I was amazed when I saw the ship sailing into Hawaii and there are several shots of bare breasted women running to the ship. I was a bit taken back since this film seemed to be a "G" rated film except for that part. And since this film was made in 1966, it seems even more the shocking.
shareNsapre, this is before the rating system. Yes I agree with you, the scene did take me by surprise as well as the language. The rating system begin in 1967.
shareIt was very shocking - and unnecessary. They could have shot the topless babes close-up, so that it would be apparent that they had to tops on without have to show exposed b-b-b-b-breasts. Or they could have shown them from behind where the lack of any straps or covering on top indicated their nude topless state. Or they could have glued their long hair and flower leis to their boobs so that the nipple part would remain covered up.
On the other hand, I think the men could have worn less - much less. And there should have been more men.
"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
Actually, the nudity was not all that different from what was shown in MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY(1962) with Marlon Brando and Richard Harris.
Even some of the scenes were very similar. When the Bounty arrived in Tahiti, the same swim-out-to-the-ship process happened, with the unmarried young women even climbing up onto the ship. Keep in mind that many (native) cultures of the depicted timeframe had unmarried women without tops, which they wear after they are married.
(Call that a much-easier-to-see 'married status'?)
When the crew of the Bounty had mutinied and put Brando's character and his loyal crewmembers out at sea in a rowboat, they went back for their 'girlfriends' in Tahiti, and headed back out to sea so other British ships would have a harder time finding the mutinous crew. I believe they eventually landed on Pitcairn Island, and the ship burned. Descendents of the crew and the Tahitian women still populate the island.
I was a bit surprised about the "23 different kinds of adultery" that get enumerated, in part, in the 161 minute DVD... Can we say 'no boundaries'? And nobody mentioned that?
Oh, and if you want to talk about movies with nudity that are rated 'G', watch the DVD of SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER with Jane Seymour and Taryn Powers skinny dipping, and drying off in the sun. At the time, 'R' and 'X' were the only other choices for a rating, and even 'R' movies were frowned upon, as well as excluding a large part of the teen-age movie goers, which cut into a movie's earnings. "Skinny dipping" and drying off has no sexual overtones, so the 'R' didn't apply(?). That same rating system gave the movie BARBARELLA a kiss-of-death 'X' rating, and the same film is now rated 'PG', and even sold in Wal-Marts. The times are changing.
I am guessing you don't live in New York City where it is generally legal for women to be topless in public anywhere men are allowed to be shirtless. (I wonder if that takes the 'fun' out of construction workers cat-calling women passer-bys?) Some restrictions apply to some public property, and private property if the owner objects, but the rest is fair game. Lewd conduct is still prohibited though.
Several other 1966 releases feature nudity- Seconds, The Naked Prey, Georgy Girl, and The Bible. The Pawnbroker released in 65 has nudity as well.
shareYes, and my middle school class boys did get a little riled up at that point when I showed it to them; quite a jolt from the slow beginning in New England. I explained to them later that this wasn't meant to be gratuitous. It appears that the film makers wanted the movie to be realistic, and if the women wore bikini tops in that scene, it would have looked silly.
share[deleted]
I think "shocking" is a little strong in the original post. I would find it shocking if they were wearing bikini's. It's the same thing as if you were to see a coconut radio, or monkey butlers, it's just not believable. I also find it more shocking that a country that bases itself on freedom and civil liberties finds a way to create and follow restrictions such as the Hays-Code which is a blatant violation of the 1st Ammendment.
The fact that those kids in your middle school class got riled up is a reflection of how society shields children and gives them a false assumption on nudity and makes you believe it's taboo where as it's perfectly alright to show a 3rd grader somebody getting dismembered with a sword. It's no wonder that America has such a high crime rate and can't build prisons fast enough while in countries like England, their police don't even walk around with guns. I have nothing against violence in films, but at least treat nudity with the same hands-off attitude. I'm all for artists' rights to put anything they desire into their films without having to justify it with some agenda.
I'm glad I got to grow up before the "collapse of American society". When I was in middle school/high school we would watch movies with nudity all the time (like Romeo & Juliet, Clash of the Titans, Roots, and even Braveheart which is very violent as well, but true to history, there were many other movies as well) and the students didn't think twice about it. I'm sorry for the rant, it's just I'm sick and tired of some of the puritanical aspects of American culture while we are the laughing stock around the world in regards to sex.
That is all
[deleted]
Ah the endless nudity debate. I'm finally going to come off the sidelines and state my opinion. Rationalizing morality, and intellectualizing artistic freedom, doesn't change the fact that a society is always on the slippery slope to decay when it devalues modesty.
Sure, there are National Geographic facts, third world people may appear au natural in truth, but I'll take a civilized, decent approach toward human sexuality and display of the body, which is simply: keep it between a man and wife in their own bedroom.
That said, sadly, one of the funniest jokes I've ever heard is:
Q: Why does Bill Clinton wear wool boxers?
A: To keep his feet warm.
That, my friend makes, "American culture the laughing stock around the world in regards to sex."
I find myself largely agreeing with you. When I was growing up, I always found reasonably modest girls way more sexy than the ones who left nothing to the imagination. Still do in fact. Seems to me that our so-called "repressed" American culture no longer really "represses" anything sexually, at least any more than the oh-so enlightened Europeans do.
shareNudity is not a sin in itself, but I find it distasteful how many people these days cover themselves with less clothing and more tattoos.
I think the OP meant that the nudity was shocking in the context of when this film was released, which is true. But I agree that it would have been silly if they were all wearing coconut bras. If you've read the book, written in 1959, you'll see that this sort of reality is in harmony with Michener's style, which was considered pretty 'shocking' for its time.
Otterprods, to keep those aquatic Mustelidae in line.
I agree. Very refreshing to see this point of view expressed on imdb.com. There is that school of folks who continually go on about "puritan" and "repressed" American society is. The fact that some people feel that way, I interpret that as leftover historical residue from previous times in which America was something of a repressed society. But I think anyone who says that nowadays needs to take a look around. What repression? We've got something like a 40% out-of-wedlock birth rate now. You turn on the TV any time of day and even on prime time networks it's nothing to hear countless sex jokes in sitcoms. You can even attend church nowadays and occasionally see women displaying their cleavage. And somehow it's regarded as being in bad taste to say anything about it.
If I were adult living in the 1940's or before, then I might be arguing that we need to loosen up our overly stodgy society. But today? If you ask me, a little repression might be a healthy thing!
[deleted]
True to history?! The movie Braveheart bears only a passing resemblance to the historical events; Alex Haley was sued for plagiarism, the judge agreed parts of the book were copied, Haley paid a settlement before judgment, soon after a Haley colleague revealed that Haley perjured himself that he had not seen the book he was accused of copying as the revealer not only discussed the book with Haley but also it was his copy of the book that he lended to Haley; and even Clash of the Titans did not keep true to the Greek myths, and even dragged in the Kraken from a completely different mythos.
<heavy sigh>
That is the real revelation of the state of education in America, where what is seen in movies and TV is assumed to be accurate, because few are willing to spend the time to read the original material for themselves.
the Hays-Code which is a blatant violation of the 1st Ammendment.Since the government didn't create, demand, or enforce the Hays Code, it is in no way a violation of the First Amendment. Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of our American freedom of speech. The Constitution protects us from government censorship/reprisal; the private sector, on the other hand, has every right to censor itself.
You lost me at "Braveheart is true to history." You know nothing about Scottish history, Jon Snow.
And while I agree that the prudery towards nudity in movies is rather laughable, the "collapse of American society?" Really? I'm glad I grew up after the "collapse of American society," as you put it. You know, in an age where being a queer Wiccan biracial woman, I can vote, have a job other than housewife, marry whom I want, and freely practice my religion, all without having to worry about being lynched or ostracized.
Seriously, the way people look at the past like it's Eden and the present like it was after the Fall... I don't get it. Yeah, let's go back to the days where racism and sexism where not only accepted, they were expected! Now that's family values.
"Peter, is your social worker in that horse?"
... we would watch movies with nudity all the time (like Romeo & Juliet, Clash of the Titans, Roots, and even Braveheart which is very violent as well, ...
... is a reflection of how society shields children and gives them a false assumption on nudity...If the point of your comment was how things were done "back then", I do not remember such a commotion over women breast feeding their infants in public, (BTW, shown in CLASH OF THE TITANS). Generally speaking, women usually put a light baby blanket or a clean cloth diaper over the child once feeding began, as I remember it. Since then, there was such a "problem" with even that, there was a federal law passed so breast feeding would NOT be a criminal act, but guaranteed! (Even that still does not prevent women from being "asked to leave the premises", or otherwise harassed into leaving, or forced into a restroom... all of which are illegal!)
Several other 1966 releases feature nudity- Seconds, The Naked Prey, Georgy Girl, and The Bible. The Pawnbroker released in 65 has nudity as well.
Seeing as how the new UK DVD is rated 12, we can assume that this release is unaltered.
shareI was going to comment on the topic of nudity in 1966, and the development of the rating system, but after reading a handful of the responses I figure I would be casting pearls before swine.
PS to jase18....my comment is not directed toward you. I just clicked reply on your post because it is the most recent on this thread.
The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.
To cover them up would have been historically inacurate. It sounds like it was shocking to you because you have something against the natural body. Are you shocked when you look in the mirror at your own body, or what about a fine museum sculpture or painting depicting a religious theme? I think it was probably not the intention of the director to shock, so much as accurately portray an important and forgotten people. Any perception otherwise is coming from a place of fear.
shareI don't think nsapre meant s/he was shocked by the nudity per se, but at its presence in a film from 1966.
shareMy parents took me to see this movie the first weekend it was released in 1966. I was a 10 year old boy along with my two sisters who were 7 and 14. We were Catholic, and while I can't remember if my mother tried to physically cover my eyes when the natives swam out to the ship, I remember she was very uncomfortable and agitated. She seemed to calm down after she realized me and my sisters did not seem particularly traumatized. I am pretty sure it was a pretty shocking movie for 1966, but since it was a big budget Hollywood movie and the nudity was not gratuitous, I think the controversy died fairly quickly.
shareI was surprised as well. However, what surprised me more, something that I did not realize until watching this movie, is that incest was practiced in Hawaii. I always thought this was universally taboo.
shareDid you forget, or did you ever learn that European royalty had many hemophiliacs due to intermarriage among the royals? The intent was also to keep the peasants out of the bloodlines, (very similar to the movie's presentation).
Granted that was not brother and sister marriages/procreation, but some were pretty close relatives, which is also generally discouraged.
(FYI, hemophilia is a blood disorder where an affected individual could theoretically bleed to death from an otherwise trivial cut, (like a fingernail scratch while sleeping), or internally bleed to death from a minor impact, maybe a dog jumping against their abdomen, (that would only cause a small bruise on a normal person). Those affected by that genetic disorder lack clotting factors in their own blood, so wounds are very slow to stop bleeding on their own.)
And it is being digitally censored as I type. Hypocrites.
The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.
I just watched it on a local PBS station and I found the "smudges on the nudes" quite distracting. It seems like an antiquidated way of removing the "offensive" images. Couldn't they have been more creative then having a smudge over the "cenosred areas."
__________________________________
All DVDs should have ENGLISH as a subtitle option.