I have heard a lot about the amount of nudity in this movie - and even the word erection attached to it - but how graphic is it really? Does it feature stiff ones? Is there a lot of female nudity too?
"How's that for a slice of fried gold"
There is male and female nudity. But it is used in the context of the story in a very interesting way. You see Ewan MacGregor naked who plays a translator. It makes me laugh when I think of a remark Ewan gave recently about his part in YOUNG ADAM. This one features also some nudity and almost got an X.
shareHello,
The nudity (Both male and Female) is a part of the movie... it's not really sexualy graffic... however it goes get graphic in another sense (Infact I dident finnish watching the movie as it really disturbed me... I'm in my 20's but I could not watch the rest of it)
Hope that helps you out!
There is a close up shot of someone's butt hole.
That's how graphic.
I wouldn't say there's a little nudity in this movie, I would say there is A LOT of nudity in this movie! But having said that I will also say that it serves a function and is not just used as shock value. It displays the human body as nothing short of a work of art being used as a canvas for another art form. If you can handle walking through a museum with sculptures of the naked human form, then you can handle the nudity in this movie. Most of the nudity in this movie does not relate at all to anything sexual. Well...that covered the nudity end of "graphic" but there was a scene that others have eluded to that was graphic in a much different way,...
SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT!!!!
The skinning and making of paper out of Jerome's corpse's skin sequence got to me. I too am in my 20s and I have seen many graphically violent things in movies that didn't phase me at all, but this sequence made me want to turn off the movie and call it a night. It was VERY detailed (maybe moreso than was needed). I mean, showing the razor cutting into his skin, showing the removing of the skin from the body, and then showing the removal of debris from the skin itself ( I can't even think about it without getting a quesey feeling) Was the point of showing this to jolt the auidence? Show how sadistic the publisher really was? I think there are other, and just as effective, way of getting the same point across without disgusting a majority of the audience to the degree that they would not continue to watch the film and immediately write it off as horrible and disgustingly "graphic"
Thanks for mentioning the whole skinning bit. I am quite sensitive to stuff like this so something like that willl probley bother me alot. I will definitly look out for that when I finally catch this movie
Is it wrong that I am also in my 20s and had no problem at all watching the skinning? I mean, it's not like I got off on it or something... but I almost found it cool/interesting.
shareWas the point of showing this to jolt the auidence? Show how sadistic the publisher really was?
i don't think so. not at all. on the contrary, it's an image of beauty, showing the loving care that's taken in the preparation of the book. it's a surreal image, but definitely not an exercise in shock value. it's movingly beautiful.
There are no more naked bodies than you would find in any art class. The sex scenes are played down, but there is extensive nudity. In most parts of the world nudity is not taboo, the human body - even imperfect ones, each have their own beauty. At no point is Ewan MacGregor "stiff." If you have a problem with human sexuality then this is not the movie for you.
share[deleted]
it is very graphic, but at the same time, it is beautiful.
it is a very good film.
Um, here's the list:
1. Male and female full frontal nudity.
2. Heterosexual and homosexual intercourse.
3. The process of suicide (yes, there is a somewhat long scene showing a man poison himself in stages).
4. A partially decomposed corpse.
5. Post-mortem mutilation (someone mentioned the skinning).
6. The inscription of "Our father who art in heaven" on a woman's naked body, with the word "evil" emphasized across her lower abdomen. Not that it's "explicit" per se, but religious people and viewers sensitive to feminist issues tend to find this scene offensive.
If you can stomach all that, it's a really beautiful film.
[deleted]
Really, it's no more graphic than the images in the newspaper lately. No, wait--those are of pointless death and destruction. No, wait--we get sanitized, plasticized news...so I rescind that.
This movie is more than about images--it's also about ideas. So if you're weighing it, consider it as a whole: images + ideas. Consider it as you would art. And if going to a museum offends you, maybe it's time for a reality check. Not everything in life is going to be pretty, or clean, or done according to your values. You have a choice: don't watch it or open your mind and experience something new.
There's a lot of nudity, a lot more male than female (except for breasts). I'm pretty sure there aren't any erections shown.
Yes, there's intercourse, but not really shown. So it's just like in any mainstream American movie.
"Partially decomposed corpse"? Can't say I noticed that.
And the mutilation/skinning isn't that bad. Yes, there's a scene with a close-up of skin that gets cut by a scalpel, and some blood trickling out, but that's the only graphic scene. You don't actually see any skinning. People's imaginations obviously are more vivid than the actual scene. :)
Not too graphic but definitely sleep inducing. I love The Cook, The Thief, His Wife And Her Lover BTW, so STFU!!
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!