MovieChat Forums > Il portiere di notte (1974) Discussion > how graphic in todays standards? is ther...

how graphic in todays standards? is there a rating?

The controversy behind this film seems to be either political or sexual. How explicit is the film? Is it graphic enough to justify those who write it off as cheap porn?


I'd say R. The only "porn" would be Lucia and Max having sex on the floor, and you can see Lucia isn't wearing any undergarments "there."

Though the big controversy would definately have to be the "Nazi chic" portrayed when Charlotte Rampling (Lucia) sings to a room full of Nazis dressed only in trousers, leather gloves, and a Nazi cap. Charlotte Rampling just oozes sex, so there's the controversy there.


It's graphic in the sense that there's a lot of nudity (primarily Rampling topless), at least one scene of nude male thrusting into presumably a female (presumably an SS guard with a camp prisoner), and some sex scenes between Rampling and Bogarde which aren't the usual soft-focus "love making". And Rampling's topless performance isn't brief or badly lit, either; she spends a lot of well-lit camera time topless.

I think some of the explicitness comes from the fact that a fair amount of the sex involves pathos and dominance/submission with a decidedly weird Nazi theme.

I thought it was more explicit (and artier) than "Eyes Wide Shut", at least in its US release.

What was kind of amusing was seeing Rampling in this role having last seen her in "Swimming Pool" and thinking that Ludvigne Sangier was so free with her body and Rampling the prude. Although I think I find Sangier more enticing; Rampling's a tad scrawny.


Primarily there are two scenes with full frontal nudity the first has it from both sexes while the second is just female. Also there is a penis shown. These three scenes are non sexual and are rather brief. There is a scene later on where you see a woman's breasts for a minute which can be seen as sexual. Also there is a little bit of violence here and there, mind you it is non graphic except for one very brief scene.


By today's standards I wasn't shocked at all but I could see how people might have been in the 1970's. The most 'shocking' thing in this film is Charlotte Rampling's weight.

Some places are like people, some shine and some don't.


Come off it. It's in no way tame by today's - or any day's - standards. A film like this would NEVER get a mainstream release today. Frankly, if you're not a little disturbed by this film on first viewing, then, well, you're probably disturbed enough already. (I speak as a fan of the film).


Telling people that they're disturbed if they don't find a film disturbing is very foolish because all reactions to art are entirely subjective.

I think it is an amazing, provocative, depressing, beautiful film about two people so trapped by and in their pasts that they will deny themselves any hope of a life or even a future in favor of returning to that past so that they can live in a state of amour fou.

Both Max and Lucia have been dead since the camps; when they see each other again and resume their relationship they do so knowing that it will end in their deaths, that they will become they ghosts they have been all along.

It doesn't disturb me in the slightest. It makes me very sad. They are damaged, broken people who have no way out.

"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch


Two years earlier Deep Throat - a fully pornographic film - had received a successful mainstream release, and other porno movies were big hits back in those days, with ads in the press, general releases etc. The Night Porter would not have been particularly shocking to a discerning audience. 'Nazisploitation' was practically a sub-genre by the time of its release. I haven't seen any of the more notorious examples but The Night Porter with its mainstream stars was, I am quite sure, a lot tamer than many.