[deleted]
There is quite a bit of nudity with a bit more focus on women. It's shocking for us Americans to see a fully-erect penis on film (outside of hardcore pornography that is). However, there is no actual penetration shown.
shareAll nudity was within context and not just added for fun. Realistic bodies, no bubble boobies like today.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
"All nudity was within context and not just added for fun"
That's 100% correct. There is a full erection shown but it IS needed for the integrity of the story. Also the rating has been lowered from its original X rating to an R--with no cuts.
The camera lingers on the nude males a bit more than we are used to in American films but I attribute that to Pasolini's being gay. Overall, there is not that much nudity and it is tastefully done. (Although tastefullness is probably not what Boccaccio was aiming for!).
Perhaps you can attribute that to male beauty in question!
This actually proves what a double-standard the MPAA has when it comes to rating nudity!! How come male penises can be shown, even close-up, and passed with an R-rating, but a woman's vagina CANNOT be shown??! The most we ever see of women is bush (pubic hair), NOT the actual genitalia.(Female genitalia is not pubic hair, it is the vulva/labia) How come a man's dick and balls can be shown but not a woman's pussy or anus?? How come women can't be shown in positions where THEIR full genitalia is fully visible. (such as bent over or with their legs apart) How come a close-up of a man's FULLY ERECT PENIS can be shown in this film and passed with an R-rating, but if equally graphic female nudity was shown, such as a close-up of a spread-open vagina, it would get an NC-17 rating. In fact, the MPAA has never even allowed a woman's full genitalia (the vulva/labia/clitoris or anus) to be clearly shown in any R-rated film, but then they go and allow a man's erect dick to be shown? Its a sexist double-standard! Somebody needs to make a film and clearly show a woman's entire genitalia (vulva and anus) and then SUE THE MPAA if they try to rate it NC-17. If extremely graphic male genital nudity can be passed with an "R-rating", then extremely graphic female genital nudity must also be passed with the SAME rating. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
shareDon't know where you're getting this crap about full frontal male nudity always getting an R. "The Decameron" is one of the very full times it was allowed! Up until the 1980s full frontal guys gave u an automatic X. And an erection was NEVER allowed. In fact in the movie "Jade" there was plenty of female nudity but a quick shot of a mans testicles had to digitally erased or it would have gotten an NC-17! Name ALL the movies with full frontal male nudity in them that got an R. I'll be surprised if you get more than 5. As for female nudity--that numbers in the hundreds. And if you really want to see a vagina in closeup get a porn video.
shareUh no, preppy-3, you are a retard. Why should I have to rent a porno to see a vagina??!! THAT's the double-standard I'm talking about! How come queers like you can rent an R-rated movie at your local video store that shows a man's penis close-up (even an ERECT penis in this case), but heterosexuals like me can't see a woman's genitalia in ANY R-rated film?! (And we certainly can't see a spread-open vagina, which is the female equivelant of showing a man's erection)
As for your challenge to name 5 films showing full male genital nudity, I can do that easily. There has been more than a dozen films showing full male genitalia in just the last 24 months. Here's 5: (Saving Sarah Marshall, Bruno, Bronson, Jackass-3D, Walk Hard) Now lets see you name 5 films that clearly showed full female genitalia (which means the clitoris and labia, NOT just pubic hair) in the TOTAL history of cinema. Since you can't do it, that proves I'm right and you're an idiot.
You'll a total pervert. If you really want to see that much explicit female nudity then rent a porno. And close-ups of a man's penis???? With the sole exception of the "Jackass" films u never see that. And NEVER an erection. Just rent a porno and get over it.
sharePreppy-3...You are obviously a moron who cannot follow logic. The entire point of the argument is based around what type of nudity can be shown in MAINSTREAM, NON-PONOGRAPHIC FILMS. The double-standard is based on the fact that full male genitalia can be seen in mainstream films (which includes the pubic hair, penis, and testicles) but full female genitalia (which is the pubic hair, clitoris, and labia) cannot be seen. The most we ever see of women is pubic hair, NOT the actual genitalia, which is the clitoris/labia/vulva. This is the double-standard that I'm critisizing. For you to say "If you want to see a vulva, go rent a porno" shows that you have a complete inability to grasp the argument.
The question is, Why is the vagina censored from mainstream viewing, but the penis is not? Why the double-standard? That would be the same as having a reverse situation, where EVERY part of the female anatomy could be seen in mainstream cinema (including close-ups of the vagina, labia, vulva, clitoris, and anus) and yet a penis could not be seen in any regular movie, and then when a woman comments about it and says how unfair it is, telling her to "go rent a porno if you want to see a penis". Obviously, that response would be idiotic. The fact is, if every part of the male sexual anatomy can be shown, then every part of the female sexual anatomy can and should be shown in MAINSTREAM CINEMA too and passed with an R-rating. Period.
Maybe I'm missing the point but you're talking about closeups of the female anatomy. Why show that? And don't tell me they show closeups of the male anatomy cause they don't. "Shame" got an NC-17 cause u saw a guy's penis three times! If u can name just five MAINSTREAM R-rated films in the last few years that show a guy's penis (and not just a flash--I mean a long lingering shot) then u have an argument--but I don't think u can.
As for the feamle anatomy--what the hell is the point of showing a closeup of the vagina? Seriously--if it's needed fine--but WHEN would it be needed? You just seem to want it shown for no other reason than u think it should be. Fine. That's what pornos are made for.
Why are you talking about American censorship? This is an Italian film! The USA does not rule the world, despite your country's best efforts.
shareBecause the film played it America with an X rating originally because of the male nudity. This has nothing to do with us supposedly thinking we rule the world.
Buy an anatomy book and stop looking for "full female genitalia (which means the clitoris and labia, NOT just pubic hair)" in non-porno film.
sharesonofabird...You are obviously a moron who cannot follow logic. The entire point of the argument is based around what type of nudity can be shown in MAINSTREAM, NON-PONOGRAPHIC FILMS. The double-standard is based on the fact that full male genitalia can be seen in mainstream films (which includes the pubic hair, penis, and testicles) but full female genitalia (which is the pubic hair, clitoris, and labia) cannot be seen. The most we ever see of women is pubic hair, NOT the actual genitalia, which is the clitoris/labia/vulva. This is the double-standard that I'm critisizing. For you to say "If you want to see full female genitalia, go buy an antomy book" shows that you have a complete inability to grasp the argument.
The question is, Why is the vagina censored from mainstream viewing, but the penis is not? Why the double-standard? That would be the same as having a reverse situation, where EVERY part of the female anatomy could be regularly seen in mainstream cinema (including close-ups of the vagina, labia, vulva, clitoris, and anus) and yet a penis could not be seen in any regular movie, and then when a woman comments about it and says how unfair it is, telling her to "go buy an anatomy book if you want to see a penis". Obviously, that response would be idiotic. The fact is, if every part of the male sexual anatomy can be shown, then every part of the female sexual anatomy can and should be shown in MAINSTREAM CINEMA too and passed with an R-rating. Period.
It's not that I don't understand the argument (which I think is wrong on its face), I think it's a remarkably stupid one.
shareIs it worth watching based on a pornographic sense? Well, you can pause it when they show little boys' penises if that's your thing.
shareThere’s quite a lot, both male and female, much of it attractive and none of it gratuitous.
share