That just ruined an otherwise decent musical/drama that had some excellent song and dance routines in it not to mention a good sobering commentary on the darkness of the Depression years. But the lipstick on the nipples scene was just unfortunately and unnecessarily depraved.
shareBecause no one wants to answer your question. Though I must admit that it makes me sad that someone watching this would not see the purpose of that scene.. the idea of being so appalled seems rather puritanical. Anyhow I think that the purpose is simple to show how Arthur being given exactly what he wants will still be cruel and ungrateful, that he is just that thoughtless and 'base' morally. I think for the wife it shows that even though it may sting or be horribly hard for her that she was willing to do absolutely anything for him. It is there to, I believe, set the stage for the baselines of their relationship.
share... because it demonstrates Arthur's desire to break away fom the conventional life that he feels smothered by and his sexual dissatisfaction with his wife ... it also shows her inability to share his fantasies and her discomfort in attempting to satisfy desires thar seem to her, perverse ... it was a perfectly valid and psychologically telling scene in what is, after all, a film for adults, and one which in my opinion is one of the most under-rated and disturbing films of the eighties.
But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.
Whoa..bet you weren't expecting this kind of reaction from the board.
You don't deserve it. You are allowed to your opinion...if you found the scene creepy (and I understand that), you're entitled to say so without being insulted. You're not "puritannical" just because you objected to something in this movie. Just to let you know.
He said it's all in your head, and I said, so's everything--
But he didnt get it.
[deleted]
Hear hear. Also, to the OP, the movie is supposed to be creepy.
I know I'm shouting, I like to shout.
No, I'm not attempting to set the OP to...what was it? Oh, a "baloney platform of untouchability"...merely saying that that none of us have a right to insult someone based on one view. We can counter his thoughts with our opinions, of course...but no need to take his criticism so personally and respond by insults.
Personally, I think I have too much bloom. Maybe that's the trouble with me.
[deleted]
Actually, not passive aggressive. But that's fine...I know when I'm beaten.
Personally, I think I have too much bloom. Maybe that's the trouble with me.
In the OP defense, the movie doesn't do a very good job of showing the importance of it.
In the original series, because of the length, we're given time to realize what an important a fetish it is to Arthur, and the how strong a gesture it is.
In the film, it kind of just pops up with no prior warning.
[deleted]
I saw this movie 15 years before I ever saw the miniseries, and I had no problem understanding what the point (ha ha) of the nipple scene was.
I know I'm shouting, I like to shout.
I'm far from prudish, but I agree with the OP that the nipple scene was simply handled very...oddly. I don't know what it was, but it just plain old creeped me the hell out. It made me feel like my soul was being raped! Haha. All in all though, that is how the movie made me feel. Something about this film was just OFF and it's a shame cause it could have been so good.
I get the feeling you're violating somebody's basic human rights here...
It made me feel like my soul was being raped!Um, that's sort of the point. It's not supposed to be a feel-good movie.
Yeah, I realise that...But I still don't think this was a very good movie. Other movies that aren't supposed to be "feel good" nevertheless left me thinking, "Wow, what an amazing movie". Requiem for a Dream, for example. I never want to see that movie ever again, cause it was too painful, but it was brilliant. Pennies From Heaven, on the other hand, had its good moments, but I think it could have been handled better.
I get the feeling you're violating somebody's basic human rights here...
Thanks, dain bramaged, I'm glad somebody agrees with me. I've seen lots of movies that have titty scenes, and if they fit the movie then i don't have a problem with it, but in this version of PFH the nipple scene seemed utterly (udderly?) superfluous and tacked on, as if the filmmakers were trying to be daring and edgy - simply for the sake of it. So, Steve Martin's character was a jerk and an a-hole and not a faithful husband, and the relationship with what's-her-name the wife was doomed, yeah okay, we got that already without the nipple scene being tacked on. Also, in retrospect, it seemed as if they wanted to strip away Steve Martin's goofy comic-guy persona that everybody knew and loved from SNL (I'm referring to his mid-to-late-seventies years at SNL, when everybody had this image of Steve Martin as a lovable comic guy - the "wild and crazy guy" schtick that he did with Dan Aykroyd). So I get the feeling they tacked on the nipple scene, as if to say, "Wow, look at Steve Martin's dramatic acting range!!" What nonsense. The story could easily have been told - and made its point about their doomed relationship - without that scene.
It's too bad, too, as this movie is one that I would loved to have shown my parents or grandparents, as they all lived through the Great Depression. But I wouldn't show it to them. Nor to my kids.
[deleted]
Great post, Ridiculous Dickula: biggest load of laughable hot air I've read yet. I can just picture you somehwere down there in your mother's basement, furiously clattering away on your little keyboard in a lame effort to over-intellectualize a contrived schlock scene in a movie that flopped with the public and critics alike. Ha! Hollywood needs more fawning toadies like you! And how!! I guess the good thing is, at least you've found your purpose in life: to elevate bull-crap using nothing but hot air. And good luck with that! People like you make me want to PUKE!! And don't wear out your keyboard with another load-of-hot-air reply, I don't plan to read any more of your inane horse manure.
Good day, and kind regards to your mother (she has our deepest sympathies).
Wow, dredging up that "mother's basement" cliche for the ten millionth time really adds a lot of weight to your argument. And putting the word "dick" into his user name? The icing on the cake! I must bow before your unstoppable intellect.
I know I'm shouting, I like to shout.
I didn't like the scene either (I felt VERY embarrassed for Jessica Harper) but it WAS necessary in the context of the film. With the exception of the song and dance numbers this movie is dark and depressing. Also we're supposed to hate her character for being so prudish. Again--I don't like that scene either but it works.
shareAlso we're supposed to hate her character for being so prudish. Again--I don't like that scene either but it works.
I disagree. Harper is shown as being a Bible thumper and having no sense of humor. Heck--she won't even have sex with her husband. She's also filmed (and made up) to look terrible. I did a double take when she showed up in that music number with Martin and Peters--she looked fantastic! The rest of the movie she looked unattractive.
shareI saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid (born in 74) and all I remember about this movie was that scene. LOL
I am gonna have to find it to watch it again :)
Just call me DUBZ.
Very quick comment, I saw this movie when it came out, and did not like it. Fast forward to yesterday, and I got to see it again. Literally the ONLY scene I could remember was the nipple scene. That's it. Nothing else. I do not remember if I understood the scene at a young age, but I do now. This scene clearly demonstrates how little he is asking for from his overly prudish wife. Also, it shows even when he gets it he still wants more. None of the characters in this movie are very likable, which is part of why I do not like this film, though it tried very hard and had some amazing moments. In regards to what someone else noted, I do think you were not supposed to like the wife, she is very unappealing, as is the husband. The school teacher was appealing, but she turns unappealing as well, though less than the others. But this movie ultimately fails overall, which is sad, as I wish more movies tried to do interesting concepts like this, even when they fail.
shareIt was kind of creepy.
shareThe scene's primary purpose is to show how unhappy the marriage is between Arthur & his wife by showing the divide between them - she's a prude trying but failing when not out-rightly refusing to live up to his sexual expectations (she's not even comfortable with sex for whatever reason) and he's a dreamer and non-conformist who isn't happy with his life or his marriage. For all we know he only married her for the money her father left her.
I don't think we're meant to dislike his wife, as some here have suggested, we are merely meant to recognize that they aren't a good match for each other. I felt bad for her when she learned about Arthur's infidelity & wanted him castrated for running around on her.