MovieChat Forums > A Room with a View (1986) Discussion > Shouldn't we be warned about the massive...

Shouldn't we be warned about the massive nudity?


This is a joke that it's not rated. We assumed that this would be equilavent to a G-rated movie as no one bothered to rate this. We thought it would perfectly acceptable for children to watch. WRONG! What a shock. Hello? Is it perfectly all right to have massive nudity if it's an "art film"? What a joke. Is it not rated because of snobbish elitism, which considers nudity in art films as somehow different from other nudity?

reply

Just want to let you know I am with you on this, tho late. And what is really "risable" is all the bytes expended by all the self-appointed crusaders against "excessive prurience" (puritanism, you mean).

reply

We as a society find it fine and dandy to see female parts flung about...no rating...and yes, there is no sexuality about this scene at all...it's pure...do you cover your children's eyes when they see the venice de milo or David...I don't....I don't want them to be ashamed of what they have...but I don't want them to be seeing obscene usage of what they have...it was so open and comically pure that it didn't need a rating...I 'd rather have my kids think of themselves in positve pure ways then all pent up...as if they don't know they have private parts! OH PLEASE!

reply

Why would you make that assumption?

reply

I have never read A Room with a View, but it seems to me, from watching the Movie that a theme of the book is the difference between the way things "should" be, and the way things really are.

Visitors, on their first stay in Florence "should" have a room with a view. But they do not.

Florence "should" be a place of enlightenment, but it suddenly becomes a place of horrifying death.

There are shoulds and should nots all through the movie! The lovers on the cart, the interruption to the priest giving a lecture on Giotto, the kiss in the cornfield, the rowdy behaviour of Freddy, the indiscretion of Aunt Charlotte .... all these things contrast with the restrained and restraining world of boned corsets, chaperones and arranged marriages.

There are rules, rules for everything! But the rules are broken. The rules are broken firstly by an irrepressible and good-natured man who will not be bound by formality, but only by common sense, generosity of spirit and love for all around. It is the giving-up of the room-with-a-view that is the catalyst that sets in place a series of event that cause order to crumble!

The hilarious scene of nude bathing in which the Vicar is caught naked by his parishioners, a son by his mother and a young man by the woman he adores is the moment when everything falls into total chaos. Nothing in their lives will ever be quite the same again.

The scene is essential to the movie. It is one of the funniest, most joyous scenes that I know of in any movie.


But let's face it, some people feel differently about nudity. I DO think that a parent has the right to decide whether they want their children to see three silly grown-ups racing through the bushes with their dingle-dongles dangling.
I find it perfectly healthy, but in the Edwardian period it was quite improper for GIRLS to see such things. Some people have maintained Edwardian attitudes, and they are entitled to do so.


I want to comment on the use by another poster of the word homoerotic and the reference to the movie Maurice.

I don't think that the scene IS homoerotic. It's just three blokes having a bit of fun. It MIGHT stir homoerotic feelings in the viewer, but I don't think that such feelings are implied in the characters.

Now, if the character Maurice had wandered in from another story, then it would be a different matter, because Maurice, being homosexual, might well experience erotic feelings at the sight of beautiful young men naked.

But Maurice is not in this story. The two movies contrast by showing what was considered "normal" between men and what was considered extremely "perverted" and punishable by imprisonment.

I must also say that in the days when people rarely swam, if they DID swim at all, they usually did it naked, if they were male. And in their chemises if they were female. And they did NOT do it together. And they called it Bathe-ing.

One of the reasons why the men were naked was that they often didn't wear underpants. Their white shirts were considered part of their underclothes and were long enough to cover the nether regions.

Families who visited the Seaside for holidays aquired bathing suits, but they were considered rather risque and most adult women simply paddled.


There is a little story from Australia.
Governor Bligh, of the Mutiny on the Bounty fame is sometimes thought to have been a brutal Governor. If so he pales into insignificance beside Governor Darling.
In the early Nineteenth Century three young army officers who had been guarding a gang of convict road workers decided to end the day with a skinny-dip in the river. But the Governor's coach passed by and Governor Darling was outraged that his wife and daughter witnessed this scandalous sight. The men were imprisoned in leg-irons and chains which forced them into a position in which they could neither stand upright, sit down or lie flat. The weather was extremely hot and the men died.
The editor of the Australian Newspaper published the story, was thrown into prison and had his printing press seized.

All over a little nakedness ..... or should I say "massive nudity"?



"great minds think differently"

reply

"massive nudity"

BWAHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHHAHA!!!!
Oh my god, look out! Its massive nudity!

Its okay that a guy was stabbed and blood spilled out of his mouth...oh yeah, thats fine...no problem there.

BUT THE MASSIVE NUDITY!!

You freakin' prudish, backward clowns...
Go shoot someone, it will make you feel less ashamed of your naked body...

reply

[deleted]

Firstly, I’m somewhat annoyed at all these generalisations about Europe. It’s true that you can probably get away with publicly showing nudity a lot more here, but that doesn’t mean that everybody is in favour of it. I for one hate the fact that most female-related cosmetic products involve a naked woman because it’s a mark of the further idealisation/objectification of women, and not so much of ‘liberalisation’. contact-258 (although I am aware that it’s been a long time since she has posted here) I generally agree with what you were trying to say in relation to nudity (we’ll leave the politics aside here – I could go on all day about that, but that would distract me from the point). Parents should be allowed to monitor what their children see – that’s in relation to nudity as well as violence, swearing or adult themes if they so choose.

I’m a 19-year-old girl from Ireland (no, I’m not Catholic) and I have to admit that had I seen this scene at a young age it would’ve probably shocked and embarassed me. I realise that under every person’s clothes there is a naked body, but that doesn’t mean that you have to see it. My parents were relatively cautious in showing either myself or my sister material that they deemed unfit for our viewing. It was their right as parents and I don’t blame them for it. I think that it’s quite unfair how contact-258 was slated for making her point. Being ‘liberal’ doesn’t make you a better person; I don’t think that my parents’ care in censoring my viewing (I’m not talking in extreme ways here, just in generally not showing me films that were for a higher age group) has in anyway made me a less well-rounded individual. Why should a young girl have to look at a naked man? I never came across any fully naked men in my young childhood (at least not after the age of 3 – I wouldn’t have remembered before then) and I’m glad I didn’t simply because I didn’t have to. Sure, I came across naked little boys when I was small, but that’s a fairly different and far more innocent than a young girl confronted with naked men. The thought that any young girl should be seeing men naked (in real life), particularly ones that aren’t related to her is a somewhat disturbing one.

I’m well aware that the bathing in this film was perfectly innocent; I sensed no homoerotic undertones (I’d half expected people to be ranting about how one of them was a priest, although thankfully posters here are mature enough not to be bothered by that) it seemed more to me a display about how men (at least men of the middle classes and above) were comfortable with their nudity (despite popular belief/stereotyping) and how it was just their way of having fun. But you have to note that the nudity was only intended to be seen by the men present – I doubt that they would’ve done it in front of women (in that time period). I was shocked to see this scene in the film only because I wasn’t prepared for it. It was shown at 7pm, a pre-watershed time, so naturally I didn’t expect any full frontal nudity of either gender. As far as I recall I’ve never come across any PG film in which either gender was shown naked from the front. Honestly, had I seen it ten years, even 6 years earlier I would've been very embarassed. It’s not that kids don’t know what sex is – usually at the age of about 8 their pretty aware of it, I know I was – but the fact is that they don’t understand the reasons behind it until their teens so why should they view it? I guess that a scene of naked men would only shock if you weren’t used to seeing men completely naked, so certain children from certain backgrounds mightn’t at all be bothered, and I don’t think that I saw full frontal nudity in a film until I was about 15 or 16, so as a child it would’ve been new to me.

I guess that in most films it’s become a standard that for a man the camera will halt at the waist line, or at least that some strategically placed object will get in the way of their private parts. I just wasn’t expecting it in a film of that rating. And as other viewers have said, it could’ve been filmed in such a way that the water went up to their waistline or that they were filmed from the back when they were running around the pool – it probably would’ve offended less people (I can think of several PG films with naked men – just not men shown from the front) . But if that’s what the filmmaker wanted then, fine; but then if that be the case then I think that a little bit of warning about that scene might be a good idea.

As for arguments about nudity in art – I understand that there is a lot of nudity in art and I agree that it’s perfectly okay for children to see it. Indeed if a child is okay with seeing men’s penises then I doubt that anything would bother them in this film. I’m an art history student, and I can’t think of any famous artist before the 20th century that didn’t deal with nude subjects, although the female nude is dealt with several times more than the male nude, and even then it is very rare that you will see a woman’s genitalia in painting/sculpture, at least not until the latter half of the 19th century. And seeing a sculpture of a naked man, such as, for example, Michelangelo Buonarroti’s David is a little different from seeing a man running around naked on screen because firstly, the former, though for the most part, anatomically correct, is still a monochromatic sculpture and not the real thing, and secondly because a sculpture like that is completely still, and not running around with everything swaying in motion.

philip_vanderveken;
"Contact-258, I don't know how old your children are of course, but don't you think that you are over-exagerating a bit. I mean, they will find out what sex is sooner or later and if it isn't in a movie that they see nudity for the first time, than it will be on the internet or when they are with some friends. Experimenting is of all ages and you can't keep an eye on your children all the time. You should know this or have you never been young then?"
Yes, kids will find out about that kind of stuff eventually, but is there anything wrong in keeping them, need I use the word ‘innocent’, at least when they are young? There’s a fine line between childhood and being a teenager – a teen experimenting with their sexuality is one thing, but do you really want a child doing that? I think that contact-258 has every right to shield her children from whatever she wants to – within reason, and I don’t find that shielding them from adult nudity is unreasonable

fico_of_arboria;
"Sports teams in the UK regularly shower or bathe together in a confined area (as do the rest of the world, I gather). I doubt you'd call many of those homosexual. Not trying to be Freudian, but why are you so disturbed by nudity? Being comfortabe with the nudity of another person does not mean that you are sexually attracted to them. My mates and I have skinny dipped together. Picture the scene: you're on a long walk, the weather is hot and you find yourself near a lake. Oh, hang on, we haven't got our bathers, so we'd better not go for a swim..."
But a sports team bathing together usually implies roughly the same age bracket and the same sex. In changing rooms in public swimming pools from my experience there are always certain women who have no qualms about baring all – that doesn’t mean that I have to look in their direction (and it would be impolite to stare at them anyway). And in terms of skinny dipping with your mates – well, that’s precisely the point – they’re mates, people that you’re comfortable with, not just random actors who have immortalised themselves by appearing naked onscreen for many people to look at.

I understand that the scene was trying to be humorous (I didn’t find it funny not so much because of the nudity but simply because I found it very predictable) but I think that it then deserved a higher rating so that people who might be offended by it could steer clear. I wasn’t offended by it – only surprised to find it there – and glad that I didn’t discover it at a younger age with my parents there because that would’ve been embarrassing in more ways than one…

Hector Barbossa; now that's a pirate!

reply

Get over it and stop being such a prude

reply

Wow. That is the dumbest comment I've seen in a long while. I have a quick newsflash for you: we were all born naked. I know! A SHOCK! I'll let you collect yourself now as you begin to realize that people in the real world are NAKED under their clothes.

I'm sorry I have to be the one to break this to you.

reply

I watched this movie as a kid, and absolutly LOVED it! You see three men taking a bath... Big deal!!!! It's not like a massive sex-scene or anything. It's a beautiful film, and the nudity doesn't ruin the film in any way...
Wow... What a prude...

All Singing! All Dancing! All Flesh Eating!
Cannibal! The Musical

reply

[deleted]

To be honest, I would not have remembered, that there even was prolonged nudity in the film. Even if asked specifically. To me it seems just natural. So my last viewing is some time ago. But I did love the film dearly.

But since you find this topic so important I would ask you to add some Parental Guidance to this database. In the description of this film is the section of additional details with "Parents Guide". Here you could describe the scenes that you object to and why. This way other parents are warned!

reply

I would rate it PG for the nudity, which is completely non-sexual. However, I'd give it PG-13 for the knife fight in Florence.

The reason it's unrated is that the MPAA gave it an R for the nudity. In protest, it was then released unrated.

All of us are naked under our clothes. Almost all of us have sex at some time during our lives. Very few of us murder anybody. Yet, nudity gets a film rated R, sex gets it NC-17, and murder gets PG-13.

As for the OP thinking unrated means G, all films released before 1968 are unrated, as is pornography.

reply

I was watching it, thinking "oh its like the Jane Austen films"....then all of a sudden there is three naked men...I was not shocked but really suprised. the dvd was NR so I wasn't expecting full frontal nudity

reply

Comment specifically to Ali Babble. You refer to yourself as coming from "Europe", say that you come from Ireland, and say that not all Europeans condone nudity. You then cite the example of nudity on cosmetic ads etc.


1. I feel fairly certain that the posters who referred to nudity being acceptable in Europe did not have Ireland in mind. They were almost certainly referring to mainland Europe- France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Holland etc etc, in all of which countries boys NORMALLY swim naked in public, or did so until very recently. In these countries, particularly Germanic and Scandanavian countries nudity, mixed nude bathing and the like are more acceptable than in many other countries, it is not rare for family members to be naked in front of each other. (as it is in Ireland.)

Many people in Ireland have grown up under the tutelage of Nuns and Brothers who were taught to wash themselves under a shift so that they never saw their own bodies, let alone anyone else's. Even if a person is not Catholic, there is a more reserve about nudity than there is in most parts of Europe.

2. Nudity in Advertising. This has nothing to do with the issue. What do Advertisements do? The sell! What are the naked bodies in Ads being used for? To sell products! Are they innocently naked? No, they naked for the explicit purpose of attracting attention and gaining sales.

That is a very different matter from a movie which depicts nudity in an appropriate context (three men who don't own "bathers" having a dip on a hot day.)





"great minds think differently"

reply

Well I have no problem if guys feel inclined to get naked and swim together, but I must admit I have a problem with WATCHING guys who feel inclined to get naked and swim together. For me it's not the action itself, but the fact that it's on screen. It is perfectly innocent, and funny, and all that sort of thing, provided a bunch of randoms (us the audience) aren't looking on. I love that scene in the book, but it's an entirely different thing in words than on screen. Doesn't it worry anyone that we're cool with watching men run around completely in the nude? That it doesn't even warrant a warning? Now if it's prudish to have just a little regard for privacy, and maybe even (dare I say it?) good old-fashioned modesty, then go ahead and call me a prude. I really don't care - all you do is expose the perversity of your own sick little minds. You all say we (my fellow prudes and I) have no appreciation for the human body etc, because we object to having it put on display for all to gape at, but you're the ones degrading it, when we want it to be respected and personal. And so, my dear Contact, you are not alone. For what it's worth one other person in this world is not lost to all sense of decency!

reply

[deleted]

I'm not trying to owtlaw nudity in movies - just saying there should be some kind of warning. Like there you are watching a movie and BAM! A naked guy! Some people don't mind it, but others do, and for the sake of those people there should be a warning. You can tell me to just not watch movies with nudity in them, but if I didn't know in the first place how could I avoid it? That's all I'm saying. They oughta give us a heads-up here.

I never said everybody should share my view (which does NOT, I can assure you, involve a disgust for the human body), just that they should respect it. If they had stuck a warning on this movie to let us know what was in it we wouldn't have this issue. It's only coz it's so unexpected. Also, you said it isn't enough for me to quietly decide I won't watch the film. You're right there. I don't want to decide not to watch this film, whether quietly or otherwise! It's a great movie!

And my 'sick little minds' comment was sort of a joke... bit much maybe? You probably have a point. Ah well.

reply

[deleted]

I know what you mean. I guess I should be more careful, but the internet has a way of bringing out the worst in me! And thanks for the tip - I shall remember it in future.

reply

Oh, so the naked male form is "indecent?"


Sister, when I've raised hell, you'll know it!

reply

some people is so "righteous"!!! The nudity in this movie IS NOT massive nor gross.

geez!

reply

I have to agree. I consider myself conservative, but it was non-sexual and I wasn't offended whatsoever (a little surprised perhaps!). Good grief; although I don't think we should run around naked making love with everyone (well, enough on that topic), it was very non-offensive and tastefully handled. Sheesh.

reply