MovieChat Forums > Cashback (2004) Discussion > Now they call it 'art'?

Now they call it 'art'?

posted 17 years ago by lilafotioy
40 replies | jump to latest

This movie is a piece of crap who exposes naked females bodies for the pleasure of all sexually sick males out there. They show a pussy climbing the stairs and they call it art? also this movie insults women's personality and freedom of choice and will. This guy hypnotizes women by stopping the time and strips them naked against their to satisfy his sick sexual insticts. it is not like he has their consent to pose for him stark naked. the whole thing is nothing less than a woman's rape except for the penetration thing. it violates a person's and in that case woman's rights of choice and consent in a sexual act. i cant believe this movie made it to the cinemas at times when public and media are very sensitive to women's abuse, to issues of violation of women's rights. what would you expect of a bunch of horny pigs who rejoice at the sight of naked women bodies? but what about feministic organisations, havent they taken any action to ban this disgustingly sick movie?

[–] MadScamp 17 years ago

I'm sorry, but I think you didn't get a bit of the intention behind this film.
First of all nudity is a pleasure to look at but you're not sexually sick if you enjoy it in an absolutely artistic way, like the actor did. Imagine a female art-student would imagine all this with men, and a penis would climb the stairs, so what? Wether male nor female nudity is a bad thing, only the look on nudity and when you reduce a person only to their look is bad, and even that is OK i.m.o. Second of all, "this guy" doesn't hypnotize anyone! Its all his imagination, and I reaaly think as an art student he would have many opportunities to draw nude females. All in all I really don't see your point what this movie has to do with woman's rights or even abuse!? Its not like its a Hard Porn or even close to Soft Porn and the actresses certainly played nude because they wanted to do it, because they understood the intention behind it, i mean they surely weren't enslaved for this film :), and in their private life they're also certainly very emanzipated.

GB
MadScamp

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gaelicdaughter 17 years ago

ElectrolightSH- youre being a little over the top there.

yes, men do horrible things to women. men do horrible things to men. but some women are just as bad. and most men would never commmit crimes to the level youre speaking here.

The reason men are given a bad rap here is because the men were in power. with women in power the same things would have happened. power does funny things to peoples minds and morals.

i havent seen this movie, i dont know if i will. Im an art student- i have no issues with nudity provided its not distasteful. i dont hate men because history has provided some idiots. what about Boudica? (who incidentally i love to bits) agrinppina?

its not just men who are violent.

so stop giving your gender such a hard time of it mate. wnating to kill/castrate a random 20 million people -- irrespective of gender- its a little bit worse than burning someone alive because of a genuine fear that you have. and its a lot worse than a movie about someone imagining lots of naked people.

[–] davidgoesboating 17 years ago

It's called sarcasm, lol.
Well I assume he was being sarcastic :o
obviously it can be hard to convey it in print at times :P

but yeah it was obviously a sarcastic response to the first post.

[–] candide613 17 years ago

1) Wow, you have had a bad experience with men havent you?

2) The number of women killed for witchcraft is around 100,000 ,which isnt to say that it's less bad, but don't exaggerate.

3) The female circumcision and abuse of women in the middle east is due to two things: the male is in complete control of the household as set out by the koran and in that culture non virgin women are not married, so in a sick way theyre trying to ensure that their daughters will have husbands.

4) You say that women who are in jail are there because of "negative male influences", but that is tantamount to saying that they have no free will and are helpless to make their own choices and opinions. Furthermore, the culture of abuse towards women in the middle east is passed down from father to son so that if the son does not submit to the father, he is cast out of the family.

5) Have you ever heard of Typhoid Mary or Elizabeth Bathory? The former was the first healthy carrier of typhoid and knowingly infected others because she would not stop working as a cook. The latter is a countess who, in her never-ending quest for eternal youth, killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 young virgins and then bathed in their blood. Women have the exact same capacity for mass murder and debauchery.

I could continue to refute your points, but I'll just stop and summarize with this: you generalize and stereotype with your hate speech, but it sounds like you are looking for excuses to hate on men either because someone close to you does and you look up to them or a man has hurt you and thus spawned a manhater.

[–] ImpotentBoy2 17 years ago

its funny when people don't get jokes

[–] trevorsmeda 17 years ago

well picking up jokes through simple text isnt exactly easy

[–] ImpotentBoy2 17 years ago

of course, but this was ridiculous. it was painfully obvious that it was a joke

[–] DanceswithPeeps 17 years ago

The protagonist only stripped the clothes from beautiful, young women and drew them. A real art student would have sketched both sexes, old and young, beautiful and not. It really is just a soft core porn movie being sold as art.

It was the casual way the student used these women that made me angry. He USED them. They weren't paid art models; they didn't give their permission. If he had drugged and then stripped and sketched them would this film have been accepted as an arty independent? No.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NotaCow 17 years ago

Religion is one of the greatest evils on earth, and some of the deranged freaks that post here are evidence of that. Many of you need professional help for your psychotic fear of nudity.

[–] DanceswithPeeps 17 years ago

It wasn't the nudity. It was the way he used these women who had no choice.

[–] knifey_spoony 17 years ago

you guy's know that it was all in is imagination, right, + he never touched these women?
there's nothing impure about appreciating the human body, (male or female) artists have been studying it for centuries + it's one of my favorite subjects as an artist. there are so many other ACTUAL issues you people could be bitching about!

[–] koral_reef 17 years ago

Guys...it is just a movie.....and i dont think he was actually stopping time.....the whole point of it was how he was passing the time....

Calm down and have a beer....

[–] highflight41 17 years ago

I just looked at a few more of lilafotioy's posts....and there is a trend. She hated "African Queen"....going on and on (get this) about how they go to the bathroom on such a small boat!!!!! This is a person with major issues. Sorry hon, we come with bodies. These bodies have functions. Some of us are not ashamed of them. Deal with it.

[–] tifinikam 15 years ago

They way he "used" the women...interesting.

It is amussing that some of you (and in reading various posts, women in particular) have found the movie to be misogynistic and or pornographic.
This movie in regards to the main character is neither.

Yes he is an art student so drawing the human form is essential to learning, in response to someones comment about how he would draw everyone man or woman..yes he would in the classroom but for the sake of the movie he doesn't. You will notice that in the super market, yes, almost every female is nude but he appreciates their figures and form. He does not touch them inappropriately. He does not make them do things..he just lives in his own world passing time by stopping it and drawing.

Why draw them naked? Well how can one appreciate the human form without seeing it in its most innocent form...naked. The body is beautiful! And he shows little sign of being perverted or "horny" or ill mannered toward any of the women.

I find their to be no offensive material in this movie. It is delightfully funny and I liked it in its entirety.

[–] DanceswithPeeps 15 years ago

If he was interested in drawing the human form as art he would have drawn all the people, not just the young, attractive women. A real artist respects and recognizes the beauty in all shapes of human.

It was the creator's wet dream. It was boring. Nothing in it was surprising. I learned nothing from it. It failed on all fronts, except to titillate the immature.

[–] latewatch 15 years ago

A "real artist" can draw anything he damn well pleases, as long as he sees its artistic merits. A young man at Art school who specifically states near the beginning of the film that he is interested in the beauty of the female figure in no way is obligated to be equally interested in old or overweight people or men. Being universally interested in everybody and everything may make you many things, but it doesn't make you a great artist. An artist interested in drawing young attractive women exclusively is no way less an artist or in any way artistically inferior to someone interested in drawing all subjects equally. Their relative value as artists is decided on skill, execution, craft, context etc. and not on their choice of subject matter. Also, it is not only the immature that are capable of being titillated. Thank God.

[–] WastedPuppy 17 years ago

Lila.

Thanks for sharing.

You are a silly, small-minded chauvinistic bigot.

I think myself blessed as I have been insofar spared the misery of running into you or a person such as you. Let's hope it sticks.

Adios!

[–] JonasDK 17 years ago

I will not go into your take on the film, as it's of course entirely subjective to you, but I'd like to comment on your observations.

First off, they don't call the naked Swedish girl walking the stairs art, they are showing a childhood experience he had that stuck and it is one of the experiences that got him interested in females and the female form.

Second, he doesn’t hypnotize anyone, as he says just before the time freezes the first time, he _imagines_ the time is frozen, it's a fantasy or mind game, to keep him busy during his shift at the mall, and his insomnia probably helps his imagination here.
And in my opinion, and as I'm fairly certain was the producers intention, he's not doing it to satisfy any sexual desire, but because he sees and feels their beauty.
It's an artistic thing; the scenes don't even feel sexual, even though we see naked women.

So I think the film is out of the woods, as far as your charges go, unless you want to restrict people of their freedom of thought.

Anyway I don't really believe in censorship anyway, I certainly don't want to ban movies because it doesn’t support my views of right and wrong at least.

I guess I just don’t subscribe to the whole "all men are evil pigs" idea, but that's probably because I'm a man.

Ohh, and let's remind artists not to try to make anything that goes against the popular public media.

[–] keysersoze13 17 years ago

Big shout out to all the sensible folk on the imdb boards. It seems we're just about keeping the nutters at bay. (If it's not too arrogant to band myself in with the 'sensible folk').

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eldiablo1979 17 years ago

You have got to be kidding me. IT`S ALL IN HIS IMAGINATION!! You´re probably a pretty boring individual without any kind of creativity or vision in your mind. Tell me ONE person that has´nt imagined another person naked. Open your mind for gods sake.

[–] trevorsmeda 17 years ago

dudelette (Sat Jul 7 2007 19:36:08)

"It wasn't the nudity. It was the way he used these women who had no choice."

were you even paying attention? its ALL IN HIS IMAGINATION...like the above poster said..HE DID NOTHING TO THE WOMEN...idiot.