The Polanski Macbeth is a stone cold classic gore film.
I liked watching the Kurosawa takes on Shakespeare after seeing the stories in their original fashion (Throne of Blood, Ran, The Bad Sleep Well). Back when I was in high school, TNT had weekly foreign film classics. My parents are big film buffs.
I know we saw this in HS in honors English. I am 100% sure any nudity would have been edited.
It is! As far as being authentic to the period. Sucks that this nude scene tarnishes it.
IIRC, lots of 60s films had gratuitous nudity for no real reason. Like Clockwork Orange, or Zardoz. I am not an expert in 60s films, but I know more than once when watching one I will be like, “Oh, hey, boobs. That’s weird.” I guess the 60s were part of the sexual revolution, but half the country was still crew cut tight asses. I guess at the time it was considered artistic and edgy?
We sure did! Given how some communities are, I’m sure there were teachers who were happy to show violence and drug use so long as they didn’t have to talk to parents about a boob.
I think you may be underestimating the effect a persuasive director will have on young minds. And moreover to what extent a young-ish person will refuse to be a victim when asked about such things even years after the event.
I have family in the movie industry here in Europe and I have heard, long before meetoo was a thing, about some former European child actors who spoke out in the early 2000s about trauma from doing nude scenes as child actors in the 1970s and 1980s. This was before social media was a thing so this debate circulated mostly in the professional circuit; seminars, panel debates and such. There was no money to be made from it, they weren’t trying to sue anyone, they just wanted to caution against this happening to future child actors.
The male star spoke positively about it in 2016. When he was in his 60’s. I’m thinking he’s probably not still young, no?
And they never spoke up until now? When there IS money to be made from it?
EDIT: and again, not saying there’s not something there, and I wouldn’t be surprised if people settle this quietly out of court regardless just for the optics. But it trips my skepticism meter.
Once again… speaking out about forms of abuse is NOT a great way to cash in, especially for women. Most women, and most people, who speak out about abuse, especially against people who have power over them in some manner, get heaped with an endless amount of skepticism and further abuse. This is not some new revelation that this regularly happens to people who report abuse. This has been an ongoing discussion, with real world examples to pull from as we’re having this discussion, to point to since Me Too exploded onto most of our public consciousness.
I really don’t understand why the IMMEDIATE reaction to reports of abuse, given how very fucking common it is, tends to be “well they MUST be lying, because money.” WTF money are YOU talking about? No one gets showered in love and cash for going up against major and beloved institutions!
I’d suggest that this was likely prompted by the recent discussion of that Brooke Shields movie (Blue Lagoon).
All that being said - yeah, it could be bullshit, but given the history here, I kind of doubt it.
This! Also now they can do something about this without endangering their career which would have been over in the '60s had they said anything then. And it would have been very difficult back then for them to get any kind of justice given the environment.
In the intervening years we have learned a lot more about how sexual coercion works and the lifelong negative impact it can have. I don’t have a problem holding the powers that be accountable for their actions. They were shitty then and got away with it because it was more the fashion at the time.
I’m more than happy to let a court figure this out
I think back in the 60s, it was even harder to report abuse than it is now (because “that’s just how things are” ruled). Now, there is a bit more care, but given that Roman Polanski got an oscar not too long ago, not nearly as much as their should be. It tends to only happen when it’s just too high profile, too many accusers, or it’s too obvious to be avoided. That’s often not the case, sadly. Just look what’s happening with the Manson accusations after the vile shit aimed at Amber Heard.
Yeah. This was the period when the Hays Office-style censorship of Hollywood films finally crumbled. Once films could include nudity without legal consequences, everyone jumped on the bandwagon and tossed in a little nudity whether or not it made sense in the context of the film. Something similar happened after the demise of the Comics Code Authority, which unleashed a flood of T&A comics.
When I first started reading the story, I did wonder along the same lines as @cepheus42. But then I got to this part:
"The lawsuit was filed on Friday in Santa Monica Superior Court under a California law that has temporarily suspended the statute of limitations - which means action cannot normally be taken once a certain time has elapsed - for child sex abuse.
The suspension has led to a host of new lawsuits and the revival of many others that were previously dismissed."
That puts a different light on things.
From:
Sure, but doesn’t mean that people are doing it for money. I’m so fucking sick of that tired old, well-debunked line. It ignores the part that being traumatized can lead to real material harm to people’s livelihood that should include forms of monetary restitution.
Apologies, my point was exactly that - this info changed my initial skeptical view about it being money related. I can absolutely see that during their careers they would have been leery of being seen as difficult. But now in the wake of metoo etc they may have seen this as being the chance to set the record straight.
I thought it might be, but wasn’t sure. I just wanted to clarify where I stood!
I think the more relevant quotes from that article are these:
Tony Marinozzi, a business manager for the two actors, told BBC News they had been “betrayed” by the director and the studio.
The pair were unable to take action sooner because they feared there would be ramifications for their careers and that they would not be believed, he said.
“There just wasn’t any way for them to tell that story at that time, to get people to listen,” he said.
“Now we’ve seen some movements with #MeToo and other platforms, but at that time there just wasn’t a way to tell that story, and it’s something that they have had to live with and probably struggle with for a lifetime.”
Solomon Gresen, a lawyer for the pair, added in a statement: "Nude images of minors are unlawful and shouldn’t be exhibited.
"These were very young, naive children in the 60s who had no understanding of what was about to hit them.
“All of a sudden they were famous at a level they never expected, and in addition they were violated in a way they didn’t know how to deal with.”
I can see two young people in fear for their careers convincing themselves their abuse wasn’t that bad, it was normal for the time, they are fine. Survivors of child sexual abuse do that. Also, admiring the result isn’t the same thing as condoning how they got there. They can think it’s a beautiful scene and still be hurt by the betrayal and coercion
Agreed, these all get to the heart of the matter. The change in statute was likely instrumental in helping bring all of this to light.
I covered one class period for another teacher’s history class and he had his students watch Letters From Vietnam. He left me detailed notes about the video and even told me to do the same thing your teacher did in 3-4 places were there was full frontal nudity.
Unfortunately, his handwriting was terrible so where he wrote penis shot, I read power shot. I was so confused. Then I looked up and hello! I was able to catch the remaining scenes, but I couldn’t apologize to them enough.
I did, in high school, uncut. The nudity was brief and of interest only in the way that any nudity whatsoever is of interest to teenagers.
IIRC, lots of 60s films had gratuitous nudity for no real reason. Like Clockwork Orange, or Zardoz. I am not an expert in 60s films, but I know more than once when watching one I will be like, “Oh, hey, boobs. That’s weird.”
As opposed to the modern era where gratuitous nudity is in HBO series where it belongs!
The version we saw in school was the uncut one. The teacher let us know beforehand and gave the “This is high school, I know you’re mature enough to handle this, so don’t act like a bunch of giggling idiots over a couple seconds of nudity” talk.
That said, the scene didn’t add anything essential to the film, and, even if it had, clearly the treatment of the actors was unethical. I hope they’re supported in this claim, and it brings them a measure of internal peace and external justice.
