have anything to do with the plot of incest or anything? I mean, having to show it I assume it has to have some sort of meaning for the movie. Although the actor sure has guts to show his shortcomings like that erect, really no wiggle room there to say he's a grower then.
share[deleted]
No, it was just his penis.
shareWell if your theory is correct, then I don't see why it was necessary to even show his penis, or really why the actor would agree.
shareFor 'realism'?
I mean they showed the married couple having sex and how she seduced him with her undressed body. So this was included to ensure we 'got' it and were as surprised as William. So that there was no doubt.
And another thing...why not?
I would think that any penis would quickly shrink in size if attached to a man who had just been found in bed with his own sister by said sister's husband.
shareI don't think it could shrink quite that fast, and it would have to be unerected first.
shareDoes Edgar have a small penis? No, It appears average to above average in size. This is not a porn movie, so Edgar would not have a "Fluffer" to insure that he was erect during the scene. In movie reality, as mentioned in previous entries, the sudden shock of being discovered would ceretainly drain the blood from any erect penis. He appears semi-erect which is quite amazing considering there were probably numerous takes of the scene and without the aid of the forementioned fluffer, he must be quite the method actor. It appears the scene was one continous take from the time they were discovered to Edgar putting on his clothes. However, there is a cut-away reaction shot back to William just before we see Edgar's penis which would allow for the possiblity of a pick-up shot or a new setup for the latter half of the scene. If that were the case, the mere fact that he has any resemblance of an erection is amazing, since he would have been out of the bed and away from any stimulation for a lengthly period of time. I feel he has been blessed with a large penis and is quite proud and willing to show it off.
shareThe point of the thread is what I made it out to be, which is, why did the filmmakers decide it was so important to show Edgar's erection?
share[deleted]
What was the point in showing Eugenia totally nude? We always she full frontal from women, but rarely from men (even though her privates are covered with her pubic hair). I didn't think Edgar was small, I'm seen smaller in mainsteam films and on "Oz". You see Williams' a movie called "Intimacy". His co-star actually goes down on him and you see it. He looked average to me.
shareI wasn't aware they had erections in mainstream films... and I've never seen Oz. Also, most of the times full frontal from women they are wearing something over their genitals. They almost always wear a pubic wig to give themselves even more coverage than just pubic hair, and movies never show actual female genitalia. But I'd ask the question as well if immediately after Edgar dismounted Eugenia they felt the need to zoom into her crotch.
share[deleted]
It definitely was not a small erect penis, it was flacid even though he was supposed to have been caught in the act.
What do you mean it was flaccid? Was he in a zero gravity chamber?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sure, the scene called for it, but it was obviously deliberate. It's not like they zoom into a vagina to get the point across that a woman is naked or ready for sex or whatever. That would just be gratuitous and silly, much like out of nowhere deciding it's artistically sound to just have a guy bust out with a boner.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think that's pretty obvious.
The moment is the pivotal shock and transformation of the story. The audience is meant to feel the same shock and dismay as the husband. He would not have been able to cut away and avoid the sight of his naked brother in law, and neither is the audience. We are confronted with the same uncomfortable vision as he. I think it's a case of nudity very well used. It's one thing to see them both in bed, but the penis, in this case, is such a strong symbol of what was going on under the sheets -- it's like a slap in the face. You imagine the husband will never get the sight of his brother in law's half-erection out of his mind.
Aside from that, the scene is a revelation, of everything -- a lifetime of secrets and deception. It's appropriate that the brother is also completely revealed. Because he's naked he's also more vulnerable -- deflated, if you will. It adds a great deal of reality to the scene.
I have no idea where the idea about penis size came from though. That doesn't make much sense per the story, and the actor appears very normal.
In American films nudity is often avoided, but in European films, it's more likely to be used in scenes where there would be nudity in the real world. Therefore, I would not ask why a director choses to show nudity where it makes sense, as much as why one might choose to hide it.
You said it a lot better than I could. I believe the reason we saw him naked was for the shock of the whole scene. You're right in saying the audience was seeing the same as the husband at that time. And as far as it being a small penis I've seen Douglas Henshall naked in another movie (Fast Food)and he looks just fine to me. This last part is not in reference to your post.
shareWas he erect in that movie? I've seen all there is to see.
shareIf it was small, and they chose the actor because it was small, and then they actually did zoom into it (which they didn't! we simply see it when he pulls off her and dresses, we don't get a freakin french angle on it or anything) then maybe it would imply his insecurity of his size and thatis why he chooses to molest almost anything female that moves - which would refelct societys mentality on it today - but i really think it has nothing to do with the symbology of the film. Why show it? Why not? If we can see Eugenia naked, why not show Edgar? The fact that he was on a Semi was jut realistic.
shareFirst: he didn't have a small penis, it was average. Second: he was interrupted in the middle of sex, so logically it would be erect. Third: the fact that we see it adds to the shock of what William witnesses (and us).
share[deleted]
very nice. Also, having seen many a real (non porno penis) I don't know what you are talking about calling that small...you aint seen nothin folks. Seriously, stop watching porns. He was average/above. As to the purpose- I'm just assuming that the person asking this question is American, because we Americans have very different/more prudish associations with nudity than Europe and other places in the world. Its not that big of a deal- it would have been harder I think to work around it, when filming someone naked and changing their clothes- the shock of seeing someone totally naked after interrupting them in the act is a great interpretation for a director's choice as well.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
People who aren't nearly as easy to impress as you.
share[deleted]
You were impressed enough to say it's not small, which would be a major compliment for his junk. I don't come from a place of lilliputian penises.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I can tell using visual markers, in other words points of reference. Since we know from the website that the Eugenia actress is 5'5", and she clearly has small hands and his penis was barely bigger than her hands he's 5 inches maximum. And I think that's being generous.
share[deleted]
By looking at them. The height must be accurate, especially since she appears it based on the set, and therefore she's already fairly small and for her 5'5" frame they look small even still. I've always been very good at using proportions to determine extremely accurate measurements.
share[deleted]
This isn't the Lord of the Rings. There's no forced perspective here. I know how large the insects are, for instance, and they fly around her. I instantly know how large her hands, face, etc is. Edgar, therefore, in relation to her has an obviously small penis. I can tell it's no more than five inches. It's definitely no more than five inches. You're disagreeing with scientific methodology.
share[deleted]
I think that anything under 6 inches is small. And only 8 inches and above can be considered big. Even a minuscule 5 incher is his max, as I've said before.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
With all due respect, are you male or female?
shareYou need to get over your penis fixation. You sound obsessed. ...and as for your pronouncements regarding your so-called ability to determine accurate measurements based on surrounding objects/proportions, you sound like a ridiculous pompous ass. I sure hope you took into account whether or not the film was shown"pan & scan", letter-boxed, screen proportions, etc..... Why are you so concerned about this actors erect penis? It says much more about your insecurities/"shortcomings", then it does about his penile "shortcomings...."
Ewwwww...you're creepy.
[deleted]