Just wanted to make two comments, as I've just finished watching this movie for the first time. I am not interested in having a discussion, so this will be my only comment, nor offering any opinions on discussions that preceded mine, so don't read anything into my comments - just use it as fyi and food for thought. First, from checking around a little bit ago, it appears the movie was filmed in 1969 and since Jenny's birth day was December 1952, she was most likely 16 or had just turned 17. Second, with all of Jenny's nudity, I was not sexually aroused at all during the movie. I think it's because I was too involved in the movie and just found her to be a beautiful part of the scenes of nature in the movie. I have always found her very attractive and have been turned on by her in other movies, but here it's different. I'm not sure how to explain it but there are times when I find a nude girl beautiful without being sexually stimulated, as was the case here (I'm not an animal who automatically gets turned on simply because I see a naked or scantilly dressed girl). I know I can watch it again and be sexually aroused if I want to, especially since it's Jenny, but that's another case. I was saddened by the aborigine's death (even though it's just a movie) and had a hard time with the animal killings and cutting up (which was real). Yes, the director didn't have to show the nudity or the actual butcheries but he chose to. With both the nudity and the animal butcherings, I found them to be all right and justified in the way this movie was filmed (yes, including the focus on her butt when she was swimming). I can't tell what was in the director's mind when he filmed her nude scenes - perhaps he was trying to make it sexually stimulating and perhaps he wasn't. I just know it wasn't stimulating for me the way it was filmed but I can easily see how it could be for others (just like paintings or statues of nude women that were created hundreds of years ago or nude women in the National Geographic magazines - I'm not stimulated by them now but was when I was a teenager first learning about the differences between males and females). As for her being 16 or 17, did she look any different than she did at 18? Does she at 16 or 17 look any different than some girls at 18 or 19? If the answer to both is "no", then what's the problem if someone gets aroused by her (yes, there is a problem if a guy takes advantage of an underage girl but that's not what I'm writing about)? The only reason her age makes a difference is because there are rules in the USA about female nudity in movies - you can appear nude when you're at least 18 (not much difference, I assume, from when a girl is 17, particularly when she's almost 18), you can appear nude at any age on television if it's not considered sexually arousing (note the miniseries "Roots", which displayed young girls nude, particularly one who was 15 at the time - just fyi, I wasn't turned on by any of those girls either), you can appear nude from when you're born to around five years old, etc. Again, I'm not looking for an argument with anyone, none of you know me, and there is no way I can explain my rationale within this area, so just take it as an opinion for you to think about, if you wish - you can value however you like, as we are all different and it is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this web site.
reply
share
Bitter_Almonds
20 years ago
This sounds about right. Not all nudity is pornographic and not all violence is for pure entertainment.
It's funny that this discussion even exists seeing as to how in the movie, there is a contrast of context between the young people swimming nude and the older geologists trying to take a peek at the woman's breasts...
Do The Mussolini! Headkick!
reply
share