Here is a link to the brief review in New York's weekly paper, the Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-11-24/film/paranoia-sets-into-ursula- meier-s-home/
It will be playing at the Cinema Village theater which showed "Private Property" with Huppert last year.
[deleted]
the caption under the photo in that articled grabbed me. I have yet to see this film yet (I'm in the US), but every online review in this has yet to mention incest... So, without spoilers, can someone tell me if this Village Voice article speaks the truth or is this just typical American fear of nudity within the family?
regardless, I am anxious to see this!
coex wrote:
"I have yet to see this film yet (I'm in the US), but every online review in this has yet to mention incest... So, without spoilers, can someone tell me if this Village Voice article speaks the truth or is this just typical American fear of nudity within the family?"
[deleted]
The British Board of Film Classification gave this a "15" rating, ie. suitable for those over the age of 15.
Here are their comments on the issue of nudity...
The strong nudity is the defining classification issue. It occurs in a scene where the family's middle daughter removes all her clothing and shows her body to her mother and her brother. There is clear sight of her breasts and her pubic hair. Though it doesn't take place during a sex scene, the full frontal nudity and the teenager's comments about her developing body (she asks her younger brother what he thinks of it and tells her Mother she knows her body doesn't look like her big sister's) place some focus on her nudity. At '15' the BBFC Guidelines state 'There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context'.share
The film also contains several scenes of natural nudity in which characters, including both adult and child performers, are naked. These include joint bathing scenes and water fights. None of the scenes are indecent or lewd in a manner that would raise concerns under the Protection of Children Act 1978.
This work was passed with no cuts made.
I don't live in Britain; I live in another European country, where the local board rated the movie "for all ages" (the literal translation would be "for everyone", to be precise).
That said...
- I perfectly agree with the British Board of Film Classification, and I find its analysis accurate and well-balanced.
- I still totally disagree with the review published on the Village Voice, which mentioned "incestuous tensions" (sic).
I cannot for the life of me perceive any element suggesting "incest", in any scene.
While extensive nudity and tensions ARE present in the film, they are NEVER of sexual nature, and even less of incestuous nature.
And the judgment of the BBFC, together with the criteria used to formulate such judgment, corroborates my impression:
"There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context" (...)Anyway, this is just my personal impression... and my humble opinion.
"None of the scenes are indecent or lewd in a manner that would raise concerns under the Protection of Children Act 1978."