I'm not a prude at all but in the film the night before the dive the female character is lying on the bed fully naked. From watching the scene I could not see any reason for this? Or is it just me?
shareThere is a good reason for nudity: She is the most beautiful woman I've seen in years. Vivir y dejar vivir. Sobre gustos no hay nada escrito :)
shareI think many people can be comfortable lounging around naked, especially moments before going to sleep, and extra-especially with their partner.
However, I don't understand why she was shown like that in this movie! Why on earth would it matter if she likes to lay on top of the bed naked? It doesn't give any particular insight into her character (we already know they're young and beautiful), and they don't even have sex, so what possible purpose does it have, except for a quick tittie shot to entice the male viewers? (Whoops. Answered my own question there!)
And I *really* didn't appreciate the at-her-feet camera angle that caught her muff in frame for several moments. That kind of shot is *completely* unnecessary in a non-porn film!
And we don't even get to ogle his naked butt or thighs, wtf?!?
No, I don't think it's just you at all. But there was a reason for the nudity. This is a realistic movie. Which means, if these People would be naked with each other in that bedroom in real life, that's the way they're going to be in this movie.
This movie was made by a real-life Husband and Wife, and I believe it was written by them as well. So, again, it's real because these people are divers, oceanlife photographers, and a real life couple. The filmmakers, not the characters. The nudity is there for the purpose of realism. And besides, it was explained in an earlier scene that the air conditioning was broken. And both the husband and wife were naked. Until of course he put on boxers, which I found terribly unbelievable.
Although, that scene may have been deleted from the film. It's either in the film or on the DVD.
"Carol, one word of advice: send Cindy to a special school"
No, I don't think it's just you at all. But there was a reason for the nudity. This is a realistic movie. Which means, if these People would be naked with each other in that bedroom in real life, that's the way they're going to be in this movie.
Dude, that's still not a valid reason!
Realism? Wtfever! This was still a FILM first and foremost, not an unedited, unscripted, handy-cammed home (porn) movie!
You know, I can handle seeing her tits. I mean, let's face it, straight guys run the world and straight guys want to see women's titties and not men's butts or balls... which is what I was complaining about earlier, the lack of equity in the nudity - male nips are NOT the naughtiness equalivalent of the female mons!
But fine, whatever, I can deal with seeing her chest and nothing more of his. But it actually physically PISSES ME OFF that they showed her muff! (And don't try to say they didn't, cuz I fricking well saw it myself, trimmed bush and all. It's like the g--d--- man in the moon; once you've seen it, you can't unsee it!)
And if this film is all about realism, why didn't they have sex? (And don't tell me she wasn't in the mood, there are things a partner can do with their tongue to encourage... *ahem* Anyway!) Why didn't we see either of them sitting on the toilet taking a dump? Why didn't we see actual film footage of them being stung by jellyfish or nibbled by pirhanas or chomped by sharks, instead of just reaction shots and fake wounds?
Think about the answer to those questions, and then try to tell me the female nudity in this film WASN'T completely gratuitious bullsh*t.
"Think about the answer to those questions..."
-Fine, I will:
"Realism? Wtfever! This was still a FILM first and foremost, not an unedited, unscripted, handy-cammed home (porn) movie!"
-Yes it was realism: most of us are naked underneath our clothes, and people tend to take their clothes off before going to sleep, some just put on a pj but not all. And it wasn't a "home (porn) movie" either as there was no sex. Usually porn requires people being inside one another and bare breasts do not count (not always though, I once saw on primetime tv a woman giving birth where you could see everything and this wasn't porn to me - and yes, this was in Scandinavia where we do not yet realize the perversity of birth).
"You know, I can handle seeing her tits."
-Yes, I can see that :)
"I mean, let's face it, straight guys run the world and straight guys want to see women's titties"
-That kind of reminds me of, e.g., the Janet Jackson and Superbowl fuss that made people laugh across the globe. Not to her but to the puritan "Let's ban the female body!" bigots.
"But it actually physically PISSES ME OFF that they showed her muff!"
-Yes, the origin of all Evil and everything that's wrong in the world today, The Muff! BTW, what are the physical symptoms of being pissed off, 'cause I always thought they were more between your ears. Well, why am I asking this, my heartbeat rises whenever I read such misogynist text.
"And if this film is all about realism, why didn't they have sex? (And don't tell me she wasn't in the mood, there are things a partner can do with their tongue to encourage... *ahem* Anyway!)"
-They did not have sex because she wasn't in the mood, remember? There are men who respect this and don't start tonguing or anything just because they feel like unloading. If you can even call such people men who don't just take their women when they feel like, right? ;)
"Why didn't we see either of them sitting on the toilet taking a dump?"
-Exactly. Neither did we see them eat or drink or get from the car to the airplane or from the plane to the hotel or sleeping the whole night in the room or diving for 45 min. before the boat leaving or their lives prior to the opening scene! We have all been fooled! There was dialogue in the bedroom scene but there might not have been in a taking-a-dump scene (some people do use bathroom together but hotel bathrooms are often too small for this).
"Why didn't we see actual film footage of them being stung by jellyfish or nibbled by pirhanas or chomped by sharks, instead of just reaction shots and fake wounds? "
-Actual film footage of people being attacked by wild animals is rare. Besides, film material from the archives does not really fit in with the rest of the footage as old Tarzan films show. We didn't see them nibbled by piranhas because piranhas are freshwater fish. Also, the characters (and thus the viewers) not seeing the sharks biting them only shows the suddenness of the attacks and emphasizes the threat. You know, carnivorous animals can be really tricky with these things as they are not like "ready or not, here I come" when they hunt. Besides, not even a million budget film can have credible cgi of sharks eating people, c.f. Deep Blue Sea for example.
I also thought the nude scene was unnecessary. There is no need to get your kit off in a movie to the extent they did for plot. Notice it was only Blanchard Ryan whose entire body was visible...saw nothing below the belt on the dude. It was only in there for guys to drool at and hopefully draw a couple more male viewers in, which seems to have worked. Cheap.
share
The only real reason for the nudity is to make up for a poor cinematography on an otherwise crap movie. You can also ask what the reason was for the close up of the door being locked as they leave. Bad bad movie. I work in film and television and this film reeks of 'young cinematographer trying to be clever' Too many tight shots especially in the water making them appear to be too cosy.
It was about equal male-female nudity. The guy covered his genitals with the blanket, and so did she. That was one well placed blanket.
shareI'm upset that the sharks were naked. Don't they have any modesty?
The "purpose' of the nudity is to show nude people. Does there have to be a reason?
I think I saw shark nads in the film. I am scarred for life now.
Oh the horror of nudity! I wish we could just have clothes permanently attached to us.
I highly recommend pissing yourself followed by a course of praying to your impotent god.
Wow! Look how many people replied to this thread without even remembering the question. Seems like everyone's hard up to see some t*ts. Anyway, IMO there was no reason whatsoever to have shown the woman nude. It didn't have any apparent purpose at all - maybe they were afraid of getting a PG rating (except the guy said *beep* enough times later). The point of the scene was that he got horny and then she said "headache" which just showed what a headstrong b*tch she was, which followed through later.
shareI am a shallow man - she was hot and I liked it. No real reason other than to show an attractive woman nude. I'm sure I'm not the only man who thought it was "nice", even if it's for all wrong reasons. (By wrong I mean it had nothing to do with the movie at all)
I am Nikolai Dzhurmongaliev's dentist
If I ever make me a movie I will put in 5 seconds of boobs - just to see threads like this.
Priceless.
And I like the sense of humour from some people like jusuli, who seem to have kept some sanity.
[deleted]
[deleted]
who cares ... nudity is nudity ... never issues a problem for me ;)
share