Possua-me Nua

Take Me Naked (1966)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

A homeless bum (Kevin Sullivan) watches a woman (Roberta Findlay) in her room who is often naked. Soon the bum grows obsessed over her and it leads to a disastrous ending.

TAKE ME NAKED comes from Michael Findlay and if you're familiar with his films then you already know that he often went into the roughie territory and that's exactly what this is. TAKE ME NAKED isn't nearly as popular as his FLESH films but it's certainly worth watching and especially if you're fans of this type of movie.

The big attraction here is getting to see Roberta Findlay in the lead role, which has her naked throughout and appearing in countless sex scenes. She would eventually become a director herself so she has a pretty big cult following already so those fans will certainly want to watch this film. She has a very good presence on the screen and there's no question that she's believable in the part. Sullivan is also good in his role and Michael Findlay is also here playing a part.

The film has a lot of narration as we constantly "hear" how the characters are feeling but this doesn't take away too much. At just 69-minutes the film does start to drag towards the end but it's certainly worth watching.

It's easy to rag on this movie. The plot is pretty weak: a lonely derelict voyeur spies on a woman every night as she showers, masturbates, or just wanders naked around her NYC apartment. Finally, he decides to do something about it. The end. It is also very pretentious with an at times hilariously overwrought voice-over narration ("Her skin is made of the disillusionment of man"). It is filmed in black-and-white in a kind of would-be avante-garde style. And as they often did in their early days, the Findlays put themselves in principal acting roles--Roberta Findlay herself plays the oft-nude woman under her "Anna Riva" pseudonym. Unfortunately, the Findlay missus is definitely not an actress, nor is she exactly a raving beauty. And while her skin may or may not be made of the "disllusionment on man", she and her late husband's film-making was definitely made of the "disillusionment of the movie-goer".

However, consider for a moment what this would be like if it were made today. It would be a shot-on-video hardcore porn movie. Forget about even the pretentious artistry since it would have had a $1,000 production budget and a shooting schedule measured in hours. Instead of authentic gritty NY locations, it would have been shot in somebody's condo in the San Fernando Valley. Instead of this overripe, ridiculous dialogue you would have had something like this: "Ummmm. . .Oh yeah, that's good. . .Uhhhh. . .C'mon baby, yeah. . .Oh, yeah. . .Oh yeah! Yeah! Oh, yeah! Yeah! AAAAAAAigghh!!!" Of course, the girls probably would have been better-looking than Roberta Findlay, but that's only if you can still consider human beings injected with that much silicone, saline, and collagen "girls".

And where the Findlays ALWAYS suceeded was in making truly disturbing films, and this is certainly no exception. Sex films today though are almost never disturbing. If it weren't for the gang-bangs, the oral sex "facials", and triple-penetrations you wouldn't be able to tell them from Disney movies as they have that exact same horribly saccharine don't-let-anything-disturb-the-fantasy element to them. This early Findlay effort may not be a great movie, but when you consider the modern-day alternative, it doesn't seem so bad after all.

Michael and Roberta Findlay were mavericks of sleaze in the sixties, and this no-budget carbuncle is a prime example of their particular brand of sicko cinema. Basically a series of sexual scenarios enacted in grimy tenement settings, strung together with some arty, purple narration, this flick tries hard to cover up it's low-rent limitations with pseudo-sophisticated poetry. There's something about a destitute man spying on a female neighbor as she whiles away her time masturbating and lounging around her squalid apartment naked. Throw in a lesbian sequence and wino making homosexual passes, and you have a guilty pleasure of seediness. Not quite as extreme as some of the other Findlay product known to exist, but definitely a walk on the scuzzy side.

This early work by the Findlays signaled the in depth creativity and intellectualism within the sleaze genre. It's hard today to gage why anyone would explore this route. But if you combine the uncovering sexuality sweeping the garbage strewn streets of downtown New York, it is most apt. This move is less shock value than their later films, but much more ethereal, cerebral and philosophical. The poetry goes deep, beyond any significant plot line. The whole film itself is a tone poem for the disaffected, the frustrated, the utterly desperate. It projects itself clearly over what are simply a series of nudie shots, then cutting to the most decrepit Bowery Bum you ever saw. Michael Findlay, looking slimmer and strong couldn't bring himself down enough to play the main role, spying on his own wife. Roberta has a nice bod, but has an overbite. Combine that with her horrible Queens accent and you know why she rarely performed on camera. Iv'e watched 26 minutes of this film so far and I think it's one of the Findlay's finest! I wonder who would have associated with this weird couple back in the way-out 60s. Unless you were working for them, probably no one. Yes they were weird alright, but far ahead of their time, someone should write a book about them.