Nude Scene????

First off, I'm a big fan of this film.

I thought it quite amusing that nudity be such an issue. There seems to be a desire to make nudity acceptable in some instances and yet not in others. For the director to make nudity arousing, do we class this a gratuitous, or is it when there is nudity for no apparent reason, or both?

Why should there be no reason to be naked? Not only am I asking this question of society in general, but also within a films representation of a persons private life in which they spend time naked. Don't think to judge me as a nudist, although such judgements only represent ones fears/ignorance/or stilted opinions, I wear cloathes in public, however this doesn't negate the fact that there is nothing wrong with nudity. We cover ourselves up because (well in generall it's illegal not to) we have insecurities about our bodies, the weather makes no excuses for those in warmer climates.

Now when it comes to nudity on film, it seems that a tradition of insecurity (perhaps passed down via monotheisms guilt trip unto original sin, although a side point) makes us judge what we are seeing. We are born naked, we are born out of sexual desire(which may be argued against), is it degrading to the woman that she be naked or portrayed in a sexual way?

I think we shouldn't answer such questions straight away. What assumptions are we making? What are we holding to be true? If you have religious beleifs, then you may be within a system (the universe as it exists if a Religious God does) in which case you have a strict moral code which gives you the answers to these questions. Yet before we judge a situation I again ask you to question what it is you hold to be true. For what end? Well in this specific case to watch a film, but greater than that, not to feal ashamed with ones self, not to smother sexuality, to see nudity without being voyeuristic. And yet, If a person gets pleasure out of anothers sexuality, what do we say to this? Is this gratuitous?

Lets look at a few examples, a Tim Robbins film 'Jacobs ladder', has brief nudity, for no other reason than as a portrayal of ordinary life. Lynch's 'Mulholland Drive' has nudity of a sexual nature. Although a little more than nudity Roeg's love scene in 'Don't look now', it may serve some purpose in the representation of the couples relationship but I don't think it necessary to the plot of the film. And finally Kubrick's 'Eye's wide shut', and Polanski's 'Bitter Moon', film's in which nudity is almost essential to the plot. I would urge every body to see these films as they are great pieces of cinema, however, for that that would class all but Jacob's ladder as gratuitous how can I reply?

Pointless sexuality, nudity, rape, etc. are all a part of reality, should we not watch a film because there might be a little reality thrown in? Of course not. It's the whole point of Cinema, to experience a reality that is greater than that which we can hope to experience. I don't hope to expeirience rape, or a random woman taking me in to the toilets of a bar, but such things happen in the world and it is important to be reminded of them. A few years ago I refused to watch 'Kids' because, I knew that stuff like that went on, but I just didn't want to deal with it. I think this answer all questions, we need to look into ourselves as to why we don't want to look at, or experience certain things. What Sharon Stone does in 'Basic Instinct', might be sexual for some, distubing for others, we should vet films not on what the content is but on whose making them, and at what time in their career.

I don't know.

Anyway, sorry about the rant.

In my opinion the nude scene is for medical reasons on the outside, but the whole scene is charge with sexual tension, and besides its Binoche not Judi Dench.