breasts


Do you guys like looking at boobs that much? Is that why you liked this movie?

I liked the story about the war, but the theater, come on...She had them take off their clothes becasue she found a naked picture of a woman in her sons things after he died? Wait, I thought she did it to compete with the other theaters. I could hardly even stomach that speech. Give me a break. That is what she hoped for her son's life: That he would see real boobs? The whole thing was a marketing ploy so that she could sell more tickets than the other theaters and use/degrade the woman in the process. And we were supposed to find this funny?

reply

You are getting a bit heavy!

I liked this film because Will Young was in it!

reply

Methinks me spies a TROLL!!!!!

Come on, *beep* The girls were neither degraded, no exploited, nor objectified. A lot of them are still alive and would probably bitch-slap you for being so uptight. Get a life.

Oh, and in the 1930's/40's boys could literally spend their entire lives without ever seeing a naked girl. The speech Mrs Henderson gave was spot-on. You're obviously too stupid to understand that these boys who were dying in the war had no internet access to check out the latest streaming porn!

reply

The most important thing in a man's life is seeing naked women? I am supposed to feel sorry that they never had access to porn?
The women were exploited, but you are so brainwashed you think it is normal. They were used as a ploy to make money. Were they getting a cut on the profits? No, all they got were their measly paychecks, although they (well, their breasts) were the main attraction.
Btw, I dont even know what a troll is, but unless it's a person who states their opinion, I can assure you i am not one.

reply

A troll is a person who registers on a website forum in order to disrupt, or post a message which get everyone arguing and who then disappears!

At least that's what I think it is. Anyone have another explanation?

reply

Okay, I apologise for calling you a troll. Also, I wouldn't have been so rude if I'd known you were actually being serious.

As the poster above has explained, Trolls are people who post messages that are designed to give offense, press people's irritation buttons, or be just so plain stupid that they get lots of attention from people shouting at them. They seem to prefer being shouted at to being ignored. I was giving you what I thought you wanted - if you were a troll.

My mistake.

However, now that I know you're not a troll, I have to argue again (in more reasoned tones) that the women were not exploited. They may well have been a gimmick that brought in additional audiences and revenue, but that doesn't have to equate to exploitation. They got a lot out of it. They were happy. They were looked after. All the surviving ladies have fond memories of their time at the Windmill.

And yes, I believe as Mrs Henderson did that they provided a simple, beautiful, illustration of the female form to young men who might have missed out on the opportunity of enjoying it. There was nothing seedy or dirty about it - even if they provided titilation as well as "art".

Of course seeing a naked woman is not the most important thing in life. But for a young man who might die before his eighteenth birthday, it is likely to be one of the more pleasurable experiences. And remember that this happened in a much more innocent/ignorant/puritanical time. Young men simply did not have access to the imigary that exixts today. It may seem stupid or even crass by modern standards, but to a young soldier in the 1930's, getting to look at a few naked girls at the Windmill Theatre was probably one of the highlights of their young lives.

And I personally thought that Mrs Henderson Presents was a beautiful piece of filmmaking. I didn't find it exploitative, any more than the actresses and dancers who appeared in it, any more than the original performers at the Windmill.

So I'm sorry if I offended. I was just a little defensive, I guess, because I really loved the movie, and was moved by Mrs Henderson's speech.

Peace.

reply

I could agree with your point that Mrs. Henderson just wanted to bring some happiness to these mens lives if I had only heard her speech and not watched the beginning of the movie. Unfortunately, it just doesnt pan out. In the beginning,it was my interpretation that she bought the theater as she had just realized the freedom of being a widow, and then she wanted to make it successful. So she decided to do all day performances. However, that didnt work, so she decided on naked women. If you remember, she wasnt, in my opinion, trying to bring something beautiful and artistic, but something we would call "edgy" and shocking. If she had gotten her way, it would have been nothing like the way it was. It was only so tasteful becasuse that was all they were legally allowed to do. If you had perceived it in this way, wouldn't her speech at the end turn your stomach. To me it seemed she used the death of her son and the sorry state of the soldiers to make it seem as if she were doing something noble. It just seemed like one more of her marketing ploys to me. I didnt see any evidence that she had naked women on stage for the reasons she claimed, and it seemed like a justification after the fact.

reply

Fair point.

I agree that the begining part of the film gave the impression that Mrs Henderson was just trying to make more money by being shocking.

It even occured to me that her speech about her son was a pack of lies concocted to make it all seem noble. It's very possible that you are correct in every thing you say.

But...

The scenes on the roof make me think there was more to it than that. After she made the speech, she confided that "Now you know all my secrets." This made me feel that she was being sincere.

My interpretation was that she was a crazy eccentric woman who lived in a fantasy world that was quite unconnected with reality on most levels. But underneith the wacky exterior was a sensitive person who understood more about "reality" than she cared to admit, and was actually quite smart and had a plan. Like a superhero, she had the wacky front that she presented to the world, but in the rooftop scenes she revealed her alta-ego, the real her.

(Excuse the metaphore - I just watched "Sky High" - bad movie. Avoid it if you haven't already seen it! LOL)

So it is quite possible to interpret the film both ways. I just chose to suspend my natural cynicism and believe what she said. But I totally accept your point of view, on reflection. Once again, I apologise for being defensive. I guess I was just having a grouchy day. Sorry.

reply

Adaption from Anchorman...
"I love boobs"

reply

Excuse me but Sky High was a fine movie with excellent special effects and a good script. It was funny c'mon!

reply

LOL - okay, we're in the wrong place to discuss this, but Sky High was only good if you haven't seen The Incredibles... a far superior film.

reply

I just like boobies... I'm not ashamed

reply

Maquiladora, I've just seen this film for the first time tonight, and on reading what you wrote, the first reaction I had to it was that you need to take that hair out of your ass! I loved this film. But I guess you perceive I loved it because there were a few pairs of tits for me to salavate over? Your words struck me as something Milly Tant, from VIZ, would say.

Far and away the best thing about this movie were the performances of Bob Hoskins and Judi Dench and the chemistry they had together. I also found that the stage show was unlike any I've been to with my Mrs and I commented during the film about how nice it would be to go to a show with such a fresh, light hearted sound to it, not something that disappears up its own backside, like a bunch of the regular West End shows.

It's a shame that the exploitation of women is all that you can see it for. There's the Milly Tant bit coz I saw it as part of what the film was about and could it have actually been done any more tastefully? But you go off about brainwashing and porn. That's the hair up your arse bit. Do you think I rented it so I could gawp at Bob Hoskins' DICK? And yes, I do believe they WERE getting a cut of the profits. Enough to look after themselves, their family, have a social life AND save a bit I believe was the explanation to that. And of COURSE they were used as a ploy to make money. What do you think business is? How does one business compete with a similar business? That was demonstrated at the start of the film when they turned out to be a victim of their own success. And if they HADN'T have found a new ploy, they'd have gone under or been closed down, just like everyone else. Are YOU one of these dogooders who costs people their jobs because YOU believe they're being exploited?

Personally speaking, if the money was right, I'd do just about any job going, and if some dogooder tried to stop me because they felt it was degrading, I'd be sure and let them know where to get off.



reply

I didn't find the nudity degrading, but agree re the ridiculousness of the speech. We saw quite clearly in the film that she didn't plan a nude revue at the beginning and only came up with that idea to save the business. This speech would have worked if we knew she was saying it with a wink and a smile to B.S. the Lord Chamberlain, but the movie and Judi Dench presented it very sincerely, as if we were expected to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Just one of the many inconsistencies in the script!

reply

But you presume that people stand up and tell the truth. As a businesswoman, she stood up in front of a positive crowd in front of the person who wanted to close her, and gave a speech so heartwarming that he had no option. You think if it were real she'd tell the truth? Business people say what's best for their business, not the truth. But then, I don't believe that was what was intended in her speech. It's a movie, she's a showwoman and someone wrote a touching speech that others found sickly. In the end, it worked for her, she got what she wanted, so, truth or lie, what does it matter? Her business won.

reply

Her business won but the movie lost. I personally don't presume that people stand up and tell the truth. But, as I said, I think the scene could have been handled differently so that it didn't ooze this sickly sweet, tears-in-the-eyes sincerity that I found grating. From what I've read about Henderson, she was a much more abrasive and difficult and complicated woman than she was made to be in the movie. The real character sounds more interesting than the far-too-sweet, lovelorn character with just a few "quirks" who was presented on screen. It seems like she was a real diva, to put it kindly. I would love to read a good book on the real Laura Henderson. Even an interview that Stephen Frears did made the real woman sound much more fascinating than the on-screen character.

reply

Oh, I've no doubt that the real woman was totally different, but then that's what movies based on fact do, give you a distorted vision of reality. Anyhow, this was a different kind of film for me and I enjoyed it, her speech and all.

reply

I would have been a little more impressed if the women on stage represented the female figure of the time, which I'm sure was a little more robust than the rather anemic-looking figures we saw on screen.

reply

Okay, I believe the original poster was blinded by their modern-day feminist perspective and saw only what they wanted/expected to see: Objectification and exploitation of women.

I originally defended the movie because it patently wasn't doing that. Nor was it pandering to the supposed lecherousness of all men. I found it a touching, interesting, beautiful film with outstanding performances.

However, on reflection (and misplaced feminist viewpoints aside) I chose to accept the original poster's generalised distaste for the speech, which could be interpreted in several ways, and left the film open to some of the critisisms it has received.

However, I must quickly respond to the last post, that complains that the female figures on display were not accurate to the period.

If you take the time to watch the bonus documentary, it explains that the movie was cast with that specific point in mind. They chose girls who fitted the look and shape of the period as far as possible. Short of time-travelling back to 1930's London and kidnapping a few showgirls, I think they did the best they could. Find a young dancer nowadays who doesn't have membership at her local gym! LOL



reply

Actually, what I wanted/expected to see was a movie that would make me laugh. I never saw previews for the movie, but before viewing I thought it was about the madam of a brothel. I guess you are right, I was viewing it from a modern feminist perspective becasue I thought the plot line would involve the madam being a woman with power in a man's world blah blah blah, somehing a bit like "Dangerous Beauty", a movie I watched a couple days beofre I saw this one.

I don't think my distate of the speech was generalized, though. I was very specific about why I disliked it based on all the information given to me by everything that happened in the movie previous to the speech. If we were supposed to believe her speech, the writers did a very poor job, and the movie deserves the citisism.

reply

I would have been a little more impressed if the women on stage represented the female figure of the time, which I'm sure was a little more robust than the rather anemic-looking figures we saw on screen.


The actresses were all selected very carefully to look exactly like the women of the time.

Watch the DVD extras - they brought experts on the matter in to ensure everything looked just right.

www.allstarfriends.com

reply

I am a modern day feminist who found the movie, including the nudity, lovely. It was not especially titillating by today's standards. It was an important part of an interesting story, based, in part, on real history. It was not a movie I would bring a young child to, but if a young child walked in while I watching it on dvd, I would not feel compelled to turn it off or shoo the kid away.

Truly lecherous men of today can see a lot more skin without having to "suffer" through a movie that's mostly Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins and a few other actors who are well past their time for being considered hot.

But for me, it was a delight.

Marcia

"Oh Mr. Van Damm, you are Jewish." Judi Dench as Laura Henderson in Mrs Henderson Presents.

reply

I am so glad you liked it Marcia. I have it on DVD and have seen it several times now. I am a Will Young fan and think he did a great job in his first film. Apparently he really enjoyed making it.

reply

I agree with you, Marcia Lou. I'm a life-long feminist and I saw nothing wrong with the movie. I'm also the mother of a son. I want him to experience everything in life. I thought the tableaus were tastefully done. The lighting made it almost like looking at paintings in a museum.

As far as the frontal nudity, albeit brief, of the men....well, I realized that covering ourselves is more a matter of aesthetics than sex.

Most of us look better with our clothes on after a certain age.

reply

"Most of us look better with our clothes on after a certain age"

You can say that again! I think "all of us" would be more appropriate.

reply

Judi Dench said somewhere that if she had taken her clothes off, it would have scared the horses.

Marcia

"Oh Mr. Van Damm, you are Jewish." Judi Dench as Laura Henderson in Mrs Henderson Presents.

reply

I got a strong impression that Mrs. Henderson was thinking about having naked girls before it became a problem that the business was doing poorly. I think that's what she's thinking about when she's watching the girls dancing and asks that singer guy how attractive he finds them. She bought the theatre just because she felt like it and needed something to do and was kind of naive in the way she wanted to run it; I don't think she actually cared about the theatre making money.

"Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?"

reply

"That singer guy" is the supremely talented and gorgeous Will Young! Who has recently signed to appear in a stage play by Noel Coward - The Vortex. It is on at the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester next year. A feather in Will's cap I feel.

reply

The intention of Mrs H in buying The Windmill was to combat the fact that London theatres were either "dark" (ie closed down) or converted into cinemas showing mostly American films. Thus there were a huge number of dancers, actors and other theatre people unemployed, many sleeping rough in the streets.

The nude girls came about for two reasons: firstly the Moulin Rouge in Paris has nude dancers for many years (and still do) and was a very glamorous place. She wanted to emulate that glamour. Secondly she was - beleive it or not - a proto-type feminist who felt (rightly) that the human body is a beautiful thing, used in art since the birth of mankind and that Victorian morality was invented by the upper classes for the lower classes to follow. Only smutty people see smut where there is none...

If it makes any difference to your opinion at all, Mrs Henderson never made any money out of The Windmill - in fact the whole adventure cost her a fortune. Sure she wanted to boost the box office - but that was to ensure that she could still attract good acts and good staff. Please remember that because she fought (and paid) to keep the Windmill open The Windmill launched the careers of many major British stars including Kenneth More and (albeit later, but because of the ethos she founded) Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan and Tony Hanock.

reply

I thought I'd just point out that she did actually say "I've been thinking about this for some time" (or something along those lines) to Bob Hoskin's character when she first told him about the nude girls. Just like the "do you find them attractive" line, it's there to show that it wasn't entirely a ploy save her theatre.

reply

I talk about the facts - you talk about the script - two entirely different things...

reply

Well, the original poster was refering to the script. And I was adding to someone else's comment which said that the script suggested Mrs. Henderson (the movie character, not the person) was not including nude women in her shows just for profit.

reply

[deleted]

I disagree that the women were exploited, and with the original poster's assertion that most men were watching the movie for the breasts (from the posts I've read, Will Young's ass was more appreciated by more of the viewers than the breasts were), but I've got to agree that the speech was flawed.

The speech absolutely gave the impression that Mrs. Henderson's reason for including nude dancers was so that boys could see breasts before they die, and the script just doesn't bear that out. The speech could have been worded just slightly differently, and it would have been so much better. She could have said that she was proud that men like her son wouldn't die not knowing what a naked woman looks like, and left it at that, without claiming it was her motivation. Would it have made that much of a difference to the crowd, or to Lord Chamberlain?

reply

Hmmm- I suspect you're the one liking to look at 'boobs' if thats all you focused on enought o post about it...

Nobody notices the sober Indians. On tv the drunk Indians emote In books drunk Indians philosophize

reply

People need to learn what feminism is because it is not getting freaked out about women being nude in a theater show.

I don't see a difference between "exploting" the naked girls for their bodies and the singer for her voice.

reply

i'll admit i watched it because it was perported to have lots of naked chicks, but i enjoyed because the story was really well done. It was like Showgirls for the upper crust.

"Up yours with a twirlin' lawnmower" - A Nightmare on Elm Street

reply

i realise men are obsessed about breasts but showcasing it is exploitation and no matter how willing the ladies were to do it, they did it becuase it was money to earn. although it was done in fairly good taste, it was just like porn and prostitution now

------------------------
OOOOH MATRON!

reply