Nude Scenes

What they were thinking was "Hey, it is 1973. Let's get naked on camera!"
People might forget that once the barriers against on-screen nudity were lifted, audiences and actors were enthusiastic. Nude scenes were common for big name and "serious" actors, like Oliver Reed, Charlton Heston, Inger Stevens, Glenda Jackson, Angie Dickinson, Burt Reynolds, Ann-Margaret, Alan Arkin, Vanessa Redgrave, Alan Bates... The list is huge. Check out the November or December issues of Playboy from the era 1969-1974 for examples.

And nudity on camera was a common activity for newcomers. Ever see JOE? Susan Sarandon makes her film debut in that film. She strips down within a minute of first scene of the film.

Still, it is funny to see Bruno Kirby's "li'l Bruno", a decade before he would be relatively well known.

I thought the best male nude scene was that of Don Johnson after showering even though it was very brief but you did see everything and like you've said about the others, they should have kept their clothes on definitely.

Surprising isn't it?

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!

[deleted]

You know they weren't trying to make a Porn Movie, right? Because they weren't trying to turn you on, which is the definition of porn (prurient arousal with no other redeeming value).

This movie uses nudity for other reasons, which is just fine too.

I would suggest you go find your favorite genre of Porn if "attractiveness" is your movie watching criteria.

"The More You Know..."

I don't think I saw ANYONE in this film that made me think that they should have stayed dressed. They were far more realistic, vulnerable, normal AND BEAUTIFUL looking than the incredible fakery employed to enhance the appearance of an 'actor' of today.

Someone has used the word judgmental about today's audience. Well of course we have become this way because someone (probably an insecure man and/or jealous woman) somewhere decided that a naked actor had to look a certain way to get a job, to hell with realism.
No female does Playboy without footballs in their chest, no male actor can be filmed slightly undressed for 3 minutes without working out for 6 months with a trainer.
We examine, enlarge, reduce the body until it is no longer human and only surgery will make it fit a mould probably created by an OCD misanthrope.
I dread to think what the remake would be like. Would really care to see it - the botox and lypo surgeons would make a killing. It's philosophy would be - Yes love your body, feel free to undress it as long as it looks this template.
The token 'plain' girl would have glasses and braids because that 's all you need to make you 'ugly' and the token ordinary boy would be just that, ordinary, maybe with the wrong haircut. Neither would have huge thighs , acne that no amount of make up could cover, pot belly, bad teeth.
Personally speaking, once you stop giggling over the 'nekkedness' (not gratuitous and sensationalised IMHO) the discussed philosophy in the film/book is worth a discussion or two. There is humour in the film about this very subject and it is quite charmingly dealt with when the bespectacled guy implies that he doesn't think he is 'beautiful' enough to join in naked morning yoga classes.
O for a world where we can stop worrying about the way we all LOOK and just feed and shelter and educate our fellow human beings.

AHHH! Rant over!!