You are, in principle, right.
The "problem" is that such keywords are selected, and interpreted, in a cultural context. If a US made movie actually depicted "Child Nudity, Bare Butt, Nude Bathing, Nude In Public, Nude Swimming, Infant Nudity" and (full frontal) "Male Nudity", it certainly wouldn't be "just the ways things are" - it would be deliberate, some sort of main point, or "purpose" of the movie.
The Ronia moive has sort of "purpose" of displaying neither naked children nor naked adult men rolling in the snow after a sauna bath. That's just the way things are. You might as well add as a keyword "green trees" - the movie clearly deals with green trees. So what? Add it as a keyword, then!
The naked kids and adults, and the green trees, are rather insignificant for identifying the moive. Inessential. So why add them?
There are movies for which keywords like "Child nudity" and "Nude bathing" do represent essential characteristics of the movie, and IMDB users who search for such charateristics should be guided to the appropriate selections. But guiding them to Ronia is grossly misleading. In the recent newspaper debates in Norway, there were people denying that there were any nudity in Ronia until pointed to the specific scenes - that shows how natural, how insignificant the nudity is.
Of course: Just like people add popular search terms to the metadata of their web pages to obtain a high Google ranking, so may "nude"-related terms cause a lot of people to buy, and watch, the movie. That's a good thing - Ronia is a great movie! Nevertheless: Adding to it a long series of keywords related to nudity and nakedness is rather misleadng!
reply
share