उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Greetings again from the darkness. Actress Hedy Lamarr is still remembered today for so many reasons. Often described as the most beautiful actress of all-time, she turned down the lead roles in both GASLIGHT and CASABLANCA (both eventually went to Ingrid Bergman). Her best known role was in SAMSON AND DELILAH (1949), and she was the inspiration for both Disney's SNOW WHITE and Catwoman in the original "Batman" comics. Married and divorced six times, she's in the National Inventors Hall of Fame for being co-inventor of 'frequency hopping' technology that is still used today for cell phones. Beyond all of that, some may know Ms. Lamarr is considered to have performed the first (non-pornographic) on screen female orgasm in ECSTASY (1933). And what better way for director Danny Wolf to open his documentary chronicling nudity in movies than with the actress whose career started with such a bang?

We hear a bunch of industry folks recall the first time they saw nudity on the big screen, and some actors and actresses look back on the first time they appeared nude in a movie. For the most part, director Wolf takes us in chronological order through the various stages of film nudity, dating back as far as 1887. However, he wisely includes a prologue dealing with the present day status of power dynamics, the #MeToo movement, and, of course, the Harvey Weinstein case. There is a stunning collage of those who have been accused of improper and/or illegal behavior - the faces are familiar, but, sadly, there are too many to name. We are even informed that today, actors and actresses typically have very detailed contractual protection in regards to nudity.

The steady stream of talking heads includes perspectives from authors, casting directors, film directors, art historian, professors, film critics, and, as mentioned, actors and actresses. Before breaking into the segments divided by decades (60's, 70's, 80's, etc), we are provided a history lesson on the early years. For me, this was the most interesting chapter as it details the infamous Hays Code, the Catholic Legion of Decency (that "C" rating is pretty rough!), and the twenty year reign of Joseph Breen (the Breen Light was needed for go-ahead). There is also a brief profile of nude model Audrey Munson and her fascinating impact on statues, print, and cinema, and ultimately a tragic life spent mostly in an asylum (she died at age 104). This early segment also features the "secret" behind Chesty Morgan playing DOUBLE AGENT 73, the rise of "Monster Nudies" and "Nudie Cuties", an interview with Mamie Van Doren. It concludes with Roger Vadim's AND GOD CREATED WOMAN (1956) starring Bridget Bardot, effectively ending the Hays Code era.

As the film treks through the eras, in the 1960's we see the impact of Janet Leigh's shower scene in Hitchock's PSYCHO, and Marilyn Monroe proves nudity doesn't kill a career. This was also the time of European influence on American cinema, and 1968 began the MPAA ratings system, with Brian DePalma's GREETINGS (with Robert DeNiro) as the first Rated X movie (since edited to an R), and MIDNIGHT COWBOY becoming the first mainstream movie to carry an X rating.

Director Joe Dante talks us through much of the 1970's as porn films like DEEP THROAT changed the landscape. It's also the era where CARNAL KNOWLEDGE proved true movie stars could appear nude, and the decade that gave us LAST TANGO IN PARIS and THE LAST PICTURE SHOW. On the lower budget scale, this was peak Roger Corman time (the great Pam Grier is interviewed), the height of Drive-in movies (including cult favorite I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE with Camille Keaton interviewed), and the notorious CALIGULA with commentary from Malcom McDowell.

Director Blake Edwards had the honor of ending the 1970's with Bo Derek as a perfect "10", and kicking off the 1980's by having Mary Poppins (his wife Julie Andrews) appear topless in S.O.B. The decade of the 80's takes some heat for serving up plenty of lame music and movies, but there were some memorable moments as well. Eric Roberts and Mariel Hemingway spend some time talking about STAR 80 and PERSONAL BEST, the latter which was the first mainstream film to feature a love scene with lesbian athletes. A highlight here is director Amy Heckerling ruminating on her classic FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH.

The 1990's revived the "erotic thriller" genre (BASIC INSTINCT), as well as the NC-17 rating, of which Philip Kaufman's HENRY & JUNE became the first recipient. The 1990's were also the decade of BAD LIEUTENANT, THE CRYING GAME, BOOGIE NIGHTS, SHOWGIRLS, and AMERICAN PIE (the re-birth of the teen sex comedy). So, honestly, no word can possibly describe such a diverse group of films with nudity. The decade could easily support its own documentary, much like the 1970's.

There is some insightful commentary surrounding contemporary cinema, including FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, and the inclusion of older actors and actresses in the "action". Some of the best commentary during the film comes from Diane Franklin, Sylvia Miles, an old Russ Meyer interview, Liz Goldwyn (Samuel Goldwyn Jr's daughter), Malcolm McDowell, and film critic Richard Roeper. But it's director John Cameron Mitchell who provides the most searing observation on contemporary cinema when he states (paraphrased) - today the left would say any nudity or any sex scene is exploitive. And that's the core of the debate. In this "Post-Weinstein" era, what is the "right" way to tell these stories and show these characters in a realistic manner, and yet do so in a way that isn't exploitive, or puts actors or actresses in a situation that they feel uncomfortable or will regret? Proper conduct by those in power and straight communication between all involved seems like a good start. What would Hedy have to say?

The most interesting part was the beginning and the history of the code, once you got into the early mid 60s it got a bit repetitive. At the one hour mark I fast forward to end. I gave in and eight because it is a good and interesting movie at least for the first hour the second half I would rate it about a five. This is quite common with documentaries.

Making a documentary about such a broad topic as nudity in film is tricky. On one end of the spectrum it can be about how nudity is liberating and how forces inside and outside the film industry have been threatened by it and have tried to suppress it. On the other hand it could be a diatribe about how women's unclothed bodies have been objectified and exploited by a male dominated film industry. The key is to find a balance between these two perspectives so that the audience can get a more complete picture of the role that nudity has played in motion pictures over the years. The filmmakers don't quite achieve that balance, favoring the former perspective over the latter. This is evidenced by the use of clips in the film. Rather than using clips efficiently to make its various points, the film devolves into a "greatest hits" of (mostly) female nude scenes and participants commenting on them. This is particularly true in the latter half of the film which focuses on the post-code era. Additionally, the film largely avoids the basic question of how nudity has been defined in motion pictures and by the society as a whole. Specifically, the film doesn't examine the differences in how male and female nudity are treated on screen. As a result, the film promotes the misleading narrative that nudity overwhelmingly involves women and not men and children. To the film's credit, it does touch upon challenging situations that women find themselves in regards to on screen nudity and sexuality vis-a-vis the experiences of their male counterparts. Overall, the film is a decent overview than might encourage some viewers to dig deeper into the subject on their own.

Wonderful! Surprisingly thoughtful and well-done. I actually expected this documentary to be gratuitous... nothing could have been further from that than this exceptional film!

I was fascinated with the stories about Audrey Munson, and the predatory Edison patent, but already knew about the idiotic Hays Code. After that, I actually remembered the kerfuffle over Jane Birkin's pubic hair and the introduction of the rating system.

Of course, I am old. You may not be. I remember the shock of Richard Gere's full frontal in 1981, and there's worse than it on cable now.

Enjoy the film.

The evolution of sexuality in the cinema, where nudity is either tasteful, erotic, educational, gratuitous, or exploitative. Many historians, critics and actors are interviewed for their opinions on movies featuring their own nudity and commenting on the sex scenes of others (my favorites were Eric Roberts and Mariel Hemingway separately discussing "Star 80" and, by the end-credits, getting a bit off-track but still intriguing us). There was no innocent era for nudity on-screen; from the time Edison got a patent for the movie camera, men and women have been slipping out of their clothes. These by-gone years are the most fascinating: from the ill-fated Audrey Munson and swimmer Annette Kellerman, Hedy Lamarr in the Czech drama "Ecstasy", Mae West to Brigitte Bardot and Marilyn Monroe, the skirting of Joseph Breen's moral Code is, at once, funny and pathetic. In 1962, with the Code going out-of-fashion, nudity made a comeback (Russ Meyer's "The Immoral Mr. Teas" from 1959 was a watershed moment for permissiveness in a non-underground picture, while Antonioni's "Blow-Up" in 1966 is cited as the first movie to--fleetingly--show pubic hair). Informative and well-researched and produced, "Skin" has a great assortment of film clips and, well, lots of breasts and bums. *** from ****

It's a pretty good. Did a fine job at exploring the evolution of nudity in film. I always noticed that female nudity is disproportionately prevalent than than male nudity-which annoys me. However this movie intrigued because it discussed candidly why that is. Yes I know it's because sex sells and the male gaze etc. but, the importance of these things were explored very honestly. It wasn't trying too hard to something that it is not.

The documentary started out fine for the first hour. The documentary chronical nudity in films decade by decade. But somehow as the film gets into the 1980s and later, it isn't as good as the first half. It quickly became boring. The way I experienced the second half was as though I was listening to the Charlie Brown school teacher wah wah wah wah, insert nude scene, wah wah wah, another nude scene etc. The documentary seem to have lost its focus during the second half. Became more about titillation than information. I was relieved when the end credits came up after the 2hr+ runtime.

Very surprised at how much nakedness there was before the 30s and the self censoring of the Hayes code. This documentary was full of facts and movies i never knew contained nudity there was a lot more in the Golden Age of Hollywood then i thought! I enjoyed hearing from the actresses point of view its very sad to hear how a lot of them were never told till the filming started and had very little choice in the 60s and 70s its good to see that we have moved on from doing things that ways and after the #MeToo movement things have really started to change hopefully things keep getting better

This film has good intentions and then fizzles off. It is three fourths, guys and women in the business, saying quite dull things. There are some scenes from certain movies but they are randomly chosen. It's as if they got hold of a bunch of these moments and then built the documentary around them. I have to say it was flat out boring and quite sexist.

I really thought this would be more factual. What you have mostly is that actresses claim how brave they were in appearing nude on film, others claiming the nude scenes were sprung upon them as a surprise, directors claiming the scenes they shot were edited to make them sexier. Apparently none of these nude shots were in the script and no one knew about it until the day of the shoot. Reference to obscure films doesn't really show any kind of trend. Also, although many actors (men) appeared nude in films, none of them were interviewed to see what they thought of appearing without cloths. If you ever saw the way a film is actually shot it's pretty hard to claim surprise when there are many cameras, lights, microphones, and staff around.

Let's be clear. This is all about only female nudity in film. Very one sided and hypocritical. The men are never mentioned or interviewed. The title and description should be altered. I learned a few things in the beginning and then it just dragged on.

This documentary covers nudity decade by decade beginning with the birth of the film industry. It was fine until they reached the 1980s then halfway through the runtime. But then It quickly became boring. Second half of the documentary sounded like the Charlie Brown teacher wah wah wah wah then insert nude scene from an 80,90,00,10 film and more wah wah wah. The documentary seem to have lost its focus during the second half. Became more about titillation the information on the film industry. More than 2hrs long.

The fact of the matter is this; it's a movie defending softcore porn in the mainstream. Look up the definition of softcore porn, and everything inside of the justifications they use is all about the pornography, not about art. They had it right in the beginning in the of the film where the art of erotica is stills of natural beauty. The moment you motion for sexual intercourse, with or without penetration, auditorily or seen, is some form of porn. To have nudity isn't the issue, if done properly. To have sexual humping, motions, moaning, etceteras makes it softcore porn by definition. Nothing they say in this film does anything for the artform of nudity, such as in statues or artwork. It's a promotion for the normalization of softcore porn in the mainstream media, which is abhorrent. Especially since you see the condition of the actresses and actors mental conditions afterwards doing this type of filmography. Especially since most of them are then typecast as pornographic actresses and actors for the rest of their careers. Justification of softcore porn in the mainstream media. Period. Abhorrent and disgusting. Watched it to see what lean they had, and that's the lean. Justify softcore porn in mainstream media.

It was a fine documentary, would give it 5-6 starts otherwise, but they chose to include the ableist slur r******** from the actor Sean Young. They could have edited it out but they chose not to. I don't get it. We all add texture to the fabric of humanity but it is those who are different than us that make us see how beautiful and vibrant that texture is. This isn't a cancel culture post, this is a let's do better post.