. Why are you so into starting arguements when you arent even going to discuss the topic? Nevermind dont even answer because i just really dont care

reply

You've obviously sniffed WAY too much "gloo" if u think your remarks make any sense.

reply

Get over yourself.

reply

Way to get into a conversation after years have gone by, did that make you feel better to try and give someone a jab while theres no one left in the room? You silly little fool.

reply

You're such a boring troll. He was talking about unexpected nudity in A 30's HOLLYWOOD MAINSTREAM MOVIE. Can you got it now, you priggish jerk?

reply

The thread is about nudity? Wow no one had any idea, thank god you were here to let everyone know that.

reply

I'm pretty sure you're right, perfectpawn. It's fascinating to see what made it into movies before the Hays Code. Just fun finding this kind of thing in a 1930's film.

reply

I just saw this movie the other day on TCM and checked this page to find out the same thing! Kids back in the 30's must've been transfixed.

My Mom and I spent the rest of the time trying to scope out Tarzan. Hee! (Don't bother, he was probably wearing a cup or something. ;)

reply

You probably didn't see what you thought
you saw.
(Yeah,i'm crying about this also!lol.)

Why would an actress be playing this
role without underwear?
There's some place to put underwear under
there.
Didn't you ever hear of a thong?lol.

reply

There's some place to put underwear under there.

You think so?

Go look at the two B&W production stills that IMDb has attached to the 1932 Tarzan the Ape Man. They're actually from Tarzan and His Mate (Jane never changes her costume to a loin cloth in that first movie, she stays in [increasingly tattered] European clothing throughout. Her costumes for all of the later, no longer Pre-Code, entries in the series are considerably more modest.)

It might be possible that the Jane loincloth was created by sewing the front and back flaps of cloth onto a thong type pair of panties. However, there is absolutely no way that O'Sullivan is wearing a separate thong (or anything else) underneath that loincloth. (I can't imagine that wearing a "pasty" type of glue-on piece would be considered a good idea by anyone.)

reply

Funny -- I forgot about starting this thread. Thanks to all for the unexpected support. The Gloosniffers of the world daily threaten our basic freedoms, trying to impose their tight-a@@ed rigidity on the the rest of us, so it's great to see others speak out.

Anyway!

When I watched Tarzan and his Mate all those months ago it was on a small PC screen. I just re-watched the DVD on my big plasma screen and again, there's little doubt in my mind that O'Sullivan was going "commando" in this scene.

Someone upthread mentioned thongs, and of course I'm aware of them (in fact I think they were even the subject of a song...). But really, it's not like thongs were widely available in 1934, that is, if they were even "invented" yet. At the very least, you certainly couldn't order them from the latest Sears-Roebuck catalog!

What I find most surprising is that this "flash" isn't better known. When O'Sullivan dips to build the fire around 98 minutes in, it seems very apparent that she is not wearing any "unmentionables."

reply

check out the photos on this site

http://www.bikiniscience.com/chronology/1930-1935_SS/TJ3410-70_S/TJ3410-70.html

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply

<< did O'Sullivan go commando? >>

At this level of resolution, we can't tell if it is a "merkin" or the real deal. A merkin is a pubic wig often used in movie making. See

http://www.the-back-row.com/blog2.php/2010/09/27/10-famous-movie-merkins

reply

Just begun watching this great movie series. TCM are running them in some order, the amazing and natural Maureen O Sullivan is certainly pantless in the aforementioned scene, you can see pubic hair, she is so natural. She also smiles sideways up at a cameraman or someone off screen during the fire-lighting scene. In the next movie '...The Huntress' she is replaced by a career Jane, who is all so very tidy they appear to be living the American dream on holiday in the jungle and they have a dumb kid hanging around, It's getting a bit cute.
I am hoping that there is some improvement, the first two are really interesting and invent a certain genre right there. The film company may have fallen foul of all sorts of restrictions later. My 17 son came in and watched the dive from tree out of dress into water scene 1934?Unbelievable - wonderful!

reply

[deleted]

Just saw it on TCM. Certainly looks like Ms. O'Sullivan as the good Lord made her. Even under pre-code standards, pretty surprising THAT got through. Not as remarkable as Preston Sturges getting away with calling Betty Hutton's pregnant single-mom-to-be-maybe "Judy Kockenlocker" when the Code was in full force, but still pretty surprising.

reply

I really believe she had undergarments, sort of a bikini type, since all the other loinclothes have them. Front part of a dark or leather bikini can easy resemble a woman's private are if not too exposed. Not sure who was nude when Jane was thrown in the water.

reply

check this out
http://www.bikiniscience.com/chronology/1930-1935_SS/TJ3410-70_S/TJ3410-70.html
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)

reply

As I suspected. I paused the scene during the lion stand-off where her flap leaves that part exposed and zoomed in, she is wearing a slim dark bikini-type. She is not commando in that outfit.

reply

Well, some people call it immature but I think it's a valid question. We see a lot of nudity in movies today so I don't think anyone has to dig deep into an old movie to look for something that's so readily available in most movies today and all over the internet.

The point is it is so unexpected to see that in a movie of that period. The fact it was not edited out seems odd. To answer the question, yes, you saw what you think you saw because I saw the same thing. It was pretty obvious so you didn't really even have to look for it. I certainly wasn't; at least not on Jane.

Call me immature but after I saw that I kept my eyes focused on Tarzan to catch any possible wardrobe malfunctions on his part. There were none, darn it. I guess then as now the guys keep things very well covered.

reply