MovieChat Forums > Skammen (1968) Discussion > Nudity

Nudity

posted 15 years ago by mackkanjilal
14 replies | jump to latest

I have always wondered why bergman resorted to nudity in some of his films when he had depicted some sexually intense scenes and has successfully conveyed the idea of it without explicit scenes(e.g. TGAD).I feel the nudity depicted in Shame as well as in Silence(the scene where one of the sisters has sex with the waiter) was not really necessary.Was he trying to depict something that i have missed or........?

P.S.- I do feel that the bathroom scenes and the scenes with the child and his mother in Silence were to a certain extent necessary to convey the feel of the film.

Never hate your enemies...it affects your judgement.

[–] kriege10 15 years ago

The censors were loosening up in the mid-to-late 1960s. You might ask instead, Why weren't there nude scenes in the earlier films? Bergman was dealing with human relationships, including the sexual aspects, so it was natural to show some nudity.

[–] mackkanjilal 15 years ago

Thanks for the a reply. I did get ur point.But I would try to be specific here.Can u tell me what u feel about the nudity in the opening scene of Shame? What was he trying to show? That she sleeps with her shirt unbuttoned? That was not a sexual scene and AFAIK she was not having sex with her husband for quite a long time.Thoughts?

Never hate your enemies...it affects your judgement.

[–] kriege10 15 years ago

I don't know. I suppose it is open to interpretation. Maybe he was trying to show her earthiness or warmth. Maybe he wanted to show that the couple do have sex sometimes and that the wife was ready. Perhaps he was contrasting the husband and wife, showing that the former was a colder person than the latter. What do you think?

[–] mackkanjilal 15 years ago

That is actually a 'very much possible' interpretation. Initially I had this silly notion that he was trying to tell us that even with such a gorgeous wife walking around without clothes Jan was inert and maybe give us an indication of their 'not-so-good' sex life but very soon it occurred to me that people married for so many years may not generally get excited just by a view of their partners' uncovered bodies.I hated to believe that Bergman would actually show some nudity in his films just to attract cheap attention. Hence i intended to have a discussion. I think ur explanation(the contrast thing) is probably the most appropiate in this regard. Very well put indeed!

Never hate your enemies...it affects your judgement.

[–] Brysonashultz 15 years ago

I think that couples just feel comfortable being nude around each other. I mean, they have had sexual relations before, so why not walk around in the nude, right?

"Laura Harring looks like Samuel L. Jackson." - Franzkabuki

[–] organicprankster 15 years ago

There is nudity in the earlier films. There is nudity in Port of Call (1948) for one. Received wisdom is that Summer With Monika contains Bergman's first attempts at nude scenes - which simply isn't true.

Being a European filmmaker Bergman wasn't subject to the Hays Code, and had a rather more liberal attitude towards nudity than the people who ran the US censor office.

§ There is no noun that can't be verbed.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ramondeleeuw 11 years ago

I think the nudity is a way to create added contrast between vulnerability-tenderness on the one hand
and horror-destruction (of war) on the other.
This contrast is quite remarkable in this movie, regardless of the nudity.
Consider also the atmosphere in the open-air dining-scene, and what happens in the next one.
greetings,
Ram

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Ramon,

While I think there is much to your point about the contrast between war and the at least potential for human tenderness on the other, the earlier posts also make a valid point. There is a contrast between the wife's availability and the relatively disengaged husband. I think the suggestion is rather stong that even as the film begins the couple is feeling the effects of the war on their day to day existence.

The nude scene and the fact that it is not related to sex between the couple also compares to Eva's later adulterous doings with Col. Jacobi. Which involved no shown nudity, and in fact stronglyl implied that the two remained mostly clothed in their encounter. An open display of nudity is already insufficient to motivate the couple already feeling war's unnerving effects, sapping confidence in their lives and future, while clothed, hidden sex later takes place as a kind of undermining of the social order, at least insofar as the marriage was concerned.

Interesting.

[–] jrhpax 9 years ago

"Resorted to nudity???"

I think Bergman is making the classic point -- a person can be upset by a woman's breasts, but doesn't get upset about war?

[–] sunheadbowed 8 years ago

Why shouldn't there be nudity in films? There's nudity in real life.

It can offer a moment of tenderness, vulnerability or beauty; I don't see nudity as being cheap or distracting unless it is deliberately there to titillate, and you pretty much know if that's the case or not just from who is directing.

Ullmann was a beautiful woman (I mean this asexually), too.

[–] t-vertrauen 7 years ago

Beautiful. And sexy. I mean it in a very sexual way. I like good movies and great breasts!

[–] CoSMiGoNoN 8 years ago

Like the poster above me said, why can't there be nudity? People are naked in real life, so why can't they be naked? It made the scene more realistic.

[–] gizmomogwai 7 years ago

Last 2 posters hit the nail on the head. There's nudity in real life. When we first meet the couple, they're waking up in bed. The film starts with the beginning of their day. Lots of people sleep in some state of undress. And they're married. But to puritanical viewers, it's "unnecessary," and thus sick and evil. Really disappoints me how stupid some IMDbers are, about nudity in films and films in general.