Just saw the movie for the first time. The opening scene misleads where the movie is going. However, it gave depth and humanized the main character. It was his launching pad to his quest.
great movie... I don't how i missed it all these years.
[deleted]
The opening scene showed an exiled nobleman coming in the room of a dying nobleman who ridiculed him in the past and cost him his place at court. The man came in the room and peed on the dying man who was too sick to respond. I don't remember that it was the main character - I suppose I should re-watch it - but seemed to set up the cruel wordplay to follow and the consequences.
shareIt wasn't the main character.
Did anyone else think that the doodly was fake? Like a prosthetic? Sort of like the last scene in Boogie Nights?
[deleted]
I kind of felt it set the tone to the movie. Guy probably relieved himself on his tomb too but this way he got to see his enemy's humiliation up close. Given the extremes of word-play and cut-throat court behavior it seemed believable.
In terms of brutality, social backstabbing & reprehensive behavior I didn't find it even close to the later scene outside of the King's antechamber. That scene where the priest stole the noble's shoe triggering his suicide was just unexcusable.
Didn't think it was necessary to show penis, fake or otherwise.
I almost shut the movie off right there.
Plenty of movies show these types of scenes without displaying the "equipment"
I think I have to agree with you. I couldn't think of any reason for them to show that. Superfluous. I thought the movie in general was great, though.
"Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it." -Andre Gide
[deleted]
I'm sure if it had been a lovely pair of breasts you wouldn't have had a problem with it.
I thought the opening scene was great. I started cracking up, and immediately my attention was seized because I was in shock from what I had just seen. "This guy is peeing on this old dude??? What the *&&^#?"
And it did set a tone for the film. These people were ruthless, and that was the point.
lotuslalune, like a typical DUMB FEMINIST you make a completely illogical argument! "A lovely pair of breasts" is NON-GENITAL NUDITY. That is completely different from showing a penis (genital nudity) close-up and URINATING! Why don't you try comparing apples to apples. Had the movie shown a CLOSE-UP OF A VAGINA PEEING then we would have an accurate comparison. I bet a feminist like you would call a close-up of a peeing vagina to be "exploitative". Furthermore, the MPAA would have probably rated it NC-17 had the same scene been portrayed with a vagina. I've never seen a good close-up of a woman's vagina (not just pubic hair but her actual vagina) in any R-rated film, let alone urinating. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
shareIn all my life, I've never heard of or seen a vagina peeing.
Perhaps that's why you've never seen it on film.
Also, if you'll remember ... the man who pees on the old man in the beginning scene says that he tripped at a ball and was given a taunting nickname and never lived it down ... He is peeing on him, obviously, because he is still bitter about this incident.
Contradictorily, later in the film, when they attend the mystery ball, it is the same man, who was so scorned for tripping at a ball, who trips Ponceludon - again, ruthless.
I don't get the whole "it wasn't necessary to show penis" thing. Why do some people always want to hide the penis ? Does this king of image make you feel so uncomfortable you almost shut the thing off ?
"Plenty of movies show these types of scenes without displaying the "equipment""
I don't think Patrice Leconte just wanted to make "plenty of movies". That's why it's called "cinéma d'auteur".
It must be a cultural thing, because in France this movie aired during prime time, so this very scene was seen at 9pm on a national channel, without making any fuss.
Yes simouni, but in France they will also show a vagina in prime time also! There are very sexual French films with graphic male AND FEMALE nudity, even showing REAL pentration, that have been given a 12+ rating. So a twelve year old tween can watch any type of nudity/sex in a French film. I've seen women masturbating in French films rated 12+. Different culture.
shareYou're right, different culture. What I meant is that when you're American and watch a French movie, you have to keep in mind it's a French movie, so the first scene won't be misleading (like someone above wrote).
About the sex in 12+ movies, the funny thing is that those movies are usually quite confidential, and 12yo boys usually don't watch them, they prefer porn movies they can find on the internet (which is a shame IMO).
I agree with the people who said the scene misleads the audience. The closeup of a man's wanker in full function sets us up to expect a raw, sexually explicit film. Actually the rest of the film is PG-13, if even that. It's like starting a musical piece with a cannon blast, then going into a piano sonata for the rest of the piece. Artistically it doesn't make sense, other than shock value. But this isn't a shock-value visceral kind of film; it's intellectual.
My gripe isn't necessarily that they showed a dude's wrinkly crankshaft. It's that they showed it, then followed through with a family movie. In that sense, it definitely misleads the viewer for no apparent reason.
Now, The Brown Bunny, there's an excellent use of the male bratwurst. It shocks & with a purpose very appropriate for the subject of the film.
You seem to overestimate the raw sexual power of a flaccid penis. However, I did leave the film feeling an emptiness at never seeing fully Judith Godreche's lovely breasts
shareIn a French movie (or TV series), when someone is supposed to be naked (like, having sex, or being dead on an autopsy table), the actors don't sport clothes (doesn't mean they don't have something though, but at least it's not obvious). Seeing full frontal nudity in movies with no actual sex scene is common.
share