NEEDED NOOKIE


Anybody else way disappointed that there was NO sex in this film? What, they didn't have sex in 1920? Really? How did my mammy and pappy get here?

Seriously, I'm not some mouth-breather who can't enjoy a drama without seeing some naughty bits, but here you've got a couple of handsome young people who obviously dig each other from the start, and their love evolves. We need to SEE the combustion and consummation of that love. It would have added much-needed juice to a too-long, too-dry story.

More directors of these period pieces need to recognize that just because attitudes toward sex and nudity were different in the past doesn't mean that people weren't getting their freak on. And if that's the case, AND it is integral to the story, then, dagnubit, show me the f'shizzle!

I saw this film with my wife and two friends. When I started to voice my opinion, they all looked at me like I was some perv. Am I wrong?



"Funny like a clown? I amuse you, I make you laugh? I'm here to f--kin' amuse you?"

reply

I saw this film with my wife and two friends. When I started to voice my opinion, they all looked at me like I was some perv. Am I wrong?


I've found that my wife is nearly always right in matters like these (although I would never admit it to her). Maybe you should listen to yours. :)

But seriously, some things are better left to the imagination. Think of all the times he tried to sneak a peek upstairs when she was changing/undressed and she shouted down "NO!!!". When she finally did invite him up to her room, it was funnier that way. I can go for a torrid love scene as much as the next guy (like, "Fatal Attraction" or "The Postman Rings Twice"), but I think its fine without it.

Who knows, maybe the DVD will have deleted scenes? People who like that sort of thing will find that to be the sort of thing they like.

reply

I got the DVD and it has not gotten any deleted scenes. Other than the language confusion of German and Norwegian. It is a good flick.

reply

I found it refreshing not to see a sex scene. Gone With The Wind didn't have one but you knew what was going to happen when Rhett carried Scarlet up the stairs/

reply

Yes, I think you are wrong. The point was that they lived in a very religious culture, and are religious themselves, and attitudes toward sex were not as liberal as they are today.

This film was obviously not for you. It is about innocence and getting to actually know each other. These characters weren't ready for sex, and although I'm sure they had strong feelings toward each other, I'm very happy that physical sex didn't enter into this story.

I'm not a prude when it comes to sex and film, but characters having sex usually stops a film dead in its tracks, anyway.

reply

Showing the sex would be like gratuitous violence. It's completely unnecessary and would have probably cheapened the plot and the film in general. I thought leaving out a sex scene was a class act on the part of the director, altho, i admit, i probably would have enjoyed seeing it. In the end tho, not showing it upheld the integrity of the movie.
Directors these days seem to feel compelled to always show some type of violence or sex, and im glad this movie never went down that road. It made it more realistic and believable, and, dare i say, a much more absorbing film.

reply


I agree with you too! I would have liked to seen some passion between them too, not nudity but some closeness would have made the movie a lot better.
Tammie

reply

I thought the closeness was shown as you saw them doing things like holding hands and dancing together in the field. The nookie was certainly implied when she told him she was naked but invited him up anyway.

reply

[deleted]

I just wish we'd seen a kiss....just a kiss....

Not that it was really needed at the end, but it would have been nice.

"I fell in love with your tears. But now I want to see you smile." Nowaki to Hiroki

reply

I admit that a naughty part of me wished for some tasteful little scene to show us what we've all only imagined throughout the film. Man, were they hot for each other!

Sex scenes don't have to be all out...no Basic Instict for these two, thank you very much. But even though I'm fine with how it ended, it wouldn't have made the film any less profound to have a tasteful little scene a la Cold Mountain or a touching "afterwards" scene to round things out.

Seemed kinda odd to go from sex to death. But maybe that's what they had in mind.

reply

[deleted]

I was more than fine with the fact that there was no sex in this movie.

I thought the sexual tension laid forth during the scenes where Inge is upstairs (out of sight and naked) and Olaf is downstairs in the kitchen, with one foot on the squeaky stair, was great. You could feel the sexual tension between these two characters grow as the movie continued...which I guess is why it's signficant that at the end, Olaf put his foot on the stair and called to Inge...and she invited him up.

reply

Yes, you are wrong (in my opinion).
Olaf and Inge certainly did not "obviously dig each other from the start".
The existence of sex was certainly implied in the movie. Any more would have completely ruined the entire theme and plot of the story. The filmmakers handled this whole issue exquisitely and perfectly (in my opinion).

reply

[deleted]

When I started to voice my opinion, they all looked at me like I was some perv. Am I wrong?

Yes, IMO you are wrong. But you are not a perv.

I'll second what practically every respondent has said: it's better without a sex scene. I'll make the opposite disclaimer you made: I'm not any sort of fundamentalist prude or anything like that. (And I'm a straight guy, just for the record.) But speaking for myself, sex is so ubiquitous and COMMON in TV and movies that it has lost its cinematic power. I have watched so many movies in which the two people sweated and heaved and moaned and it's always presented as being so passionate and I the viewer am supposed to be Really Feeling Something. But I feel nothing, because those kinds of images are so jaded. Where do you NOT see it nowadays?

Give me romance and longing. Build up some substance between the two people. Show me that through long hardship they've earned an intimacy not of the physical kind. Then DON'T show me the sex. Leave it to my imagination, which is more powerful than anything the movie could show.

At last, here's one movie that had the courage to do that and it wasn't a kids' movie. And yes, I think the word "courage" is appropriate. It takes no courage to "push the envelope" with explicitness; nowadays it takes more courage not to. I wish they'd make more movies like this.

reply

Didn't care for that scene, but disappointed there wasn't at least a kiss or an embrace!!

But Olaf eating with "vigour" at the end whilst looking at Inge, gave the impression he was "hungry" for something else.

reply

Yes, IMO you are wrong. But you are not a perv. I'll second what practically every respondent has said: it's better without a sex scene ...

I relate, and don't relate, to your view. What have become ubiquitous and boring (to me) in cinema are badly acted and poorly shot sex acts. The stuff done in near darkness, or with rapid edits, or continuous closeups is the worst, I think.

Like in real life, good sex on film is never unmoving (assuming there has been proper buildup to it). Seeing and hearing what's going on (within reason) is essential for "believeability" and, thus, enjoyment. It doesn't have to be porn, but it kinda has to be porn-like. I mean, the amateur, homemade stuff where you can tell that real passions are being aroused.

If I'm paying to see a film, why should I have to use my imagination? (Note: I'm not talking about things that would be utterly revolting to most people if shown.) I'm not asked to use my imagination for any other significant action in the film. In fact, if you don't see body parts interacting, or even see the body parts, on what do you base your imagination? If my imagination is "more powerful than anything the movie could show," then that's not a movie I need to see!

A final sex scene in this film would absolutely not have been gratuitous. However, if the choice was to leave it out or do it but fail to give it the visual/aural emotional explosion worthy of the buildup, then I'd probably pick the former.

Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.

reply

Personally I'm so tired of our entertainment culture being so sexually drenched that it's a little difficult for me to get behind anybody ever saying there should be more sex where there is none. And when I say "sexually drenched" that can include things such as innuendo and incessant sitcom humor that revolves around sex, not just explicit depictions of sex. So in contrast, a rare movie like Sweet Land strikes me as refreshing.

Nevertheless, I can respect your distinction between quality vs. quantity of sex scenes. That is an interesting point. I'm not a total prude either. I could name some favorite movies that do contain some sexual scenes in which I find it effective and not gratuitous. And I've laughed at (and even told) a bawdy joke or two in my day.

And just for the record, as much I love this movie, I would agree that it would be even better with at least a little more physical affection between the leads than what we saw. At least a nice sensual kiss near the end of the movie would have been good.

But I will respectfully differ from you where you say:

If I'm paying to see a film, why should I have to use my imagination? ... I'm not asked to use my imagination for any other significant action in the film.

I think that's oversimplifying things just a bit. Imagination is not just what you have to settle for when an explicit depiction (be it of sex or anything else) is not possible. It would also be oversimplifying if I said the less you show and the more you imagine, the better. I didn't mean to imply that in my previous post. If you take that idea all the way, then there wouldn't be a movie at all.

But any artistic experience - be it a play, a movie, a piece of music - is an interplay between clear depiction and imagination. Many works portray things clearly, lead you up to a point, but then the artist may choose to back off and leave you to have your own inner experience. It means more because you have something of yourself invested in it. Poets and songwriters do that all the time. So does a painter and so does a good filmmaker.

That being said, I too can understand if a work leaves too much to your imagination, then maybe the artist is just being lazy.

How much should be clearly depicted and how much should be left to the imagination? There is no one correct answer. Every work is different.

I always respect a differing view that's presented in a civil and well-thought-out manner. It's nice to know there are some in imdb.com that can do that. I'm amused that you're replying to a post of mine from over 2 years ago, which was itself in reply to your OP from about 6 years before that!

reply

fentress ... will get back to you soon.

Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.

reply

Sex, sexuality, depictions of sex acts, sex offenses/offenders ... these are some of my favorite topics. So, I would like to present my frame of reference. When it comes to virtual (TV, computer monitor, theater) sex or sex talk, more is better. To be precise, more sex or sex talk that is genuinely informative and/or entertaining and/or just plain old prurient is a GOOD thing.

Why?, you might ask. Because, in the USA (and elsewhere I'm sure), progressives are still waging a centuries-old war against ignorance, repression, pseudo-morality, and legal oppression surrounding sex and sexuality. (Example: You still can't write various swear and sexual words on IMDb. WTF! Are we adults or not?) So every sex joke, sexual innuendo, racy dialog, sex/love scene, display of "naughty bits," etc. in the media -- well-executed or not -- is another slap at those Puritans who would make us feel guilt, shame, or reservation about our "private" parts and sexual interests/desires, and who would deter us from an activity that is essential to our well-being and a necessity to the continuation of life. Sex and sexual references in the media remind us of a significant commonality among humans (and the rest of the animal kingdom). Sex unites people, figuratively as well as literally.

I've always wondered why some parents are so worried (even hysterically so) about their kids viewing nudity, porn, or even real-life sexual situations. Perhaps they think exposure to nudity or sex accelerates their children's interest in, and desire for, sex. They don't realize that the sex drive is wired in, as is the interest in sex. Kids will naturally -- and on their own schedule -- pursue their own personal, customized sex-ed program, using whatever resources available to them. To use the cliche, "It's all good."

As for "imagination," I don't have much more to say about that -- only that I think there is a difference between artistic mediums. Prose, poems, and songs depend on the imagination; they shape the imagination. Whereas visual works have the power to do the imagining for you, and one doesn't expect to have to bring much fantasizing to the event.

I, too, enjoy positive social/intellectual intercourse with qualified participants. And they're out there. The reason it took me 2 years to reply to your post is that I was recently re-reading some of my old posts, saw yours, and just felt like it was something worthy of resurrection. We seem to be the last men standing on this thread.

Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.

reply

Your last post is very clarifying, in that it gives a sense of the broader perspective from which you approach this. This is reminding me of an extended debate I had with someone else on imdb a couple of years ago, which also fortunately was mutually civil.

Here’s my take. I totally get what you’re saying about our history of puritanism and repression and the harm it’s inflicted on people in the past. But one of the most important words there is “history”. Historically, you’re absolutely right. If this were the 1950’s, I would be enthusiastically agreeing with you. But nowadays, and if we’re talking about the United States, frankly I’m not seeing a lot of puritanical repression. I don’t have cable TV. But even with over-the-air local station broadcast, I can easily turn the TV on at 4:00 PM in the afternoon and catch a rerun of Seinfeld where the episode premise might revolve around masturbation or of Jerry finding out one of his sexual “moves” got copied by another guy. And that’s pretty much par for the course in entertainment media nowadays. I’m old enough to remember when this would have been perceived as shocking. But where’s the big outcry now? I’m not seeing it.

What about the fact that something like a third of all babies now are born out of wedlock, either to cohabitating couples or to single women where the father of the child has split the scene? Yet are these people ashamed to show their face in public? Are they being forced to wear a scarlet letter? I’m not saying necessarily that shame should be inflicted on such people, but I am pointing out that for the most part it’s not.

And we have gay marriage nationwide now. Sure, there are people who don’t like that idea. There’s always going to be some homophobia. But I look around and I’m not seeing chaos in the streets over gay marriage. For the most part the public is at least tolerating it, largely accepting it.

Now granted, there certainly are pockets of fundamentalism where you can find people who do cling to the traditional standards and are quite judgmental about it. But it’s a specialty persuasion now. It’s not the mainstream any more. And it will do nothing but become even more the norm as older generations die off and today’s younger people become middle-aged.

In short, I think people who feel the way you describe are still fighting battles in a war that largely was already won some time ago.

I’d like to point out, in the interest of sharing my larger perspective, that I am in fact a very liberal guy in most other aspects. I’m in my 50’s and all of my adult life I’ve been politically left of the center. I’m active in a Unitarian Universalist fellowship, a “religion” that has no creed and no dogma and accepts people of pretty much any lifestyle or gender or relational identity.

So my view of sexuality in society may sound incompatible with what else I’ve told you about myself, but that’s how I honestly see it. Fifteen or twenty years ago if you had talked to me then, I would have been in vociferous agreement with you. But eventually I found myself initially surprised to be having thoughts that maybe libertinism has gone about as far as it should, that maybe in today’s world a little decorum, a little taste, a little voluntary restraint might actually be a nice thing once in a while.

I’m going to take one more stab at what I was trying to say about the role of imagination. Forget for now using a lofty example like poetry. Let’s look at something more common like a TV commercial. Imagine a commercial for some sort of closet organizing device. You see a husband and wife who appear to be in their home. The husband is wildly exuberant saying something like “It’s Saturday. I’m so eager to do some tidying up around here! And I’m going to start with this closet!” You see him dash off and he exits offscreen. Then the wife says, “Honey, be careful. That closet it so full of junk you might start …” then her words are interrupted by loud sounds of items crashing to the floor followed by a cry of pain. You don’t see it; you only hear the sound. Then she finishes “… an avalanche.”

Now hopefully you can see how that could be funny precisely because you didn’t actually see the items crashing on the poor guy. The commercial led you up to that point, then left the rest for you to imagine. The creator made a choice to use some restraint to enhance humor, but it can be the case also with straight dramatic content. I don't feel that it's a waste to not show something simply because you could. That’s all I’m really talking about with imagination. And if you don’t ever appreciate anything like that, then I think you’re missing a good experience.

There’s still plenty of opportunity to clearly depict things, within the same work. Both approaches can be part of one work. But you seem to be insisting it’s all got to be one way.

Now you’re entitled to an opinion that perhaps this particular movie Sweet Land could have used more clear depiction and less restraint. Even though I love the movie and particularly like that they left the sex for us to imagine, I could have used a little more physical affection between the leads. But I’m just making a general point.

Sorry if this was a little long; I get a little carried away some times. I suspect you and I are people who agree on the facts and probably a lot else too, but have a different gut level “orientation”. For whatever reasons, you may feel puritan repression weighing you down, and I tend to feel societal tackiness and excessive libertinism weighing me down. Neither of us is likely to start feeling differently right away as a result of reading the other’s post. But in the long run, discourse of this kind can shape the evolution of one’s thought.

reply

I suspect you're correct ... we're a couple of mid-aged guys who think rationally about things (and with the perspective -- dare I say, wisdom -- that time/age gives one). Our differences, at least about sex and sexuality in the public arena, are probably based more on our personal interests and tastes than on some fundamental schism in our values or life views.

An example comes to mind as to how far "we" still need to travel in the battles against prudery and repression. This is most likely not your "thing," but I have an amateur interest in nudism. Do you know that there is a continual effort, around the country, of city/county governments (backed by fearful citizens and zealous prosecutors) to enact laws that prohibit public nudity anywhere on public property, e.g., a "clothing-optional" beach. Even well-known nudist gatherings on designated public property, that have been occurring for decades, are under constant scrutiny and threat. The attackers make completely unsupported claims that link nudity and acts of public sex, sexual assaults, and other crimes, which are nonsense but effective at fear-mongering.

What the hell happened to the unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (especially joys that cause no harm)? When you have this mentality (even in godless So. CA) about just nudity, in 21st-century America, then think what demons of shame, guilt, confusion, hatred, and even hysteria are triggered when actual sexual activity or depictions of sex are involved that don't conform to an individual's concept of what is "normal" and acceptable. (Note: I'm not talking about aversion to sex offenses where someone is victimized.)

It's cliche, but honest and practical: If you see/hear something that is unappealing or offensive to you, turn away or turn it off. But it's important to allow (I would even say, support) it for the people who do enjoy whatever it is. De gustibus non disputandum est. It's impossible and fruitless to police the sexual interests, behavior, or morality of others. (Note: I'm not saying people shouldn't be educated about the dangers of unprotected sex or wanton behavior.) And it's counterproductive to a free society.

I do recognize that you aren't calling for increased censorship -- you, like most of us, "vote" with your clicker or remote -- but I have been trying to give the argument (in this post and previous ones) for the benefits to individuals and society of whatever would be the opposite of censorship -- for a world in which we can all feel as comfortable with healthy, varied sex and sexual thoughts as we feel about all the other pleasures of life.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but your example of a stuffed closet causing a heard-but-not-seen avalanche upon opening was a running gag in some old movie/TV/radio show. Can't remember the origin.

All for now.

Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.

reply

Huckfinn,

While your nude beach wouldn’t be my cup of tea personally, I wouldn’t have any big issue with it. Yes, I can believe there’s not much hard evidence that the existence of nudism does any harm to society in general. And it sounds like you’re saying you’re willing to compromise and accept keeping nudism confined within designated places in order to accommodate majority public mores, as long as people essentially have the freedom to partake of that activity if they choose. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I was reading something online once about a nudist colony somewhere that screened whom they admitted as well. Is that a common practice? They didn’t want unattached lone males to visit, I assume since they could likely be there for prurient purposes. Sorry, guys!

As for my concern for creeping libertinism as I’ve expressed in earlier posts, it’s the broad sphere of everyday public behavior that is of concern to me. Like I was saying with my example of a TV sitcom can be on at 4:00 PM that might have sexual or anatomical humor, not many years ago that would have been considered unfit for public airwaves. Now some traditionally moralistic people might say they're less offended by that than they would be by a nudist colony. The sitcom is obviously less explicit. But the fact that it’s so ubiquitous and so easily accessible is what bothers me. Or there’s the fact that you might hear language in some public place that a few decades ago would have been considered unfit for polite society functions. And don’t even get me started on the loosening standards of how a person dresses. I’ve even been to church services where girls wore somewhat provocative outfits. (Perhaps not so surprising for us heathen Unitarians, but when even Christian churches allow it, I start getting worried!)

There are fewer islands of polite society left, fewer avenues of innocence. Public tastes in general seem coarser to me that they used to. That’s what makes the world today a less pleasant place for me.

But having said that, I’ve never been terribly bothered by the existence of things like stripper clubs or pornographic video stores or nudist resorts (not that I necessarily would group nudism with those as a possibly unwholesome vice). A person has go to some effort to patronize such a place. And establishments such as those are generally pretty regulated as to hours of operation and being closed to minors and what location in a town is zoned for it, etc.

Hypothetically, you could have a society whose standards of taste in general public behavior would resemble those of earlier generations. But if a person wants to be “bad” and go to the “unsavory” part of town to visit a strip club for example, then he has a safe outlet for that behavior. (And I’m not claiming to have never done such a thing myself.) I see it as a model for society where you can have the best of both worlds. Of course, the reality is that it’s always unbalanced in one direction or the other. We’ll probably never get it exactly perfect.

Yes, regarding my closet avalanche illustration, I was trying to come up with an example to make my point and I wasn’t sure I was being completely original. It was probably in my residual memory from something I saw once. Maybe an old episode of I Love Lucy or an old Warner Brothers cartoon (?).

Sorry your boys didn’t do so well in the Super Bowl.

reply

[deleted]