Why does everybody have to be naked- the witches Macduff's son. It adds nothing to the story
shareJust ordered this movie and watched finally was able to see it! Very well done.
Weren't witches (at least during their ceremonies or whatever) seem to always be naked. Even in the Salem witch trials they were said to be see in the woods dancing naked in the moonlight.
Just ordered this movie and watched finally was able to see it! Very well done.
Weren't witches (at least during their ceremonies or whatever) seem to always be naked? Even in the Salem witch trials they were said to be seen in the woods dancing naked in the moonlight.
To those of you who insulted Americans, some of us have a problem with movies like these because we don't like HOW the nudity is portrayed. I hated the film for many reasons, but the nudity (except for the witch scene) I had a problem with because it seemed like the people who were nude were being intruded on by the unecessary presence of other people in the room. I don't have any problem with nudity and I'm well-aware that boys bathe naked, but I really don't buy another person's comment that the presence of the mother during her son's bath was meant to portray the innocence and love between them. Uh, sorry, but that utter lack of modesty between mother and son is normal for five-year-old boys, not boys as big as the one in that scene, so the woman's presence was pushy instead of loving and she rubbed me the wrong way as did the "doctor" who stood staring at the naked Lady Macbeth (I didn't see him doing anything medical!) I didn't have any problem with the boy or Lady Macbeth being naked perse, I just hated the in-your-face feeling both scenes had. Now that I think of it, though, perhaps Polanski did that to portray the vulnerability of both characters; Lady Macbeth's nakedness represented her mental vulnerability and the boy's nakedness made his youth and defenselessness clear (note it showed him naked right before he was murdered). In fact, perhaps Polanski aimed to not only use their nakedness as proof of their vulnerability, but the presence of other people in the room DURING their nudity to portray their naivety; Lady Macbeth didn't know a man was watching her and the kid didn't seem to know he was too old to have mommy bathe him, so, basically, their physical vulnerability and their naivety made them both sitting ducks to whatever harm was wished upon them (a long-shot, perhaps, but hey I think I'm on to something!) So, that's my take on it. I'd appreciate not being attacked or mocked, like some of the posters here; I have no problem with tasteful nudity, but the film itself altogether just made me feel...icky. I'll avoid watching it again.
share[deleted]
I see where you're coming from. The prophecy scene was actually the only one I didn't have a problem with; the others, though, I didn't like for the aforementioned reasons. Still, I did feel a great deal that Polanski was just going for the shock value, with the violence as well as some of the nudity. A lot of the movie felt gratitous; unlike the nudity and violence in "Romeo and Juliet" (old version), it didn't feel like a necessary part of the story. (Well, ok, the violence WAS a part of the story, but I didn't like the extent it went to).
share[deleted]
My opinion has nothing to do with prudishness. I, for example, just didn't like how two of the scenes were handled. I have no problem with nudity, bub, just disrespect and that's what it seemed was happening in some of the scenes. Part of the storyline? Please; neither scene that I mentioned even remotely required nudity. This ain't Equus. Besides, most, if not all, of the nudity was absent in the play (the only scene I'm not sure about is the witch scene). Those were Polanski's additions, which is and was why his version is remembered as being outrageous (whether in a good or bad way). In the play, though, how old was Mcduff's son?
shareI haven't seen the film, but you can't reject a play written by shakespeare on the basis of a film produced by a playboy for god sake. Obviously no tastless nudity in the play. And regarding modesty - I certainly wasn't modest around my family when I was 8 or 9. Why should anyone be? Even after 8 or 9 plenty of people aren't particularly modest about being naked around their family - it's like being modest around a doctor. ridiculous. Obviously you wouldn't go running about the house naked, but changing and bathing are perfectly normal - it's not like they r going to be particularly bothered unless they have serious issues. Nobody should be bothered by a child's nudity - least of all his/her mother.
shareGood grief, it's got nothing to do with someone being "bothered" by someone else's nudity; God knows I'm not, I love tastefully nude art. But appreciating the beauty of the body and invading someone's bath time are two different things. It's a simple matter of respect. It's one thing to be undressed in front of a family member, but bathing someone who's too old to be bathed just isn't necessary. "Even after 8 or 9, most people aren't modest about being naked in front of their family." Where'd you get that idea? Maybe you weren't, but most psychologists will tell you that the majority of kids need at least some privacy by that age and don't take baths in front of their families; not wanting to be naked in front of your family, especially when you're older than 9 or 10 and reaching puberty, is not ridiculous at all, it's perfectly normal. A mother insisting on washing her big kid when he's more than old enough to do that himself, though, is not normal, it's nosy. You're right, bathing and dressing are normal, but are they usually done in front of the family? No. They ain't public ceremonies. Most people don't go naked around their families or bathe in front of them. Just so you know, I'm not rejecting the play (I realize I said I would in my original post, but I changed my mind); my point was the film could have been a lot more like the play and, thereofore, a lot better. Considering Polanski's personal tragedies, though, I'm trying not to be as hard on him as I have been in the past. Poor guy :(
share[deleted]
Some eight year-olds are like that, but most kids (usually older than eight) will not act that way; by the time they're nine or ten, the need for modesty is more likely and that age is the one I was focused on more than the age of eight because the kid here looked older than eight. Still, even kids who would run around nude at inappropriate times probably wouldn't want adults washing their bodies by the time they're old enough to do it themselves; that's more personal than just streaking around the house. And yes, I have read about the matter psychologically; the age of modesty I read about was probably nine rather than eight, but most 8-year-olds still usually prefer to give themselves baths. "It's not supposed to be contemporary, is it?" So what? Shakespeare's time was even more conservative than ours; the scene in question was Polanski's addition, not put in by Shakespeare and I'd thought the kid was older than eight, which was the main reason for my comments. And no, this argument wasn't ridiculous because I was trying to explain my own feelings on the matter; if anyone would like to move on from this subject to other scenes, though, by all means let's do so. I've already said I don't care that people were nude in the film; I just wish other people hadn't been there watching and/or washing them because it felt intrusive. And btw, most Americans I know don't consider nudity pornography. They're just extra protective of children and it's easy to see why.
share[deleted]
Yeah, I've noticed that occasionally people worry more about nudity than violence, and with recent movies like Saw and Hostel, I fear that's getting worse. Like I said, I have no problem with nudity itself; I'm just very careful about not disrespecting people. I don't have a problem, for instance, with the nude witches in this film; I think that was an interesting addition because it not only portrayed older pagan practices with some accuracy, but added a disturbing quality to the scene (not because they were nude, but nude while practicing dark magic, you know? Utterly exposed before the forces of darkness and such) Out of curiousity, anyone know how many witches there were in the play itself?
share[deleted]
I think it was around three too, though I'm not sure. That's another interesting example of how plays can differ from movies, in the number of characters. In "The Crucible" too, I think, more girls were in the movie than the play.
shareI just didn't like the fact the witches were old and naked that was nasty.
shareLOL I thought it was supposed to represent pagan practices of the time, but someone else said it was supposed to double their repulsiveness, so maybe your reaction was expected!
shareNudity had to be in the film because in Shakespeare's time all parts were played by males and that wouldn't work nude. Also, a boy tends to become Really sensitive about his development at the beginning of puberty. Before or after he couldn't care less (my take).
shareWell, I don't agree with your take, but whatever; the point is, I didn't see some of the nudity as necessary or having any reason for being. For many reasons, I didn't like this film. Plus, Polanski seems to have fallen into the Woody Allen department (in his personal life) and I no longer know what to expect from him.
shareI don't see what a director's personal life has to do with his films.
The nudity in this film is not even particularly explicit - Lady Macbeth is generally shown from behind or with hair covering her breasts... so, one could hardly say that Polanski was just inserting nudity for its own sake, if anything he was being rather tasteful.
The kid? I know people are obsessed with pedophilia and the like these days, but really there should be no problem with a child appearing naked in a film. You're pretty twisted if you think that that scene may have had erotic intentions.
As for the witches, some other posters have made the point that witches were supposed to have spent a lot of time naked. I can't say I'm an authority on witches, but I did see the silent Danish movie Haxan, which mentioned the fact that witches were often naked, so I guess it must be right.
What I can't understand, though, is that there is even a thread on this. This is hardly an explicit instance of nudity in terms of the history of cinema, or even in a mainstream film. Is it because it occurred in a Shakespeare adaptation?
Even though it is a generalisation, I do have the suspicion that this is a purely American concern. Nudity just isn't that big a deal, in general, and especially in this film. Personally, I was more concerned by the disturbing violence - sure, it was part of the film, but it did leave a bit of a metaphorical bad taste in the mouth afterwards (I guess that was Polanski's intention).
If Polanski has less inhibition in real life, he might have little inhibition in his films. Let's just say I'm not sure what to think, generally. As for the film, I never said there was erotic intent in the scene with the kid; I have explained over and over why I don't particularly like those scenes and it has nothing to do with being twisted or pedophilia. I've also said before that I have no problem with nudity, adult or otherwise and that I actually have no problem with the witch scene; I even mentioned your same point, that witches of the time were nude. I didn't care that Lady Macbeth was nude perse; I thought her nudity was actually done quite beautifully, but the fact that someone was staring at her took away from it and felt invasive to me. It would have been better if she was filmed alone, for effect if nothing else, since she really was alone in her mind. I agree that the violence was really bad, which was just another reason I disliked the film.
shareThere's been a fair bit of discussion in this strand about children of this age being naked in the presence of family. That's down to each individual family and how they feel about it. But it's not the intimacy of family we are talking about here. We are talking about a young actor having to bare his genitals to the camera for all to see and I don't believe for one second that he wanted to do this or that he got some kind of thrill from it. How did the boy feel about losing his privacy and his dignity - did he feel abused? Whatever were his parents thinking about by allowing this: presumably they gave their permission for their child to be embarrassed, degraded and humiliated for public consumption. Call me a prude, but I can't help feeling for a young boy who, given the choice, would probably have wanted to keep his privates private and his self-respect intact.
great scott
Let's hope the kid's parents in real life weren't as overbearing as his character's seemed to be. Still, I don't think he'd feel abused unless he was actually forced to do it. I did hear that he was embarassed about it when he was older, though. Good points, sn. The nudity wasn't pornographic, but it wasn't necessary either. The witches nude were an interesting touch and Lady Macbeth was lovely, but like I said before, I'd prefer that she'd been alone in her scene.
share[deleted]
the nudity in this movie is not pornographic in that the nudity's purpose is not to draw sexual arousal in its viewers. the nudity is purely artistic.
shareHmph. It's certainly not pornographic, but it also didn't add a thing to the story and I don't remember any scenes with someone naked ALONE. There was always someone else looking at them, and it felt invasive to me (none of the situations, if I remember correctly, were sexual).
shareThe nudity in Polanski's Macbeth is just silly and detracts from the screenplay. In terms of structure, plot, characterisation and even stage direction it is difficult perhaps impossible to better Shakespeare.
Lady Macbeth nude in her husband's palace (where the sleepwalking scene takes place) ? Consider this for one moment : the setting of all the Acts are in the Kingdom of Fife, i.e, on the north side of the Firth of Forth in turn north of Edinburgh, Scotland. Though the play was written between 1603 and 1605, it is based on the 11th century conflicts, principally in north east Scotland, of the early Scottish kings, mormaers, earls and thanes. Anyone familiar with east Scotland's climate will know that nobody would move around, at any time of the year, neither in windy 'castle' nor snug croft, naked. Nudity in the film is utterly unnecessary to the power of the play and certainly untrue to the setting of the play. If Polanski had deliberately and explicitly transposed the setting, let's say to 21st century Baghdad, or a climate controlled New York apartment, then he'd have given himself the historical licence to change the climate and buildings. But he didn't. He stuck with some early medieval Scottish setting.
And nude witches ? Nothing in the original play - nor Shakespeare's reference to witches in other plays - remotely suggests that they be naked. Again the point above obtains : why would the three witches, if real persons, be naked on a dark and windswept moor ? If they were mere apparitions, ghosts as it were, how could their nudity be noticed ? The film basically misunderstands and misrepresents the idea of 'witches' in early 17th century England and 11th century Scotland. They are not women with pointy hats and they are not even the 'witches' as described in Salem, Mass, in, for example, Miller's 'The Crucible.'
Macbeth is already one of the richest and most powerful pieces of art in the western canon. There is absolutely no need - and in my view, absolutely no justification - to add to it through vicarious uses of nudity. It is true, of course, that the Macbeth - Lady Macbeth relationship could be interpreted as one of sexual power. Again I'd say that this grossly underestimates and distorts the fantastical power of Shakespeare's art, but even if we grant that sexual intrigue is important to the play, the non-sexual use of nudity undermines this possible artistic licence for Polanski. As others have said here, there is little or nothing sexual about the nudity, it certainly is not erotic, and is a million miles from being pornographic. (In any case for power to be sexual doesn't require it to be either erotic nor pornographic, still less does sexual power need to present itself in the nude).
JS
But your insistence that nothing in the play suggests it doesn't mean it can't be done. Film adaptations of Shakespeare plays are adaptations and don't need to be to the letter, and besides Shakespeare leaves a good deal of staging to interpretation and rightfully so.
share[deleted]
simple, because it's a playboy production! :)
shareCome on … This is Polanski we’re talking about: one of the very best film makers there’s ever been. He is very very talented. I don’t buy the argument that the nudity was put there because of Hugh Hefner. If that’s what you think, picture this: One of the nudes in the film on the cover of Playboy.
Polanski just doesn’t have the hang-ups about nudity that many other people have. Showing actors nude is an artistic decision. Just like it was in ‘Rosemary’s Baby.’ He did it because it had a certain aesthetic that felt right for the scene. And he was perfectly entitled to do that.
There’s nothing erotic about that scene with Lady Macbeth. She looks vulnerable.
"There’s nothing erotic about that scene with Lady Macbeth. She looks vulnerable."
I liked that scene, except that someone was staring at her. Every time there was a nude person, they were old enough to have modesty, yet someone was watching them and invading their privacy. It felt disrespectful and intrusive; I hated it!
[deleted]