MovieChat Forums > Mrs. Henderson Presents (2006) Discussion > breasts

breasts

posted 18 years ago by quiladora
51 replies | jump to latest

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?

[–] jimrbrobinson-1 17 years ago

It wasn't about 'guys looking at boobs' specifically, and the motivation was exactly as stated in the film. This film is closely based on reality. Your very jaded view of the film is based on modern and cynical attitudes towards women, which weren't as simple back then. Yes, there was an element of marketing ploy, in that they were doing something openly that had previously only been done in secret, hence the discussions about 'not moving' and hence being 'art' rather than something rude. However, other theatre's quickly copied the idea.

The whole thing wasn't about 'seeing boobs' but the fact that her son had never had the opportunity to appreciate what a wonderful and beautiful thing the female form is. His only experience had been a cheap French postcard. Her philosophy was that at least this way, those boys going off to die would at least have experience the beauty of women.

Try a search on the web for the Windmill Theatre and look at some of the old photos of the real girls from back then. They weren't the silver screen beauties we all remember today, theirs was true beauty that comes from the natural beauty of women, not engineered with make-up and fancy lighting.

See http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/index.html, which contains much information on the Windmill, and other London theatres.

[–] velcronewsletter 17 years ago

i know it was considered an art form and i know they were deprived little boys. but it doesn't excuse the fact that looking at breasts is a pretty juvenile pasttime, let alone lords and ladies going to see it. its all very well for breasts to be admired, but the stage is not the place for it

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

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] quiladora 17 years ago

My views are based on my impressions of the FiLM, not reallity. In the film, the boobs were, plain and simple, a marketng ploy. Very explicit. Then we hear the speech at the end explaining the son never seeing a naked woman thing. Are we to forget the real reason and just believe this story? or take it for what it was, based on the previous scene, another ploy. Again, this is the impression the film makes, and may not be what really happened. It's actually a huge flaw in this movie (considering we are probably *supposed* to believe the speech and have already forgotten the previous scene that showed us her true intent), and if you take it for how it is, and not read into the director's intentions, her portrayl is quite repulsive.

[–] Pearl24 17 years ago

I cannot understand the various posts on here about why they had naked women. This is a film based on fact and however much you analyse it, the fact is that they did pose naked on stage. It was a very popular show and had comedians and dancers as well as the show girls. A lot of the UK's comedians of the 40s and 50s started out in The Windmill shows.

[–] quiladora 17 years ago

I don't think anyone was disputing that they posed naked on stage.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kenneth-r-close-1 15 years ago

I love boobs as much as any man on Earth, yet I only rated this movie a 5 because the plot was weak, the conflict contrived and the humor totally inconsistent. But you do have a point. . .without the boobs I would have rated it a 3!

[–] Aim-JE 14 years ago

There are a lot of links to pictures of the girls on this page. I think the casting was excellent and thoroughly enjoyed this film.
http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Archive/Feb2003/Feb2003index.html

"I could ram a spork up your ass!"

[–] jmarkoff2 14 years ago

A nude body can be a beautiful work of nature (but not when it's Bob Hoskins, however). We need to get the prudes and puritans out of controlling everything. The OP seems much in the same vein as the tiresome Lord Chamberlain in this movie.

[–] cableaddict 14 years ago

Is the most important thing in a man's life seeing naked women?

Pretty much, yeah. This is news?

OK, not "seeing" exactly. - but in the 1930's that would often have to suffice.

------

As for exploitation, perhaps the OP should read a dictionary. The definition, in the context he meant, is "use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way :"

What was unfair? The women were paid, and they had the option not to do it. End of story.

[–] chefz2 14 years ago

The idea is that the young are being robbed of their childhood and their lives. As stupid as it may seem to aspire to give these kids nudity, she sees it no different as sending a letter or a favorite candy. Her son's assumed lack of sexual experience was an important rite of passage he would never have, just like going to college, getting married or having a family.

That is why she tried to set up Maureen with Paul, she saw him as the son she lost and Maureen as the daughter in law she would never have. And she knew that during such a hard times, people (especially the young) needed to have some fun and connect. You hear many stories about men fighting for the girl back home and how it keeps their spirits raised. Her son never had that.

As for degradation and oppression, were the men in the movie oppressed when they took off their clothes? those girls didn't have to agree to it or could have asked to be in the chorus (which still wore clothes). They made sure that they were treated with respect and every consideration they could. They didn't have them flaunting or making them do anything obscene. Which is more than I can say for regular theater, even today fully clothed.

If this was just a marketing ploy, then they would skip any historical context and make straight-up porn.

I lot of movies are a lot more explicit and show only implied nudity. This was more artistic than sexual.

Don't disillusion my contempt. It's all I have left.

[–] StarkTech 10 years ago

Kelly Reilly topless = a main reason to watch this film

[–] kellyreillyfans 9 years ago

The nudity was added by Judi Dench's character, to boost attendences.

I feel it was tastefully done, and also got both genders involved- a rare occurrence, in movies?

AKA KELLYREILLYFANS ON TWITTER