MovieChat Forums > Beau travail (2000) Discussion > I find it funny...

I find it funny...

posted 20 years ago by jambles
11 replies | jump to latest

...That blockbuster has the "Youth Restricted Viewing" sticker on the movie saying that you have to be a certain age to rent the film. I mean, I understand the whole "homoerotic undertones" thing, and of course the fact it is based off of "Billy Budd"...which I have read...but at the same time, there seems to be nothing overtly sexual about it (by that I mean there is no butt slapping or kissing or any sort of warm embrace between the characters). Though I am a straight female so perhaps I just do not get those effects as other people might. And it seems as well that if you are too concerned with the issue that it is homoerotic, that you would miss out on a large part of the story. I find it a visually breathtaking and beautiful film. Anyway, I find it amusing because everything in the film is so choreographed, but in a (obviously) very militarized way and you never see two of the legionnaires in any sort of compromising position. The only "questionable" scene is that of one of the guys taking a shower, but he is completely alone and it is very straightforward. Do the people at blockbuster see the words "male eroticism" on the back of the box and then think it is going to be some sort of cheesy "Chippendales" beefcake-type outing? Is it threatening in any sort of way...I just do not understand? I just think it is a bit sad because I wonder if anyone who would have gone to rent the film then sees that sticker (on top of learning what it is about) and then decides against it. They are depriving themselves of such a good, stunning film. It seems unfair, in a way.

I wonder if the movie was instead a group of ladies, the exact same, just women, if it would still have that sticker on it. Something tells me no.

somewhere in texas there is a village missing an idiot

[–] mischivo 18 years ago

It has such a rating because in the shower scene that you described as "questionable", there is a good view of--prepare yourself--a penis. Yes, a penis. That is the only reason this movie is restricted in your region. The only other possibilities I may think of include the rather pathetic looking dance sequence at the end, and the fact that it's a French film about Frenchmen--gladly recall the entire "freedom fries" fad that engulfed parts of your United States a few years ago.

It obviously cannot be due to the violence, right? What violence?

[–] jambles 18 years ago

no i really do not think it is the penis...i have seen a number of movies rated r that have scenes showing wang. "kinsey" is the most recent that comes to mind...we all got a good look at peter sarsgaard in that one. and that was much more in your face as well. i am sure there is an even more contemporary example (like you maybe kind of get a glimpse of one from rather far away in "brokeback mountain").

my post was more of a commentary than a question anyways...and i would rather glady forget about the whole "freedom" fries and toast fiasco.

revolution...it's what's for dinner

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 18 years ago

I am still looking for a decent film that shows the mordaunt collecting of underpants for amoral wrinkling and licking. Where can I go?

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

[–] SofaOnWheels 14 years ago

ANY nudity whatsoever in films automatically generates an R rating. The MPAA in just about every country has that system. Violence means nothing, but if there is a breast or a penis then it automatically receives an R rating. Simple.

As for the "Youth Restricted Viewing", many movies have that, Mulholland Drive has it because of a sexual scene between two women. The Center of the World has it. Many movies that carry a heavy amount of sexual scenes, regardless of the sex of the person, carry that sticker. It's not just a conspiracy against homosexuality.

[–] mjlangenbru 10 years ago

"ANY nudity whatsoever in films automatically generates an R rating. The MPAA in just about every country has that system... if there is a breast or a penis then it automatically receives an R rating. Simple."

That is entirely not true. I don't know how many films you have seen, but there are plenty of examples where this is not true. A perfect example is Titanic. Kate Winslet is bare chested in the lead up to an obviously sexual encounter and the film maintains a PG-13 rating. The reason most films with nudity receive R ratings is because in general nudity, adult language, adult situations, etc. go into the same type of films. Therefore, that is usually the case. However, if an otherwise less adult themed film has a small dose of any of the above things, the rating will not have to be R-rated.

[–] isabelle_hewitt 18 years ago

I have watched the film 3 times (I have an examination on it in May). I think it is difficult to see the homo-eroticism not ony because you are a straight female, but I have found that, because I am not a native French speaker, I am easily distracted by the language used, and tend not look as deeply into the meanings behind the words that are spoken. Especially as the film is so visually exciting and beautiful. Thinking back through the film having read your post, it is glaringly obvious in places.

[–] jambles 17 years ago

I am a bit late to get back to respond...it has been a while since I have felt compelled to comment and I just read this for the first time.

In any case, I can speak French. Therefore the language is not a problem, and besides I own this movie and have watched it more than several times. Perhaps I did not phrase myself properly. I could see the "homoerotic undertones," the point of my post was the "Youth Restricted Viewing" sticker on the box at my local blockbuster (which I now can avoid. thank you, netflix.) Obviously being a women of the heterosexual persuasion it would be hard for that aspect of the film to have the same effect on me as it may have on a man. I just felt that the sticker was a bit ludicrous because I have seen other films that could command the use of such a sticker more so than Beau Travail. Mind you I say this and I am fully aware of how much of the American society would feel threatened with a film of this nature.

[–] Revolutionow 16 years ago

I think it's disgusting that they put that sticker on it, and it only goes to show that we live in a country full of homophobic idiots.

You commie-dupes come up with some weird fantasies about Pro-Victory Americans!

[–] Devans00 15 years ago

The USA has Puritanical thinking in it's DNA. So anything that shows the bare human body or interaction between men that's not killing is automatically suspect. Especially if there is no bubble boobied bimbo close by with her top off.

I enjoyed the homoerotic, male erotic views of the mens bodies throughout the movie. The lingering, caressing shots of bare legs, backs, arms, chests and face profiles against panoramic backdrops. But like you, I'm a straight woman, so I don't need protecting from such images.

Whoever put the "Youth Restricted Viewing" sticker on the movie apparently is afraid of the wrong people enjoying those shots. Perhaps Youth = young men?

Plus, there is the interracial aspect. Must be quite disturbing having men of so many different skin tones and countries of national origin touching and interacting without killing.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

The sticker on the box was ridiculous. Agreed. I thought the film was very erotic. The magnificent scenery, superb use of stirring music and young, sinuous and muscular men sometimes in short shorts exercising and moving their bodies around ... Plus the choreography and its repititious nature had a mesmerising effect.

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues