MovieChat Forums > The Gathering Storm (2002) Discussion > What Is With The Brits!!!

What Is With The Brits!!!

posted 17 years ago by schlomolipchitz
32 replies | jump to latest

First of all, Albert Finney looks like *beep* for being only 65 when this movie was made! I suspect too much booze! Now, what exactly is the point of the BBC producers showing Finney's ugly, fat, and naked ass and ruining an otherwise excellent film? Did it add anything of significance to the film? No! The film would have been just fine without this obscenity. Are these same people who had an issue with the final fully clothed love scene of the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice that had to be cut from the Brit audience. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would much rather see Keira Knightly's ass than Finney's anytime.

[–] gailforce12 17 years ago

That's the whole point. Finney's ass was shown - not as a gratuitouis gesture - but to display what poor physical condiition this political powerhouse was in. This was a time when oratorical skill mattered more than today's media friendliness.

Churchill had never been seen this way - only by his wife and perhaps valet. It's worth remembering that Churchill practically lived on port and Dundee cake. Hardly Atkins. Don't think he cared though. Too busy fighting Hitler.

[–] DavidJayB 17 years ago

There are other anecdotes of Churchill wandering around naked at home. I think Roosevelt once walked in on him in this condition and Churchill said 'You see I have nothing to hide!'

[–] pk_000 13 years ago

heh yea, as shown in 'Into the War'

[–] cbjslp 16 years ago

The opening introduced the theme of this story, which presented the very human side of Churchill. His unabashed openess about everything is a characteristic of many great thinkers. Most Americans do not realize that Benjamin Franklin took daily 'air baths' as he referred to them.

[–] Lechaise 17 years ago

1) what do your comments have to do with the "Brits", as if the whole of Great Britain was responsible for albert finney's appearance in this drama and

2) please don't tell British people how to edit sex or love scenes when the US would rather show someone's brains blown out than show someone making love realistically.

[–] Newton820 12 years ago

Ignore the OP, he's a troll and not a very good one.

"I'm Brian and so's my wife!"

[–] BelleCBelle 7 years ago

Also a chauvinist.

"Think you'll ever get me out of your blood?" "Maybe not but love has got to stop short of suicide!"

[–] Vince-Raison 17 years ago

the fact the sight of a little nudity ruined an excellent film for you suggests you have your own problems.

[–] lovely-evil-one 12 years ago

+1 To this comment.

Besides, I'm all for more butts. Old butts, younger butts, men's butts, women's butts.

[–] jkholman 17 years ago

For those that do not read history (especially non-US history) - they should desist from commenting on content in historical films. You make the rest of us [Americans] look bad.

[–] prw_houghton 17 years ago

First off, I have to say that if seeing Albert Finney's backside spoiled this film, you are far to delicate and should refrain from watching anything else.

Second, it is a humanising and biographically accurate detail - the man did do a lot of his work in the bath.

[–] raf-33 17 years ago

Nobodies stated the fact that Britain is one of the least censored countries on earth, it is rare for anything to be rejected or editted by the British Board of Film Classification. Then at the other end of the scale you have the USA where they would happily edit anything just to get a movie down to a PG-13 rating and make more money.

[–] flan99 16 years ago

Schlomo,

You sound like a typical prudish American yokel.

You shake in horror at the sight of a Bum - yet applaud as your country blows people to smithereens around the world.

Pitiful

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Salieri-3 16 years ago

"Churchill practically lived on port and Dundee cake."

And whisky, champagne & cigars. And he lived to be over 90. Maybe some great men really are kept alive by some higher force.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mike_jaimes 15 years ago

Intriguing post. Albert Finney is a remarkable actor who did an incredible job portraying Churchill and the fact that you could see his "ass" (just to humour, don't want to confuse the American contingent by saying "arse") does not detract from this performance. Interesting also to see that you only ever complain about films. It would be fascinating to see something that you have made, just to get a hint of that perfection you so obviously seek.

[–] Cartimandua 15 years ago

Hilarious. I utterly fail to see why anyone would have a problem with a naked human body, or think it an "obscenity". Or what Finney's arse has got to do with either censorship or 'Pride and Prejudice'.

But I think I can help you with the latter. The film's producers realised that the UK audience would find the additional US scene absurd and emetic. As a single unrepresentative Briton, I'd say they were right. It's a really gloopy add-on which is neither in Jane Austen's book, nor necessary. What you saw in the States was a kind of reverse censorship - an extra itty little bit designed just to please you. We weren't considered to be in need of it, so you can hardly claim it's a "cut". And maybe the producers thought a greater proportion of Austen's homies may have actually read the book?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]