Naked World: America Undercover

Naked World is a documentary about a documentarian, Spencer Tunick, who sets up crowds of naked men and women, and photographs them (most often) lying on the cold, wet, rocky ground in well-know locations.

His images are almost anti-erotic, and sometimes clumsy looking. They appear mostly to be noteworthy moments during an event, which is focused on public nudity.

I love nudity, however, the real highlights of this movie were the interviews of those who were photographed.

In particular, I was moved by the HIV+ lady who consoled a sobbing gal who had found being photographed to be a healing experience. I also greatly appreciated the Africa poet, as well as others who addressed racism.

Demian, Sweet Corn Productions

Art and nudity have been together in the Western world for thousands of years-dating back to the Ancient Greeks who viewed the body as one of the if not the most beautiful work of art. That, at least, is the western viewpoint. Other cultures vary; not so much as to whether the body is beautiful or not but rather as to when it is appropriate to display the body to all. Mr. Tunick, in this film, goes around the world to try to show the "body is beautiful" viewpoint belongs worldwide. And, to a significant degree, he succeeds. Actually, his film could be viewed not so much as a film about the human body or nakedness but rather about cultural differences overall. For example, his ease of obtaining volunteers in London versus the problems he had in Ireland shows the cultural differences still existing between those societies.

Particular mention and praise should be made to him going to a post apartheid South Africa and attempting to recruit (mostly) black models. Virtually all of the models in his previous photo shoots have been white; and this is certainly understandable in places such as Russia (only Black Russian I know of is a drink!). However, other peoples with much different skin tones exist and by going to South Africa he certainly attempted to diversify his selection. I commend him for that even though he seemed to be less than totally successful in that endeavor.

The only part of the show that I really object to is the Antarctica session. He wanted to do a worldwide show and, in that regards, I understand his decision to go to the Antarctic. But, I still object for a couple of reasons. The first one, most importantly, is that the Antarctic does not have any indigenous human population-the one part of the landed world that does not. The second objection is more of an artistic nature, and that is due to the environment a nude human being is in no way "natural" in Antarctica. What we see in this movie is the coastal region in SUMMER; the most benign area and time of the year for that entire continent and it is still way too cold for people to venture out without insulating clothes. The models are nude for just a few minutes at a time; yet it is obvious that they are at their limits even then and certainly could not survive for much longer in a nude condition. Nude humans and the Antarctic are therefore oxymorons; they do not go together and Antarctica does not belong in Spencer Tunick's portfolio.

Having mentioned that I will say that overall this film is a good example of artistic figure studies.

I guess Tunick's work as a photographer will always be controversial. Is it pornography or is it art? May be neither. He does insist though that he does not want to replicate the work of others. He has gone out of his way to create something new...nudes en masse in public places. To use naked human beings thus is certainly original. He crowds thousands of them into his foreground...lying on their backs on cold damp pavements or kneeling with rear ends up. He is evidently trying to invent a new texture. It could be done with a thousand sheep (though difficult to control) but using humans in a public place is daring and adds a touch of eroticism.

Is it a coincidence that in nearly every shot we see in the background an erect structure...a mast, a tower, a steeple or spire?

Some of his experimental photos are better than others. One needs a lot of imagination to accept the prone figures lying haphazardly on the wharf below the "Cutty Sark" as a part of the ocean.. I ask you does it really look like a seascape of rippled water or rocky shore?

The most interesting part of the film is his interviews with people of different cultures and different attitudes inviting them to divest themselves of their clothes for the sake of "art". In his world tour he found the people of Montreal cooperative but not so in France or Japan. Amazingly 4000 turned up in Melbourne (Australia) to bare their bodies in rather bleak weather. Is it something to do with mass hysteria? As for Antarctica the few nudes in that icy region did not look at all relaxed and the penguins were rather perplexed too. It was contrived and senseless. A bare backside perched on an icy ledge has no meaning and verges on the ridiculous.

One soon gets used to the nudity which pervades this film. A number of people are asked why they agreed to be naked in front of the lens. The response in most cases was the same....it gave them a feeling of new found freedom.

Note that in one scene there is a risk of danger in baring one's bottom in a public square. A man hurriedly dons his pants when an unexpected dog appears barking madly!

There is one detail which puzzles me. It's this....how do 4000 people find their clothes again after discarding them in some back alley?

What will Spencer Tunick think of next and how long will this novelty last?

This film is a film of thousands of naked bodies that is disguised as 'art'.

It is a very fine line between 'art' and 'porn'. I am not very convinced that this guy is making art. From the film, he admitted that he was doing this for personal satisfaction. I think that the only thing that he could be applauded for was being a persuasive person to create a mass hysteria to take off their clothes.

I also found it very insulting to the interviewees, that they actually put subtitles to non American speakers of English. I could excuse them putting subtitles on the Russian woman who was speaking English with an accent (but it was completely understandable English). However, I found it inexcusable to put subtitles on the AUSTRALIANS who were speaking perfect English.

Another outrageous thing was that he critised the French for "not relaxed about their bodies as they think they are". Just because some of the French people refused to pose naked for him, did not mean he could attack others like that.

I am angered by this film.

I've seen many documentaries and I'd rate this among the best I've seen. Perhaps it does not cover new ground as far as a documentary style, but the pace, photography, and music are excellent. Some people dismiss this piece because of the artist and his work. My vote is for the documentary and is not intended to be a vote regarding his art.