is this movie a pornographic movie or not?
i've never seen this movie, so i have a question. is this movie porn or no? did the actors actually have sex in the film?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Candy (1968) Discussion > is this movie a pornographic movie or no...
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is almost no nudity in this film. It is not pornographic or even overtly sexual. It is a comedy. I would put the sexuality in this film on a lower rung than Barbarella (a film that is currently rated as 14A by the Candian rating system). There are brief flashes of nudity but it more of a tease type film. The only reason this movie had any trouble with the censors (and was given the X rating) was because of the final scene of the film and that had no nudity at all.
If you were thinking about watching it but you were not sure about the sex than I think you can enjoy it. Without the ending this film would be a very soft R at worse.
"where were you during the war? Tell your daddy where you were."
The book was very racy for its time, the early 60s (I remember because I read it back then), but it is fairly tame in the modern libertine days we live in now. The movie captured some of the flavor of the book, and has sexual themes, but it is not anywhere explicit enough to be called "pornographic."
shareI've read the book as well, and it can hardly be called pornogrphic by any stretch of the imagination. It deal with sex and sexuality but in a completely satirical way. Nothing is explicit or graphic and everything is done in the spirit of parodying sexual issues of 60's and Candide.
http://www.13tongimp.com/
I read the book after I saw the film and the film is totally PG by today's standards. The book however is WAY racier. When Candy's aunt says to her in the book, "All I'd have to do is give my [insert forbidden slang for female reproductive organ] a flick and I'd be sopping!," I was like, "Good grief!"
shareyeah, screwing a humpback's hump is WAy over PG... damn that was "special"
shareA porn movie? Look at the actors who are in the film. Just how stupid would you have to be to think this is a bloody porn movie?
shareHave you seen the cast of actors in "Caligula"? I don't think it was a stupid question.
shareNot a stupid question, no. I think you'll find that David was being, what we call in the trade, a f u c k i n' smart alec.
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.share
[deleted]
It's more about Candy searching for enlightenment and meeting masculine stereotypes (soldier, doctor, guru, artist etc) and never quite realizing that the only reason they offer help or guidance is because they all the same thing from her.
"Now we are carrying so much hate and jade that we're not much better than you"
Hardcore pornWhen there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
"Candy", the main character of the story, is basically a female, swinging 60s version of Voltaire's Candide, who encountered all sorts of vile and treacherous characters in the course of his wanderings but somehow managed to retain his innocence.
Changing the character into a nubile young girl and amping up the "encounters" to be sexual in nature was what caused the uproar at the time. But as it was a modern interpretation of a classic of literature meant it could argue it had redeeming social value and avoid being deemed pornographic.
I like to go to Walmart and fill up a cart with about 200 items... And then leave.
No. It's strictly softcore.
I've been chasing grace/ But grace ain't easy to find
When this movie came out I was too young to get in the theater but word of mouth was pretty outrageous. Even so called Mens Magazines went on and on about the amount of sex and nudity and "how could they get away with filming this?"
A couple of years ago when I finally saw Candy I assumed they'd cut half the movie out. They hadn't.
This movie is a mystery. How did it get an instant reputation as porn? Being long before the internet I suppose a smart producer could pay off a few reviewers and stir up enough noise to get lots and lots of men to pay to see it. And when they were disappointed, well, so what? They couldn't post to Facebook about it and in those days most men would be too embarrassed to admit that that's what they were after and had gotten cheated.
So I think the original poster, having not seen the movie, had a legitimate and very interesting question.
My question is
Was Candy one of the earliest forms of selling a subpar product using viral marketing?