MovieChat Forums > A Room with a View (1986) Discussion > Why are people so offended by the nudity...

Why are people so offended by the nudity?


It's not like this is a children's movie and the scene was taken directly from the novel! In fact, I just finished the book a couple days ago and can honestly say that Forster wrote it pretty much exactly as it appeared in the film - even with George's "WOOOOOP!!!" in front of Lucy, Mrs. Honeychurch, and Cecil.

I can understand some people disliking nudity when it's gratuitous, or in a graphically sexual sense, but that's not how this scene was at all.

And for the record, I saw that scene for the first time when I was probably 10-11 years old, and it did not cause me any mental and/or physical damage. :)

reply

Hi Wide Eyed!

Yes, I totally agree with you; anyone who is offended by the nudity in this film actually worries me. If they can't handle people having a little natural freedom than I really have to wonder how oppressed they must be. In my family we were raised to be relatively modest, not to walk naked in front of our opposite-sex family members, etc. and yet, the most reaction I had when I saw this scene was probably to giggle. I actually love to see the way they slap the water and play in it like infants. It shows a gorgeous innocence that is precious and rare.

-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...

reply

And I come from a modest, Christian family, too! My parents always tried to make sure that the movies my siblings and I saw were not excessively violent or had too much sex. My mom thought that A Room with a View was great, though.

reply

I'll never forget when my Dad read a review of some really horrible movie that I had seen. The review went on and on about all the topless women in it, and he was appalled that I had been allowed to see something so 'harmful' (It was some silly teen comedy on an island or in the Amazon or something). They were just topless; they didn't have orgies or anything. My Mom finally got him to back off about it when she said, "For God's sake, Dear, all she has to do is look down to see the same thing!" He was so embarrassed he just dropped the subject!

-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...

reply

I recently saw the movie for the firts time and didn't feel offended at all. I wasn't expecting it at first, but it's one of the funniest scenes of the movie especially after they are found out.

reply

Yes, and to me, even if it *had been* a sex scene I would still rather have my child see that than to see someone decapitated or other violent imagery.

-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...

reply

Same wasn't expected but just laughed the whole time, especially when Beebe tried to sneak off behind the brush and then Cecil hacks his way over to where he headed only to have the woman see him climbing out of the water..

reply

[deleted]

And I come from a modest, Christian family, too! My parents always tried to make sure that the movies my siblings and I saw were not excessively violent or had too much sex. My mom thought that A Room with a View was great, though.


Haha. Same here, was going to say I'm fairly prudish, and it doesn't bother me. However, I think I would be embarrassed watching it with my mom. LOVE this movie, though! And I find the scene funny. Makes me wonder, though, would American men back then have done something like that? And I'm watching the movie now (for about the 6th or 7th time probably), and I was thinking, Oh wow, I can't imagine doing that with a couple of other women--just stripping down & jumping in & running around naked. So that's all I think about it is it's funny and that I wonder if men were or are really like that and mostly that it seems like their just young at heart or something because it's like something kids would do before they were old enough to feel modest or embarrassed.

Fiction is a lie, and good fiction is the truth inside the lie.--Stephen King

reply

You know I wish I could answer that question myself. I suggested this movie to a friend of mine and she about flipped at the nudity. I felt it was absolutely pure innocence at its best. She was upset as she watched it with her 16 yr. old DD. Oh, well some people can't see the forest for the trees. This movie is a gem. Just love it.


It’s good to dream

reply

If you ask me, those who demand a warning should read the book, and then consider themselves warned.

-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...

reply

I first saw this around the age of 14 or 15 and watched it with my mom. I confess I was a little uncomfortable, but that's because I was sexually aroused by both Julian Sands and Rupert Graves, and didn't want my mom to realize it. Lucky for me, she was kind of uncomfortable watching it with me too, so she didn't notice. Not all that long of a time later, it wouldn't have been the slightest big deal for either one of us (I came out when I was 16).

And what an unbelievably gorgeous film besides! The nude scene is so playful and such a joyous celebration of a simpler time, I can't believe prudish people aren't able and even eager to enjoy it. (Even if it did scream sex to my teenage mind -- but teenage boys hardly need a reason to think about sex.)

reply

Well, thanks for your frank comment, ChoirBoy.

I'm just glad that the vicar didn't appear to be excited by the sight of those two beautiful naked bodies.

I would recommend Maurice, but I expect you have seen it already. What a beautiful, sad film!



"great minds think differently"

reply

Haha, it was the opposite with me. I was curious, of course, since I had not really seen a grown man's genitals before, but I mainly thought, "Ewww." I find it far more enjoyable to watch George grab Lucy for a passionate kiss :)

reply

Same here, saw it with mom and grandmother, at the movie theater, when I was 15. And went back with them 6 more times to see it during its more than 70 week run at Boston's now defunct Copley Place theater. A Room With A View was the first time I saw a penis on the big/small screen - and aroused me each and every time. My mother and grandmother both knew I was gay but I didn't come out until I was 17. I also think my grandmother was as equally turned on by the site of Julian Sands and Rupert Graves naked, as I was. One of the best movies in the history of cinema, by far, though, all in all.

reply

I believe that most who are offended by the nudity scene don't realize that it's not meant to be sexual. Yeah, sure, they're naked but they're SWIMMING, for God's sake not having an orgy. It's innocence at it's best. They're rough-housing, running around the ol' swimming hole and being 'boys' again.

reply

I laughed hysterically when I saw the bathing scene. Like other posters have stated, it is not meant to signify any type of sexual situation, just plain fun and lightheartedness. The men were merely being uninhibited and cavorting around like boys. Anyway, I have read the book several times and this movie's script does not deter from the book much - it is a great adaptation.

Why is it that Americans are such prudes about nudity, but oblivious to violence and abusive, foul language? Something is wrong with our value system...

I would much rather watch three nude men innocently having a swim rather than a smut-filled movie depicting over-the-top violence and foul language.

Just my opinion.

reply

I might have said this here before. There is an Australian version of National Geographic. In one article it showed three men wading naked into a pool, somewhere in the far north of Oz, probably 500 miles from the nearest town. All that was revealed in the pic was buttocks. However, some woman wrote a letter of outrage that such a picture should appear in a "family" magazine and the unsuitability of the picture for children.

"great minds think differently"

reply

Wow, you mean she actually had children? How'd that come about if one needs to become partially nude to um..well, you know.
How very prudish and narrow minded of her.

reply

What shocks me is that she considered NatGeo a family magazine! Wasn't she aware it was considered to be (and used as) pornography by many in the 1940's and 50's?

-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...

reply

This mag was Australian Geographic, published by Dick Smith.

http://editorial.australiangeographic.com.au/default.aspx


"great minds think differently"

reply

Well it looks similar to National Geographic, which as I said was thought of as it was because it had pictures of people from all over the world dressed (or not) in ways thought unacceptable by the American society. That's the ironic thing; my Dad always said in reality it would have been more perverse to put these people in clothing that was not their norm.

-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...

reply

I totally agree with this. It was an innocent scene, and there was not a hint of sex. Here is the USA, people tolerate movies that have graphic violence, cheap sex, and a lot of stupid 'humor'. If that is acceptable, I don't see something as innocent as 3 men bathing in a pond is considered objectionable? There was frontal nudity, yes, but it takes a dirty mind to create something dirty out of it.

reply

The most amusing thing is that people who are offended and shocked by the harmless and innocent nudity in this film are the Cecil Vyses of society. They are the Charlotte Bartletts and they are the Mrs. Honeychurchs, and they don't even realize it!

This is quite a shock. On the other hand, it's not surprising in the least.

reply

Lol, clever-tricks, your comment reminds me of what my English teacher said when we watched this movie in class. All of my classmates were freaking out about the nudity scene, and I was afraid we were going to skip over it. I asked her if we would, and she said, "Well if the girls all want to be little Miss Bartletts that's their choice."

"What's the score?"
"Dirty love." The Simpsons

reply

Americans are so damn prudish it gets to a point of irritation. I'm a young american living in the south and I can't stand how up tight ppl are about nudity. Grow UP!

What makes it more ridiculous, like the OP pointed out, is that this movie isn't intended for young kids...so it is adults getting "offended" by nudity...lol...wth?
And the scene itself is taken directly out of the book! So who cares?! If this scene really offends anyone...you do know that you don't have to watch the scene? There is this thing called fast forward and you can skip through the entire scene! OMG! Technology!


"Art is I, Science is we."
-Claude Bernard

reply

But, my sweet [ and, -as you said- young ] darling... You DO know how UN-prude [ooh! a new word!] kids are now... And I know you know-- so much sex and "oh but that's not sex" and "but that's like a kiss, or less" and *projectile vomit*


excuse me. I must go shiver in a dark corner, as I have young family members and this seriously bothers me...


I do agree with you, one-hundred%.. But I did have to tell you-- *sigh* I don't know how to put this *groan* well, you must know that I'm right, too- It's probably why people are so uptight and afraid. But I dunno. They are 'pruduish', people, when it comes to simple nudity. A nip offends a nation, yet we can watch a man blow his head off; a POW is beheaded and this is put on YouTube... The filthiest thing anyone can imagine can but pulled up on anyone's computer to view for free in a few seconds.. but innocent nudity *oh NOOO*



And yet, look at our teenagers, our CHILDREN!!



all the best

reply

My family and I pretty much just found it really funny. It's like in that version of "Midsummer Night's Dream" (the one with Christian Bale and Kevin Klein), where the fairies take the muddy clothes from the sleeping lovers and as a result, the hunting party rides in on the four lovers lying curled up together totally naked. I thought it was really funny, just from imagining what was probably running through the hunting party's mind.

reply

yea, it is COMLETLEY unexpected, but nevertheless absolutley highlarious!

reply

People who are offended close their eyes when in the shower.




When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property - Thomas Jefferson

reply

[deleted]