Perhaps the earliest instance of nudity in a general-release film in the U.S. occurred during the shared bath scene. If you look closely (which the censors patently did not) you will see Ms. Bron's munificent endowments in a small mirror, cunningly angled. Apart from this, one of the funniest movies ever made, with arcane references from Faust to the bible.
shareThis may be visible on television only in a widescreen (letterbox) showing - at least it was when the AMC channel ran it in those long lost commercial-free days (thank goodness for VCRs!)
shareThis film was just shown on INHD and I snagged it on my HD DVR. Look just to the left of Peter Cook's head at the small vanity mirror. The shot is unmistakable and the word magnificent does not do justice to these breasts, no matter whose they are.
shareIs it really Eleanor Bron? Or was it double?
shareDave,
I suppose that, technically in this case, it would have to be a quadruple!! Have no idea whether it was she or not, but back in the '60's you took what yu could get. The technical term we used in our adolescent fervor was "BT". I'll leave the translation to you imagination. Speaking of which, wasn't this the best Raquel Welch ever looked? Lillian Lust the Babe with the Bust.
Wouldn't it be easier just to go to the chemist's; buy a Playboy? :evilgrin:
shareWhat does looking at at an issue of "PLAYBOY Magazine" anywhere, have to do with a movie nude scene, except when they release their annnual "Sex in Cinema" issue? A nude girl or woman isn't just a nude girl or woman. It's the particular nude girl or woman that counts! Like, if you want to see "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" nude, you can look at Kristy Swanson's "Playboy" spread and pretend it's Buffy. But since Sarah Michelle Gellar hasn't posed, yet. Well, then you can't see her version of Buffy nude. On the other hand, if you want to see Sarah Michelle Gellar nude, you wouldn't look at pictures of Kristy Swanson posing nude, and pretend it's Sarah Michelle Gellar nude, because it just isn't the same!
You don't walk up to Mary Ann Summers and say, "I want to see Ginger Grant nude! Take off your clothes!" or vice a versa. It just isn't the same.
Of course, if you removed their limbs and heads to just a torso, then you could argue that they are the same. Hair color not withstanding. Because then they have lost their unique identity. It's not like with identical twins where if you've seen one nude, you've seen her sister nude too!
Nudity just doesn't work that way! If it did, there would be only one artistic example of a nude woman per skin color and hair color, and that would be it.
"PLAYBOY" wouldn't still be making issues if the very first issue was enough to satisfy demand. Do you look at a Countach and pretend it's a mini-van? No!
But when driving a mini-van you may pretend you're driving a sports car.
If you're Al Bundy, having sex with Peg Bundy, do you still think of Peg as herself, or do you now pretend she's someone else? The latter! What helps you do that? Your collection of PLAYBOYs.
Pancakes are done! I have to go now!
But was it Eleanor Bron's breast in the frakking mirror?
share[deleted]
I know she's above that sort of thing, but it was just wishful thinking on my part. Knowerrimean?
share[deleted]
This is not uncensored nudity it was purposely done so that you know that Spiggott is in the bath with a woman, otherwise it would be like he was alone, most probably Peter's idea...dirty bastard lol, you were allowed that then in the late 60's, probably due to Spike Milligan's Q series where there was always a breast to be seen.
shareFrom the manner of presentation, I doubt VERY MUCH it was actually Eleanor Bron's, uh....rack. Can we even be sure it's not just a still photo of mammaries positioned to be seen in the mirror?
shareI'm very sure that it is not a still photo, because when you first see them reflected in the mirror they move a slight bit back and forth. It actually draws your attention to them in the first place, where you might not even notice them if they didn't move. And just in case someone asks if just the still photo moves, trust me, you can see the actual breasts move, not a picture.
shareI think he was with someone too, not sure it was eleanor bron though
shareYou know, I'm watching this film right now and I've just noticed the same thing. It's hard not to notice. I am 99% sure they are not Eleanor Bron's breasts.
They are fantastic though, but whose breasts could they be, and where did the producers get them? It can't have been a Page 3 model, because Page 3 didn't exist in 1967. Perhaps it was someone the producers grabbed from the local Playboy club. Or Margaret Nolan?
I'm going to do some research on the internet to determine who the top British topless model was in 1967, I'll be right back.
[deleted]
I think Blowup came before Bedazzled, and the censors certainly noticed the nudity in that film. The MPAA didn't give it a pass, but it was released anyway.
I am neither vegan nor an eskimo. It's supposed to be a joke. Stop asking.
I say it was Pete and Dud at work again, trying to push the limits of the censors! Haha.
"Pardon me. Oh, you're a hedge!"
~Dudley Moore as Arthur Bach
that's pretty funny that they would manage to get that past the censors
back in 98 I did a titty comedy for Skinemax. Sex Camp, ya remember it?
Ah, no. Those tits would have been ten feet wide when projected on a movie screen. They were most certainly passed by the censors as being in an adult comedy.
You're a bit slow if you think otherwise.
still, it's pretty edgy for a movie from 1967 to have full on bare boobs
come visit my review blog!
http://griffsrandomreviews.wordpress.com/
Funniest movie ever made? Oooookay.
share