Did it seem like to anyone else that there was excessive nudity in this movie? I'm not a prude or anything, but there was no need for the amount they had of pelle. I'm all for artistic freedom, but it got to the point where it was not even important to the story, but just distracting. Overall though I thought this was a very good movie. Very honestly moving. Any thoughts?
shareDid it seem like to anyone else that there was excessive nudity in this movie?
No. No it didn't.
Perhaps your cultural background and mores are different from those of the filmmakers. What do you think?
yes Pelle was shown naked but it is hardly sexual and it was done to make him look vulnerable in the particular scene.
shareSpeaking as a Dane (the movie is Danish), I can tell you that there's a very different view on nudity here. We do not see nudity in itself as vulgar or provocative - after all, it is a rather natural state, right?
There's a very relaxed view of nudity here, more relaxed than in the U.S. I think.
so you get to see Pelle naked? Frontal?
*rushes to buy*
...
uhh
I have only seen this movie on DVD recently and I think the film was fantastic. I don't think there was excessive nudity. There were a couple of brief nudity scenes but I don't think it at all was sexual or anything like that. And I would agree with daniel-schierbeck that Americans (and many other western countries) have a different view on nudity than many European countries. I was not offended at all and I didn't really take any notice of it as I was much more interested in the story itself. However, as for the 'Pelle nudity' I do not think it was at all wrong. I think if it did anything, it just made the movie more realistic and natural. So no, I do not have a problem with it. From watching many foreign films, I have to come to realise that European countries have different views on nudity and I don't think it is as offensive to see it in films as it is to people in countries like America. I don't think it is a major concern. The only concern I have is (after reading posts about another movie on the same subject) that it could be used in bad ways by certain people.
shareI'm the guy who started this thread, been reading what people have been saying. I guess I see your point about the nudity. I think it just concerned me because the kid play8ing Pelle was only 12 or so. If it had been an adult, I wouldn't have cared but...anyway. As far as it being a great movie don't get me wrong, it was. Max Von Sydow elevated acting to an almost spiritual plane in this movie, and you almost felt hungry and tired as the characters did watching the movie. But as far as the nudity goes, i guess that must be how it is in real life in European countries, and if thats so well then I guess the film makers did accurately portray it. I didn't mean to come off sounding small minded, I just didn't want children being exploited is all.
shareI completely agree with you about not wanting children to be exploited, but I don't think it is the case in this movie. I think the scene where Pelle is being whipped though is used to show the harsh conditions they are in and the way they are treated in this new place. I think it also shows how they are being so degraded and the fact that Pelle's father was not there when it happened and came and saw what was happening when it was nearly over and then later promises Pelle that he will stick up for him but doesn't, shows us more about how Pelle feels that even though his father is trying to do a good job providing for him, he is an alcoholic and is not always there for him. I think it was a really important scene in the movie that shows the conditions and treatment and helps us understand more about the characters and situation. You may think that other scenes however show unecessary nudity, well I think the answer is that European countries just have a different view on nudity. That is the great thing though about foreign films - that we learn more about other countries and their views and ways of life. But anyway, putting all of that out of the way, I think it was an excellent film.
:) Dan
I do have one question still,I didn't understand the part where Pelle wants to whip Rut (sp?) with the reeds in exchange for his crown. Was this supposed to be Pelle letting out all the anger and frustration in him, and if not what was the scene supposed to convey? any help would be appreciated thanks
shareThat is a good question and I am not 100% sure. It seemed like that coin was very important to him. Maybe wipping with the reeds was a way of letting out anger or just because he wanted Rut to prove that he could take the wippings. I am not sure because it seemed like Pelle liked Rut and could relate to him somehow so he could not continue wipping him and ran away. Maybe Rut thought Pelle didn't want to be the only one who had been wipped and thought he could get the coin off him if he let Pelle wip him??? It's a good question but I think someone else can probably answer it better than me.
shareActually it was quite common (and ALOT more in the past) to show nudity in danish movies. Though in this its entirely for the vulnerbility expression. Great movie. It really gives that feel of a god forsaken place on Bornholm (though no bornholm dialect was used in the movie)
Just sorta wish they had put subtitles on the entire movie instead of on-off as the swedish people speak.
Erik Paaske always were one of the best at playing a dirty bastard.
He could easily have made it as the owner of the farm..
Certainly not a family movie but none the less a very important movie along with "The lost spring" and other movies showing the culture of the danish past... How grim it might be.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Such a question would only ever be posed by an American, especially a "religious" American. The nudity was not sexual. It was not gratuitous. Most of the people in the world are not bothered by seeing a penis, especially on a little kid. You are heavily influenced by the American culture, the Christian religion, and the MPAA, all of whom teach that frontal nudity (even on pre-pubescents), is "bad."
This was a thoroughly wonderful film, and it is on my "Best Of The Best" list. I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who wants a sequel, but who could do it and make us happy it was done? That is the question.
----------------
http://www.opinionsoup.com/movies.html
Au Contraire, frontal nudity as art comes and goes (so to speak) with Catholicism depending on which decade (not even which century) you are dealing with. A penis on screen will get you an X rating some years, a PG13 some others. Most children's movies nowadays has at least one 'Holy *beep* in it which would have been an 'X' in the 50s.
Beer ads have frontal nudity on commercial TV in Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden.
Here is a news flash. It's not the right wing conservative evangelical Christian Neanderthals that condemn frontal nudity on prepubescents, it's the Politically Correct left wingers who think somebody somewhere might get some pleasure out of it. The world is turned upside down truely.
I'm a Christian, and an American, who just watched Pelle the conqueror, and I didn't see any problems with the nudity in this film. There was nothing sexual about it, and its certainly not "Bad" or "Vulgar" I think those who see something bad in the film, want it to be bad.
shareOk, looks like I was misunderstood by some arrogant art house wannabe European "cinemaphile". My point was that I didn't want a child being exploited. I don't think it happened in this film, but it has in others, such as Clownhouse where the director molested a child in the film that he also made do a nude scene. Just filming a naked child and calling it art or cinema doesn't make it right, it depends on the context. That is my point. There were scenes that it just seemed like he appeared naked for no real reason, such as walking out of the barn to see what the noise was coming from the house towards the end of the movie. Thats the larger point I was going for.
shareThe immense majority of people are not child abusers, to be worrying about it because one child appears nude in a movie is ridiculous frankly.
And sorry that other people are skeptical about such concerns, but the Janet Jackson episode a couple of years ago tells us about the standards in the US when dealing with human sexuality.
Hehe you people should go se the "Swedish New Arts Museum" if you dont think nudity counts as art. :) Alot of the instalations are just pictures of nude men and women, or a film of a guy doing "the hellicopter" (Personal favorite)
shareHey i have this movie coming and I am so glad to hear that it is not a lot of nudity in it. I know I am in for real treat cause it is filmed in Norway so the back ground has got to be awesome, and you being a Christian cause I am a Christian too. Let me hear more on this film from you.
Have a great afternoon,
TREEBEARD
There was not that much nudity. I think the brief nudity was to show that Pelle was a simple young man and with the nudity was it showed that he came from a simple family. The director was not trying be nasty, but he was telling a story of a simple dad and son. I had nothing to with sex at all. Do you guys get what I am saying?
Have a great Sunday afternoon,
TREEBEARD
hi, i posted that message a while ago so i can't remember exactly what movie it is but i think it was probably mysterious skin, because a lot of people wanted that particular movie banned because they thought it may encourage pedophiles. i am almost sure i was talking about that movie, because where i live, at that time there was a lot of controversy about the film being released. some groups wanted it banned because they thought the movie would "warm up" pedophiles or something like that. mysterious skin was a very disturbing movie and i think they tried to make a movie that would show the devastating effects of child molestation and how it changes their lives as they are older. although i don't think the movie being banned would make a big difference and i don't think the movie was at all intended to encourage pedophiles to, however, i do understand the point that the groups were trying to make and i think they were probably right, but having the movie banned wouln't make a big difference.
share[deleted]
No, the nudity was not excessive. It was natural, given the situation. A poor immigrant boy probably doesn't have different sets of pajamas to sleep in, and therefore probably sleep without clothes. He doesn't have his choice between his surfing shorts, or 3 different bathing suits for when he wants to cool off in a pond. Why do you think Normal Rockwell and other artists from the early 20th century and before have so many works with people swimming naked - because (wake up), people didn't have 50 changes of clothes like most Americans do today. And, the whipping scene (where he is depantsed) was meant to humilitating to him by those who whipped him. The fact that an 11 year old boys is seen frontally nude in a movie and having it viewed as excessive is only because of the ridiculous perspective people have with nudity in the US. You can have movies where hundreds of people get killed (including children) in the most disgusting ways, and its a PG-13 movie. Of course (double-standard), you can have females naked and a movie barely gets an R. But, male frontal nudity and any underage nudity in the US is NC-17 or it gets cut by the MPAA. Yet, in Europe (my parents are immigants and I've been there many times), nudity is not seen as bad, or dirty or sexual. Its just the natural state of the body and frankly it leads to much better self-image issues than exist here. Everyone here is hung up looking like a GQ or Glamour model, unless they're overweight (like 1/2 the country), and then they don't want to even change in gym class for fear of being seen in their underwear, let alone naked. Get past this right-wing, Bible-thumping perspective that nudity=sex and that if you teach sex education and talk about birth control, kids will want to have sex.
share[deleted]
One thousand years ago, maybe only two or three hundred years ago, many working people in Europe only had a single set of clothes. Made of linen in some warmer countries, wool everywhere else. And to make it last as long as possible, and not to wear out, country people often went nude during the warmer months.
This is not something ever discussed or portrayed in any films set in those eras. Perhaps in "The Name of the Rose" there is a suggestion that the very poor have hardly anything to wear, even in mid-winter. "Braveheart" is probably a compromise, with most of the characters not having a lot to wear, but apparently they were so hardy that they didn't need protection from the harsh Scottish climate. In the Kenneth Branagh film of "Much Ado About Nothing", the field hands are very well dressed, with far more clothing than required for the Mediterranean summer.
Generally period films set a few hundred or several hundred years ago are plot-driven, and there is no need to distract the viewers by trying to introduce excess realism. Perhaps a bare bum here and there. But in reality the vast majority of the people were poor, and the very poor might have nothing except a thin blanket to wrap around themselves. In hot weather they would not have bothered.
No. It didn't occur to me for one seccond that there was too much or inapropriate nudity. Pelle was naked at the times it would be completely natural for a child to be naked. The though of it did not even enter my mind, as it seemed so natural that I didn't even notice.
Also you have to think about that this movie was made long before all the focus on pedofiles came. Today we have to think more about leaving out nudity, even when apropriate, because we now know about all the pedofiles that might be using this in the wrong way. Still for this particular movie it was in no way too much. It was so little that I don't understand how anyone could even notice, and it was completely apropriate, natural and realistic. (i know, i am repeating myself too much)
This is an excellent story, and anyone who enjoys the film should certainly read the great novel from which it is adapted. It's fascinating to know that the main character in this motion picture, Pelle Hvennagaard, was given his name by his mother who had read this classic novel and wished to honour this story in her newborn son's name.
Also, German television made an even more faithful adaptation of Pelle just a year or two earlier. If it weren't for the great Max Von Sidow, this film would fail in comparison to the German tele-film effort.
I'm the first to agree that it is important to avoid the abuse of children in the making of motion pictures. The aforementioned film "Clownhouse" by the pedophile director Victor Salva, is one that is horrendous to know happened to an innocent child.
Nevertheless, the nudity in this film is not excessive, and one will find that it is even more accurate to the novel in the German television film.
In fact, in this 1987 motion picture release, I didn't really comprehend the reason that young Pelle was frontally exposed in the floating-on-the-river scene, yet wasn't actually nude. It really didn't make sense considering that clothing is normally discarded for swimming in a rural scene such as this.
The film won many awards and was also recognized by the prestigious Oscar ceremony in the United States. Max Von Sidow's performances in film are timeless, and he is undoubtedly one of the best of this (and the last) generation.
["It’s never too late to do the right thing."]
"In fact, in this 1987 motion picture release, I didn't really comprehend the reason that young Pelle was frontally exposed in the floating-on-the-river scene, yet wasn't actually nude. It really didn't make sense considering that clothing is normally discarded for swimming in a rural scene such as this."
Well, I figure he was just trying to cool the pain to his rear (from having been spanked by the foreman). That's why he pulled his pants down to the knees to soak in the water, but didn't bother taking them off all the way. It wasn't really a swim in the traditional sense (in which case, as you said, he probably would have taken off all his clothes).