anybody else think the explicit sex was unnecessary? - Nirgendwo in Afrika (2003) Discussion

[–] stupid_and_contagious 17 years ago

Youre missing the sad reality that sex sells. Even in movies such as this one, with a big enough storyline to go without, the producers wanted to put it in.

*"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada."
- Britney Spears, Pop Singer*

reply

[–] TTasou 17 years ago

Hey it's a love story, and lovers have sex. Besides you must remember that European attitudes to sex (as a big deal)are a lot more relaxed than America's.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

People breathe. People eat. People talk. People play. People sleep. People run. People read. People build. People pray. People work. People wash themselves. People have sex.

All these activities are important part of everybody's life. They make most of our days, most of our lives. And most of movies contain majority of these activities. But some people in some countries don't accept last two, especially last activity. As if they don't exist, they shouldn't be mentioned, let alone shown in a movie.

It seems that they claim that sex has no importance in life, therefore it should be neglected in presenting life in art. But people are born because of sex, people die, people marry and divorce, people hurt and sometimes die (killing others or themselves) because of sex. Is it really so secondary, so unimportant that it has no place in movies which show life?

reply

[–] usarmycwo 17 years ago

Przgzr, I submit you (and a few others) missed my point, and did not address my main concern:

"My wife and I lament that the R rating means that a lot of teenagers and children will not see this movie. Certainly not in schools, where it could have served as an excellent vehicle for discussions on a wide variety of subjects."

Another writer reminded us how other films have shown sex without actually depicting it. In my opinion, that's what could and should have been done in "Nowhere in Africa."

Little would have been lost, much would have been gained.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I really did overlook that aspect of your post - sorry. Maybe because I don't live in USA and teenagers aren't forbidden to watch it, while I don't see it as a movie for younger children regardless of sex scenes anyway.

reply

[–] muetze-nein-hut 17 years ago

It is a German film. I am pretty sure that nobody working on Nirgendwo in Afrika wasted their time thinking about the movie rating system from some stupid overseas country when they were busy making an authentic film.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

It is a great reply (I never manage to say so much in so few words).

I wish it were true.

In fact it probably is, nobody WORKING on movie did, but there are strange people called producers whose job is finding money for movie, but who have weird wishes to gain money back (and earn a bit, too). And when a movie is rather expensive (like this one) market in certain "stupid overseas country" is important. And many producers try to influence the directors (having the most powerful weapon, money).

You can see it in many European movies. Sometimes it is not producers, but directors themselves, who hope for international (= Hollywood) career, and that can be done by reaching American theaters with a movie that will look American and satisfy all American standards (from official rating to average audience). Scandinavians who were making by far best children movies in the world changed the style of their movies making them looking like Lassies or Home Alones. Spanish movies also don't have much common with their films from 80's. If Dutch movies are shown dubbed I'd never guess they are not American. Maybe the only country that still successfully avoids these changes is France, what is understandable knowing their old feelings regarding English language (and everything related to it).

reply

[–] muetze-nein-hut 17 years ago

Seeing as this is probably going to be a bit more serious than I was ready to commit to in my first post, allow me first to apologise for the "stupid overseas country" remark; it was uncalled for. It is just that I found the OP's question about the US marketability of a German film a bit silly, considering the maturity and artistic achievement of Nirgendwo in Afrika. Also I had just seen the film.

These are the things that came to mind, and instead of which I posted the above remark:

The very question if "sex scenes were necessary" is moot. The film would be a completely different one if all scenes containing nudity were cut. They added greatly to Nirgendwo in Afrika's authenticity and the sex scenes were deeply symbolic and indeed necessary for the characterisation of Walter and Jettel. This has to be clear to understand why they have been included in the first place. They stem from a motivation to make a film that represents the director's and also the producer's vision of the story, not a film that is supposed to achieve a specific rating in a specific country.

On the other hand the OP has a point. Many parts of the world have rating systems that consider certain things unsuitable for minors of even everybody, while things may be the other way around a couple of kilometers away. As a German, I am particularly happy with the tendency in German film (and beyond that, German society) to treat sex as something that is not harmful, but natural -- people are not big on violence here though, and are quick to ban films and especially video games for under eighteen year olds if they contain more than is deemed necessary (there's that word again).

Anyway, in these cases it is up to the respective studios responsible for the localisation to omit certain parts or alter the film in other ways in order for it to be allowed to be shown. They have to make conscious decisions about which parts are more and less important. They will however compromise the intended experience every time, even if they cut nothing, because a film simply cannot convey the same experience in a different language.

Now, it is my view that the right thing to do is to leave as much of the film untouched as possible. Soubtitles are preferrable to overdubs, and cuts should only be made if the film would be completely banned otherwise. If the result is, that children won't be able to watch it, my honest answer is: So what? First of all, why should the adults suffer through a mangled film for the benefit of a smaller number of kids? Especially in a special case like the "R" rating of the MPAA, which allows minors to watch the film with a guardian. The worst thing that can really happen is that those who are interested will have to watch it a couple of years later on DVD or in a repertory cinema, if their parents won't let them. It is also up to any teacher to show a film to his class despite the MPAA rating, if he believes that they should watch it.

I honestly can't imagine how the sex scene in Nirgendwo in Afrika would be a reason not to show it to a twelve year old.

Well, so much for concise answers. :-D

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

If there could be a way I would co-sign your post.

The only thing I would never agree (but nobody asks me, of course) is cutting the movie. There is no reason for any movie to be cut. If it should be banned for local laws, let it be so. If it is not suitable for kids (and I expressed my opinion before about this particular movie), let it be shown in late hours or in theaters with age-controls on entrance. Would someone cut a piece of Rembrandt, Vinci or Picasso because someone might find it not suitable or offensive?

Smaller kids wouldn't be interested in this movie at all. A bit older would have unable to understand more than some scenes, and would need so many explanations that both them and adults wouldn't enjoy the movie. And those who would understand war, concentration campuses, interracial relations, Holocaust and so many other things surely would understand and be able to cope with sex scenes. Unless if been in some extreme conditions like in some countries that I'd rather leave you to name (someone might ban my comments otherwise...).

reply

[–] svenrufus 10 years ago

This was an interesting discussion, and somewhat late to the game I'm going to chip in and say that I didn't think the sex scenes were at all explicit as the OP said. There was sex, hardly anything is seen, although it's clear what is happening, but in no way did it even make me raise my eyebrows. I've seen far more explicit sex scenes than this, and even given the age rating, I think it is pretty tame stuff.

Not only did I not feel the sex was explicit, but I also had no problem with the scenes being a part of the story, as the lack of physicality in their relationship was so much a plot point earlier, that just knowing they had sex is not the same as being able to appreciate the tenderness and love that was shown there, despite all their problems. It wasn't just 'acceptable', it was entirely appropriate in my view. Understanding the nature of their relationship at that time made it easier to appreciate the significance and implications of the pregnancy that arose from it.

The only mis-step in the sex scenes for me was when Jettel said 'be careful with me, I'm pregnant' (or words to that effect) to which he replied 'Is it mine?' - if that happened in real life, I can't see that particular romantic occasion going much further!

reply

[–] Jurgen E Haug 10 years ago

This reply is really on the spot. Thumbs up!

reply

[–] brinaz718 17 years ago

kids in schools wash themselves, they eat , they talk , the do work in school, does that mean the have sex to?

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

If you want a frank answer, then yes, more than you are ready to believe or imagine. But that is far from the topic we are talking about.

You are using my words and purposely do it in a way they are not meant, as you can see if you read all my posts (instead of taking just one paragraph). I haven't said that in every movie every character has to do everything I mentioned (and the list could have been endless), so there are movies where (e.g.) nobody eats. Isn't that strange? But the process of making, taking food, digestion had no importance for these movies, so the directors hadn't shown any of these activities. Not because they are disgusting, offensive, immoral or objectionable.

Kids in school don't drive cars, write business letters, get retirement pension, win Nobel prizes; does that mean movies should avoid these activities?

reply

[–] euroman_35 16 years ago

Still having adults screwing on the screen, its ............

I'm a Republican, and thats my opinion on this matter.

reply

[–] block123 13 years ago

I don't think the sex in this movie was exploitive or profit driven.

The point of the main sex scene was to show how the couple needed to express their pain at the loss of their family in Europe. It was not just the act of sex, but the intensity that really mattered.

Because it was such an excellent movie, it is too bad that part of the population would not be able to see it - unless their caring parents rented it.

Perhaps the scene could have been modified slightly to make its point, but I've seen a whole lot worse in pg-13 movies.

So, no, I don't think the explicit sex was unnecessary.

reply

[–] ramcobra 17 years ago

You're not missing anything. Lots of otherwise good films are dragged through the mud of this stuff when it could be omitted or at least left to one's imagination. The scene with the fireworks in the background in "To Catch a Thief" creates the same atmosphere with none of the smut. The passionate kiss, his picking her up and walking toward the bedroom with a "fade to black" would leave no one in doubt about what is going to happen.

I have taken to calling this the "Obligatory Sex Scene," the OSS (with apologies to the wartime secret service organization), since apparently one cannot make a film without such a scene. A particularly explicit example of an OSS was in a scene of "Shining Through" with Michael Douglas and Melanie Griffith - completely unnecessary as was some pretty off-color language. This has been standard fare in foreign films for decades, but we have finally caught a distressingly consistent dose of the disease in America. Sad.

Nevertheless, this is a beautifully made film. Incredible cinematography. Caroline Link creates such real characters that move one to identify with them immediately. She is a master at sucking you into their lives, so their emotions become your emotions. I only hope she will get even better.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

There is always someone that could make objections.

"A passionate kiss" would be a very good reason for banning the movie in several dozen countries, and a ticket to jail for authors in some of them. Walking toward bedroom implies things that are also unacceptable for some people or governments or religions (what overlaps in some cases).

Many other people and countries wouldn't object to scenes shown in "Nirgendwo in Afrika", that is why authors in many countries don't have to worry too much about the rating - they find sex to be a normal activity of human and all other beings. If we only imply everything, we can never be sure what has really happened. People can make love behind closed doors, but they can beat or kill each other as well. And this both happens in reality. What would you understand if the doors kept closed in movies like "A Perfect Murder", "The War of the Roses" etc, or even "Dracula"?

reply

[–] nammage 17 years ago

I admit, as an avid movie watcher, I've seen movies where I felt certain scenes weren't necessary to the plot or telling of the "story". The sex scenes in this, isn't what bothered me. It was a 2 hour 40 minute movie with, maybe, 2-3 sex scenes and really only 2 of the 3 graphic. They could have gotten more graphic and still kept the "R", but, they didn't - be glad for that.

I do not think you're wrong in your opinion, it's your opinion. I thought some of the camera zooms weren't needed; they seemed "B" movie material rather than "A" movie.

If you want your essential question answered, you should ask the people who made the film. It could be something that wasn't even really a thought in their mind when making it, or, as one person here mentions: sex sells. Though I think this movie would have sold with or without the sex.

'...the ultimate ending is: war itself.'

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Can you imagine a person so addicted to sex (in movies) who would watch this long and boring movie (I mean boring from their point of view, absolutelly not from mine) to see few short and rather unattractive sex scenes? Today sex and nudity are really not hard to get, not limited, not expensive, so I can't imagine someone using this movie for any purpose related to sex, even with fast forward button pressed.

reply

[–] Nocgirl72 17 years ago

I think it was necessary to tell the audience these 2 still had a passion for each other. They are emotionally disconnected through most of the movie and I was surprised to see this squeezed in the last few minutes of it.

"It's mercy, compassion, and forgiveness I lack; not rationality."

reply

[–] usarmycwo 17 years ago

Nocturnalgirl72 --

Yes, I see your point. But would you agree that passion can be depicted without incurring an R rating? As example, look how well the director of THE ILLUSIONIST did it, when he reunites the lovers after ten years apart.

Some have said nudity is common in Europe. Oh, and it isn't in America? And even granting the argument, is it a good enough reason to shut the movie away from schoolchildren?

Some have said that sex is a natural function, like eating, sleeping, etc, and should therefore not be hidden away as if it were something to be ashamed of. Agree completely, of course, but urination and defecation are natural functions, too, more commonly performed than sex, for that matter, and were they depicted in the movie? A fallacious argument.

No, the sex scenes were a conscious decision by the director, a decision that prevents the movie from being used by parents and educators as a vehicle for discussion of some weighty subjects: the personal impact of war; western imperialism; race; anti-Semitism; the Holocaust; human resilience; devotion to family, childhood love of learning....

What a loss.

reply

[–] loleeb 17 years ago

I will keep it short because this one really got a simple answer.
The movie is available for kids at the age of 6 in Germany.
It is a little overhead to think german films are produced and cut in regard to the MPAA rating in the US.
I have no real idea to who the makers of this film talk about a changed version in the US or other countries but I guess they could have cut the scene if it was demanded for a lower rating.

Then again maybe they didnt even care because the US market for german films is small enough and in a country of prudity *sex sells* is truer than in most other places :)=

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Being from Europe myself, I can only confirm your post. This movie has been shown in prime TV time on national channels along Europe.

As for USA, if you read enough posts on IMDb (as I've been doing for 3 or 4 years), you'll see how often the phrase "foreign movie" has been used for non-American movies, as if they were completely worthless and it is a punishment to watch them. Some of those posters were purposely humiliating, some didn't seem to have intentions to insult, but it seems that many Americans watch "foreign" movies once or twice a year and expect a special compliment for sacrificing their 90 minutes. It reminds me on kids who don't like classic music at all, but sometimes go to see opera to satisfy their parents and impress their teachers.

Having possible audience like that, European directors should finally stop trying to make movies that would satisfy American public or censors. I'm glad that authors of Nirgendwo in Afrika avoided this trap and made a movie for their real audience, persons belonging to their nation and their culture, and for their neighbors that share the same mentality.

And I'll repeat that young people at age that can handle other (not easy!) topics of this movie are surely mature enough to see also the scenes that American people find inappropriate. Some other contents of the movie need much more knowledge and maturity to handle, and that is why I wouldn't suggest it for a 6 years kid.

reply

[–] marco_s 17 years ago

No, the sex scenes were a conscious decision by the director, a decision that prevents the movie from being used by parents and educators as a vehicle for discussion of some weighty subjects: the personal impact of war; western imperialism; race; anti-Semitism; the Holocaust; human resilience; devotion to family, childhood love of learning.... What a loss.

I'm pretty sure the director only had the story in mind, not the US ratings system. No, the "conscious decision" was made by some bone-headed American to rate this picture "R" because of some tame sex scenes. In Germany this film can be viewed by children aged 6 or older, so no loss there. Maybe instead of lamenting the director's choice you should start complaining where it's due.

reply

[–] sian47 16 years ago

Hear, hear!

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (41638798) 10 years ago

Well I'm American (not that it matters, but to put my comment into context); and I watch almost all non-US programming for the simple fact that it's usually better, it allows me to see things about a culture in which I don't live that I couldn't get just visiting and many other things.

As for the love scenes toward the end that seem to make this film inaccessible to a PG audience in the U.S., yes, it would be nice to be able to use this film as a teaching tool to show kids another culture's struggles and solutions.

But the film ultimately is a piece of artwork--and it has to be what the creators intended, not diluted simply because it doesn't fit another culture's rules.

But on the whole, those scenes to me seemed utterly in context and almost necessary to show on the outside how changed the wife and husband were on the inside.

The husband tells his friend much earlier how he and his wife are like separate packages all wrapped up traveling through life side by side but not really of one together. And we see how distant they are once they arrive in Kenya, and he gets frustrated and angry because he thinks she's rejecting him sexually and completely because he's just a poor farmer now and not a lawyer or judge in his fine robes.

So to have them come together at the end like that, after so many years of estrangement, passionately, completely and just joined in every way as souls as exhibited with their passion, (and the tender scene when they are sitting on the floor unable to put any space between one another but just want to stay that way forever) to me, anyway, completed their arc as a couple.

It really was needed to show all of that at the end. Just hinting at what came after they embraced wouldn't have had the impact needed to truly see how changed they had become.

They were beautiful scenes--tenderly acted and filmed and did not exploit the sexual aspect at all.

reply

[–] xenophile2002 16 years ago

Full disclosure here: I haven't seen it. I came here to read about it and see if maybe I'd like to see it. But I had to comment on this:

No, the sex scenes were a conscious decision by the director, a decision that prevents the movie from being used by parents and educators as a vehicle for discussion of some weighty subjects: the personal impact of war; western imperialism; race; anti-Semitism; the Holocaust; human resilience; devotion to family, childhood love of learning....

What a loss.

Um, no. An R rating does not prevent educators from showing this movie to their class (if they can convince parents to sign something), and it absolutely does not prevent parents from showing this movie to their own kids! It is perfectly legal to show your own children, of any age, all the R-rated movies that the parents might like. So I'm not sure where this great loss is.

Also, I doubt that many American filmmakers bother with the ratings system in, say, Kenya, so why should German filmmakers give a hoot about the MPAA?

_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.

reply

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

why should German filmmakers give a hoot about the MPAA

Unfortunately, for several reasons.

First, Americans will always manage to sell their whole production to every country except a few (too small number to bother them). And their influence is so big that Kenya or Swaziland or Paraguay will change their rating system rather than have problems with American producers.

Second, generations of European directors devoted to Europe is dead. Modern directors make movies as if their only wish is to attract Americans and get a chance to work in Hollywood, something like Lasse Hallström did.

Third, it seems that every European director thinks he is a genius who will fail his life if never got Oscar (as if that awards means anything any more). So they try to make movies a) which will look as American as possible so Academy will recognize them, and b) which will pass all censors, official and those more important that should have no influence, so the movie will reach American theaters.

I don't think they do it for money, because Americans will never, never watch European movies in so big audiences that it would be of any importance comparing to European public they lose this way. So, if it is not for money, it must be the former reason.

I am very disappointed in modern Danish movies. If not made in Dogma, they are so Americans that their producers could have taken any American director to make them. There are movies where the characters don't even have Danish names. Just watch "Fakiren fra Bilbao". The names of people are rather neutral, but definitely not Danish, the names of towns and houses are quite English, and the castle where the characters live looks as if found in the heart of England. In "Drommen" the main character is a 12 year old boy living in late 60's and fascinated by Martin Luther King. I could keep going on, but why? This is a fact... And this fact is far from being limited to Denmark.

reply

[–] information_police 16 years ago

The sex scene was far from explicit. You see about as much on daytime tv during soap operas.

The fact that a husband and wife have sex after a long separation should not be shocking to school children old enough to appreciate this film.

reply

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

This is over and over overlooked by most posters: this movie, and not certain scenes, is not made for small children. And if a child is old enough to know something about Holocaust, World Wars, racism etc - and without it they simply can't understand the basic plot, let alone the integral movie - than he/she is old and mature enough to see and understand every single scene in this movie.

reply

[–] rudd_girl 16 years ago

no, it's fine by me. i thought it was lovely.

reply

[–] blueangelfish 16 years ago

I thought those scenes were works of art. It was the least gratuitous sex I've ever seen in a movie.

reply

[–] maryborrege 16 years ago

In R E A L life it is not "authentic" for a crowd of peeping toms to sit around eating popcorn watching strangers graphically making out or "fornicating" for a salary. (There's a name for people who go in for such exibitions.) These are ACTORS, acting out in trumped up scenes--and there is nothing "authentic" about it. Actors shouldn't be required to prostitute themselves with strangers for bucks, for the sake of "art". As with defecation, fornication is strictly PRIVATE stuff. Great films--on all subjects--have been made without being gratuitous or explicit to satisfy purient (pervert) interests.

reply

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

In R E A L life it is not "authentic" for a crowd of peeping toms to sit around eating popcorn watching strangers graphically eating, talking, sleeping, making dinner, praying, swimming, answering a phone call, doing homework for school, repairing a roof, driving... unless this people in public are spies, NKVD or Americans (or at least it hasn't been "authentic" until reality shows were invented). But as they are ACTORS they act to show that a person (his character) eats, talks, sleeps, makes dinner, prays, swims, answers a phone call, does homework for school, repairs a roof, drives... This is what they do for living, otherwise there would be no characters and no movies (except documentaries about animals - as long as animal rights activists don't declare it exploitation; natural beauties and, as the least controversial, space).

reply

[–] supercurl89 16 years ago

"My wife and I lament that the R rating means that a lot of teenagers and children will not see this movie. Certainly not in schools, where it could have served as an excellent vehicle for discussions on a wide variety of subjects. "

We just watched this film in my 12th grade AP Literature class as part of the foreign film unit, and no one in my class had a problem with this aspect of the film. So not all schools are deprived of this wonderful film because of the sex scenes.

"I got a jar of dirt! I got a jar of dirt! And guess what's inside it!." ~Captain Jack

reply

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

Glad to read it.

I assume you are American (considering your participating the "R rating" discussion). Now I wonder - we all have our own little prejudices, so your post might break some of mine - what could be consequences of this official school watching.

First: as different countries have different schooling systems, I have to ask how old are young people in 12th grade. I guess it is a bit under 18 - because if it is over 18, than this post has no point.

Next, is this literature class a part of official school, private or public? Then, has the teacher or whoever is in charge in this class, got any kind of parent's permission (again, in case at least one of watchers is under 18)? Or, maybe, if it is a private school, there are some rules that parents are familiar with and accepting, which permit school to show "R" rated material to their children.

Also, what could happen to teacher and school in USA who would do it without any signed permission? Knowing how quick American (or Australian) police is in some situations, wouldn't it be risky? An dissatisfied might report this "crime" and sue the school. The way USA is presenting itself to the rest of the world, this teacher would be very lucky if only gets fired. In non-British Europe ratings are much looser regarding nudity and sex, so there would be no problem to show this movie to anyone; however if some parent finds that certain inappropriate material was shown to his child - and some legislative stuff (like rating) confirms it - the public, media and authorities reaction could be very loud and (euphemism) unpleasant both for the school and the teacher.

reply

[–] supercurl89 16 years ago

It's an official public school, students are generally 17 and 18, and the class has been using this film for the last five years I think. As far as I know, no parent/guardien/etc, has ever denied a child permission to watch the film.

"I got a jar of dirt! I got a jar of dirt! And guess what's inside it!." ~Captain Jack

reply

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

Thanks for additional informations.

We usually forget how big country USA is, and how different are people that live there, also how big differences can appear between its regions.

It is always enough to find several very loud fundamentalists (of any religion, ideology or diagnosis) to make a wrong picture that becomes more distorted as distance grows. However, as they are so loud they can force people to listen and some even to believe, what makes them important to people who think about elections; also they are so boring that they manage to reach media (looking so weird they can even be attraction of certain TV program) so again their power and influence rise far beyond their real percentage. And as nobody knows their real number, the authorities have them and their attitudes in mind, just to be on the safe side if maybe...

So, just one of them is enough to make problems to your school. However, in my opinion, this is not the problem of the school but the whole society.

reply

[–] jgcole 16 years ago

Sorry to say I just got around to watching this great film. I can not believe the direction this thread has taken. Most seem to agree that the problem here is in the U.S. As an American I'm not surprised that this got an R rating. First of all anything with sex or nudity gets an R in this country.

It is a German film. I am pretty sure that nobody working on Nirgendwo in Afrika wasted their time thinking about the movie rating system from some stupid overseas country when they were busy making an authentic film

.

Well, I'm not sure they wasted their time either. It should not be something that drives any artistic decisions. Sadly, European movies aren't under appreciated in the U.S. because of sex. We have unfortunately been conditioned to violent action films that hold the interest of the attention deficit disorder demographic these movies are made for. As to the "stupid overseas country" part, we may not be as enlightened as you Europeans but America is only a half stupid overseas country, thank you very much.

We usually forget how big country USA is, and how different are people that live there, also how big differences can appear between its regions

.

Exactly. We have a half progressive and half conservative country. Seriously. I mean 50/50. There are parts of the U.S. that some Americans should need a passport to get into ( ever been to Texas? ). The different dialects are difficult for even us to understand ( there are some U.S. films that I wish came with subtitles ). There are parts of the South that some movies never get shown in because of local and regional fundamentalist religious and political influences. Unfortunately the MPAA knuckles under to these influences when rating films.

The OP makes no sense. The dynamic between Walter and Jettel was a key part of the film and the love scenes were appropriate. Any parent who will let their child watch films that glorify violence and will steer them away from films with adult themes and appropriate love scenes have gotten things terribly wrong. There was nothing offensive about these scenes. Any child over 12 should be able to watch this film. If the love scenes make them a little embarrassed, well, they'll get over it. It's not going to traumatize them. The film is more likely to bore them.

9/10

Obama '08!

The world will be a great place when they finish it.

reply

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

I'm always so glad to read post like your, to remind of not being (too) rude when writing about or to Americans. (And I really don't avoid chances to express my not very friendly feelings...)

I believe the poster who used the "some stupid overseas country" phrase apologized after my warning (it seems that he thought I was American...). I guess it's better that all of us simply go over it.

And as for age limit, I agree with you, as you maybe have read, I wrote that a child too young - and age you suggested is quite acceptable - can't understand the movie, and there are too many other reasons, more important than some sex scenes, not to show the movie to a child that is not mature enough (also some previous knowledge is advisable, because otherwise the kid either won't understand anything or a loan of explanations will be needed and destroy the continuity, mood and finally pleasure of watching). There are movies that contain no violence, sex, nudity, obscene words etc., but simply are in no way understandable to a child under certain level of maturity (term better than age, because some kids are more mature at 10 than some adults will ever be). And this is again something that we seem to agree about.

reply

[–] rosabelverde_1127 16 years ago

I don't even remember the sex scenes (having seen the film about a year ago) because they were not particularly salient to me, but I will remember your post because of this statement:

Before you accuse me of being a prude, let me say I've served all over the world in more than 30 years in the Army, am a grandfather, and still enjoy erotica with my wife.

- only an American would ever start a thread complaining about sex scenes in a film and at the same time find it necessary to inform the world about his own sex life. Looks strange enough to me, stranger than any sex scenes in films.

It's all a matter on how you are used to look at things, and consquently which things arouse your special attention.

Regards, Rosabel

reply

[–] carey7755 15 years ago

The sex was a beautiful and necessary part of the movie. You ask, "What am I missing"? You are missing the fact that you are a puritan. Without question.

reply

[–] fanaticita 14 years ago

I just viewed this film for the first time last night, and I also thought that the sex was beautiful and a necessary part of the film. It was very romantic and well filmed, without being raw or crude. It showed the reconcilliation of the couple and their love for each other was still very profound in spite of the fact that their might have been lingering doubt at times.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] milbankj 12 years ago

I've just watched this film, most enjoyably, for the second time and again found the lovemaking scenes flowing tastefully and seamlessly into the storyline. They were not overdone and were obviously important in the depiction of the couple's relationship. Anybody notice that the film didn't exploit the wife's affair with the soldier with a sex scene? It wasn't necessary, so the makers didn't. A remarkable film, one whose maturity was no better demonstrated than by the wonderful scene in which the teenage daughter removed her blouse to go tree-climbing with the African youth. Thoughts of a prudish market certainly played no role in the making of this movie.

reply

[–] FantasticFearOfMisterBobo 12 years ago

The irony here is, i'm actually watching this in school at the moment.

reply

[–] Meganium 12 years ago

God, I haven't read everything, but just reading the topic made me wonder: What sexscene? I saw this movie once, at 14 didn't like it at all, after reading the book and its sequel at 12 I thought that it was a complete disgrace to the original material.

My point is I don't remember any sexscene at all. I remember the stupid mother walking around "like one of the African women" as the father put it. But no sexscene. Given how my hormones were raging at 14 I figure it must have been very unexplicit and very UNsexy that I cant recall it now.

Now I read from the OP this has gotten a R rating so children and teenagers cant watch it. Sigh. Then I thought this is probably a movie rated 12. No it's 6. (Btw what is a good translation for German "ein film ab 12 Jahren", a movie from 12 years on?

I once read "Only an American would think nudity and sex are worse than violence" by an American. I think it goes further, only an American would even ask which is worse. I used to think graphic violence would prevent movies about ww2 being shown to young people not a sex scene between a married couple.

You said they could have gone without an R rating. Can't you really consider that they are from another country with different values? BTW I always say "another country" not "foreign country". "Foreign" to me sounds xenophobic and has an "we vs the rest of world" attitude as opposed to "I just happen to be in on spot in a line of many" or "we're all sitting in one boat anyway".

And how does it prevent the movie being shown in schools? Doesn't the American system say its ok for someone to watch a movie they are to young to watch IF they are with an adult. Which I think is soo stupid, watching something with parents or other adults has never prevented me from getting nightmares afterwards. You're either old enough or you're not. You act like its illegal to show this in schools or whatever.

Sorry, I got carried away a bit. I actually came here to ask whether Max was circumcised in the book or movie. (I remember he had the Bar Mitzwah in the sequel, now that it is a big topic in Germany; back then I don't know if I cared for anything that might have been said on the topic.

But this was the first thing I read on this forum and I couldn't believe what I saw.

reply