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?
shareWell excessive or not I think the young actor playing pele is totally beautifull. I only wish the movies showed boys of varying ages in nude scenes that dont have to be sexual in nature but show how beautifull a boy can be at any age. Its a shame that some people find a corelation between a boy being nude and being exploited. Man, life is so short if sombody apreceates seeing a little boys body so what, big deal, what I would be more worried about is somthing like the scene where he gets his hands whipped by the teacher. You can see by his flinch and wattery eyes he WAS hit and it stung. Now THAT is exploitation, but then it makes sense that americans would be appauled by a beautifull boy showing his body for a very well made and artistic film before they were appauled by that same boy having his hands savegly beat in that same film. I wonder really whose worse, casual boylovers or casual sadists?
shareI just watched it the other night and I had the exact same thought as the original poster "Geez, the director sure does seem to be showing Pelle's nudity more than one would expect...hmm, i wonder why he made that choice..."
Since it has become important for the discussion thread, here is my background: american, very liberal, worked in film and television, traveled overseas quite a bit (asia, europe, new zealand). And perhaps just as importantly, no I'm not Christian, prudish, or lacking in cinematic sophistication. I like my European arthouse films as much as the next, perhaps more.
To me it seemed a bit gratuitous, but part of what triggered my alarm and made me notice is that I didn't think the actor who played Pelle was all that good of an actor, but he had a "pretty" face. Then when I saw the director take alot of opportunities to focus on Pelle's body...well, I had to wonder.
Probably it was nothing more than one more director making the most of physical beauty on-screen, something which has been done thousands of time with girls and women. I suppose it stood out a little more to me this time because it was a boy. Though I often am not happy when it's a girl or women whose body is blown up on-screen that way either. It's a cheap out for a director and sometimes it is their own internal crap coming out in their film...and not in a good way. :-)
I have absolutely no problem with nudity of any kind in a film if it serves the film. I just don't think it did here.
Partly I wasn't very impressed with this film. I don't think it holds a candle to My Life as a Dog which was made the year before this, is Swedish and features child nudity too.
Nudity is a choice, a meaningful choice for a director, and it has an impact in Europe as well. It isn't ho-hum no big deal, as some would have you believe, though it is different than in America. This director made that choice and it deserves to be discussed and critiqued.
My take: he had a cute boy actor and he got some cheap 'pop' out of that. I thought it bordered on questionable and slightly sleazy and it did make me wonder about the director's inner psyche just a bit.
Just because it's Art (and this film certainly qualifies as Art) doesn't mean it's good or positive or worth making or seeing. So much Art is not particularly good or worth ingesting into yourself. Most artists don't keep the audience in mind when they make art, they aren't being careful or considerate - often the very opposite, because, you know...it's "ART". :-) Which is really just a cop-out on the part of many of mediocre to poor artists. Of course it matters how it affects people, of course it matters if people see it (if you're working in a medium like film that costs millions to make) and of course it matters what it means (though there will be many meanings). I wish more directors cared about these things. Not so they would censor themselves, but so that they might put more care into what they make and that they would be more picky. Then we'd not only have less Tarantino-ish bloody violence crap, we'd also have fewer Beethoven: Part 3 drivel too.
Well...I can hope. :-)
I wonder if the OP is from USA. (I didn't read the whole 30 sth replies, in case he said it before).
Seems only people from that country are constantly bashing art films like this or "The Tin Drum" (to name just a couple) based on their own prejudices, while for most people those scenes are not that relevant and certainly free of any sexual innuendos.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well I have others
[deleted]
I very much appreciate your words: no I'm not Christian, prudish, or lacking in cinematic sophistication.
There are two reasons to explain the casting of this child, and the nudity in "Pelle Erobreren". If you see who the director of this film was, he is well-known and respected for his work in films with children.
But as for this child actor, it is played by Pelle Hvenegaard who is actually named after the novel that this film is made from. His mother loved the novel so much, that she named her child after the main character. Undoubtedly, this truth was a determining factor in young Hvenegaard actually being cast for this role.
Also, the nudity issue is easily explained by the novel from which the story of this film is derived. Compared with the novel, the film is not excessive in this issue at all. This was a story about a very, very poor child living in a barn with his elderly father. They didn't have pajamas, or swimsuits.... hence the reason for Pelle sleeping and swimming, even tending the animals in the field, (in the hot summer sun), without clothing.
I concur 100% with you about the issue that in many films: "Just because it's art doesn't mean it's good or positive or worth making or seeing."
That can be said for so many films.
I myself live in Europe so my view on films is a bit different. Naturally, we consider Hollywood to be the leader in the film industry.... simply due to the fact that their are more resources in the the USA to make great films. All of the re-makes over the past years have decreased the God-like status that Hollywood has had in the area of film-making.... but America is still the leaders in this area of entertainment.
As for Art films, we could talk about many that are considered to be "Art", but really have few redeeming qualities to make it as such.
PELLE EROBREREN isn't a great film, in my always-to-be-humbled opinion.... but it's not a bad film either. I prefer the German television film of Pelle Erobreren, because it is much more in-tune with the novel as a whole. But then again, the acting isn't as good.
Your insights are most interesting, and certainly appreciated.
["It’s never too late to do the right thing."]
I saw the film a few years ago and thought it was impressive.
But I don't even recall any nakedness, so I guess that that never bothered me at all.
"The Beamer Xperience: 9 feet wide home cinema bliss."
[deleted]
I've read this thread and I must say, it's quite funny to see some of these posts. It's totally and unnecessarily anti-Christian which is offensive. (And the one Sex Education comment a poster made just seemed thrown in there to make a political statement, no offense.)
Anyway, I feel there can be beauty in the naked human body of people of both genders or any age. From a Christian point of view, God did say that what he made was good.
I think the problem is that nudity has been sexualized. I wouldn't blame the people trying to cover you up as much as the people who have turned nudity into a sexual object. Perhaps if the culture weren't so oversexed, nudity wouldn't be an issue for anyone. But people have made it a sexual thing. Not necessarily Christians, but the people who constantly flaunt sex in our face. We are constantly bombarded with sex. In fact, most nudity in films these days is used in a sexual context.
So is it surprising to see that some people are concerned when a non sexual nude scene comes along? Perhaps they wouldn't be this way if our culture wasn't oversexed in the first place and then nudity would just be a natural part of the human body in movies like these and not something to be ashamed of.
I'm the one who started this thread and I guess I've attracted one of two types: admitted pedophiles and people who don't seem to think the nudity was excessive. Just interesting to point out though that even though it is art or cinema as many posters point out, it does seem to bring a crowd that you wouldn't want to babysit your children. All in all though I did think it was a good movie, and I read it only covers the first half of the book. I've looked for and can't find it, could anyone please fill me in on what happens to Pelle in the second half?
shareI think anything can bring a crowd you don't want babysitting your children. Not just movies like these.
share[deleted]
In answer to someone’s comment on here about paedophiles enjoying seeing the semi-naked eleven years old Pelle in this film, well, so what? How on earth can the act of someone masturbating over an image of a child actor in a film which was made over twenty-two years ago possibly do that child actor any harm, especially as that actor is no longer a child. Well, of course, it couldn’t, could it?
Such opinions are strictly of a Puritan origin and the Puritan way of thinking is that their beliefs forbid them to even think about sex, especially as a very pleasurable activity and because of the feeling of guilt instilled in them from an early age about nudity and enjoying sexual pleasure being a sin, it disturbs them tremendously to think that someone, somewhere, may be enjoying themselves sexually because that forces them to think about sex and, of course, thinking about sex is sinful, isn’t it? That’s why you get so many Americans commenting on films such as this as though the fact that Pelle was showing his willy to the camera (and so to them, the audience) is so awful that they can’t stand it. It disturbs them beyond words to see it and they want the film to be either censored or banned. It really is as simple as that.
On the subject of the different ways that nudity, especially child nudity, is perceived in the USA and the UK, as opposed to the Scandanavian countries, the difference in perception is this: In the cultures of the USA and UK, nudity means sex, while in the cultures of the Scandanavian countries, it doesn’t.
So who is right? The ban child nudity in films brigade or the seeing a child nude in a film is not harmful brigade? Well, the answer is, they are both right in their own worlds and what is really called for is tolerance of other peoples views and an acceptance that there is another point of view besides their own on this subject.
Remember this is a Swedish/Danish film. Nudity in Scandinavia is not associated with sex as it is here in the states. Children go naked on the beach until they are six or seven. I was reminded of this when I drove along the shore north of Copenhagen this summer and a middle-aged woman stripped out of her bathing suit and put on her house coat on the side of the road as we sat in traffic. A major cultural difference from the Anglo world... for example there is absolutely no law against public nudity anywhere in Scandinavia.
shareYou hit it on the spot here. Pornography have been legal in Denmark since 1967, as the first western country in the world. The entirety of Scandinavia have a very relaxed attitude towards nudity. Here it's not uncommon to see a naked person on TV, in prime time and no-one gets offended by it. In our vies theres a world of difference between nudity and pornography.
There was an episode on Danish TV a few weeks ago that clearly shows the difference between the American and the Danish attitude towards nudity. We have this weekly sketch show called "Live From Bremen", I guess you can say it's our version of Saturday Night Live, except it's in prime time on Friday evening. The program is airing on the largest basic-cable station in the country. This episode had a man walk around naked for somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes, with only a coffee cup covering his junk.. (well, it was covered most of the time, anyways...).
Later the same evening an American politician (unfortunately I can't remember her name but she was a democrat) was a guest on a late-night talk-show where the first thing they discussed was the above mentioned skit. It was obvious that this fine American lady didn't want to discuss this topic, she just said that she had seen it and that she a little shocked "It certainly wouldn't have been allowed to air in America" was her only comment... to which the audience burst into laughter.
I'm Danish, I'm 29 years old and remember seeing this gem of a flick when I was a meager 7 or 8 years old. The entire family was sitting around the TV for the television premier of the movie... ahh, them old times. It makes me sad that the world have come to a place where some people are this afraid of nudity. Pelle Hvenegaard, the actor playing Pelle in the movie, is still acting here in Denmark and hosting various TV shows. He have talked about this movie lots of times in various interviews and have repeatedly stated that he is fine with the nudity in this film and see nothing sexual in it. He was never teased about it as a kid or anything, cuz it was all natural, but recognizes that if the movie was made today the actor playing Pelle would probably be teased for the nudity by the other kids in school. The outing of pedophilia have made even Denmark more scared of nudity... just as the outing of child molesting in the catholic church have made a lot of people resent the church.
Nudity can be sexual, but it can also just be nudity.. I take pride in living in a country where it's still normal to see naked kids running around the beach and no-one minds.. it's only natural. The moment you start covering kids up because it's "bad", thats when you sexualize them.
[deleted]
This is the best post here (and one of the best ever regarding this topic). I'd only add that, as you say "today the actor playing Pelle would probably be teased for the nudity by the other kids in school" - but it is because of American influence that tries, unfortunatelly quite successfully, to change our culture, attitudes, traditions. And as American movies, and TV even more, shows nudity only as either shameful or humilitingly funny new European generations simply can't understand that there have ever existed different periods in history.
shareI saw the film when it first came out (and I was very young) so my memory is not sharp, but I don't even remember any nudity. What I remember was scenes of graphic, shocking violence, suffering and cruelty. All of this was authentic to the plot so I am not criticizing it. Just saying that I felt very traumatized after I watched it, and not because of any nudity.
shareIt's pretty brief, though director missed some opportunities to feature female nudity, which makes me question what was wrong with him
sharenot sure why I bother posting this, but I felt the boy Pelle appeared nude one time too many too, so to my surprise I kind of agree with the TS (i am no prude).
The first time we see Pelle naked when he is teased by the 'trainee', a 'negative' nudity. later one he's dreaming in the pool, naked (of course). a 'positive' nudity.
This should be enough. It evens out nicely. Nudity is of course part of Pelle's everyday life.
Later one in the movie there's another shot when he's dressing in a hurry. Thát's the shot I would consider gratuitous and pretty much useless. And it did irritate me a little.
Oh well. Obviously a thing like this doesn't ruin a fine movie. It's just a thing people on messageboards love to discuss, eh :P
What a stupid complaint. Puritanical States of America, you continue to outdo yourself!
share