Talk:Naked (1993 film)

message: I gather the movie has no themes, since none are listed?--Syd Henderson 15:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a rape; money doesn't come into it. I'll make the change BTLizard (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm very surprised that anyone thinks that the opening scene with Johnny is a rape scene! One of the major structural contrasts that the film develops is between the way Johnny treats women and the way Jeremy treats them. Yes, J clearly enjoys his sex on the rough side (as evidenced with the woman at the start, Sophie and the woman from across Brian's building) but there's no suggestion anywhere that it's not consensual. Jeremy is there to help us to understand this, since he very clearly rapes Sophie. It's even there in the opening stage direction in the published screenplay: "who are having a rough fuck under a streetlamp. [...] At first, the woman seems enthusiastic" (p.5). DionysosProteus (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, it's not a rape at first: then it becomes one, and then she pushes him away. Johnny and Jeremy are both sadists who hurt vulnerable women physically and psychologically. The difference between them is that Jeremy will never take no for an answer, whereas Johnny will - when confronted with physical force. Jeremy seems more calculating, Johnny more instinctual. Nevertheless, Johnny often seems on the cusp of precisely the same behaviour for me. I found myself hating both of them, to be honest, and thought 'serves you right' when Johnny gets beaten up 125.239.153.134 ([[User talk:
125.239.153.134|talk]]) 07:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mike Leigh disagrees. In his 2000 BBC interview with Will Self (at the 16:30 mark, I can't link to YouTube videos, but it is easily findable on YouTube, and also included in the Criterion Collection extras for the film), he flatly denies that it is a rape and instead characterizes it as a consensual sexual encounter that turned ugly. The director's interpretation should be the definitive one here. DaRonPayne (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes

message: This article is rated as start-class, but whoever granted the rating was being kind.  I think it reads more like an overgrown stub.  It lacks a decent plot summary, intro, cast section, production section and most glaringly of all, citations; the text is too full of subjective opinion; and in general it is not so much an article full of useful information about this movie, as an article full of the opinions of the people who wrote it.  If you want to talk about what this film means to you, review it on Amazon.  In the meantime, hard info on the film is not hard to obtain (or, in the case of a plot synopsis, work up oneself from watching the thing).  If nobody else steps in, I will do to this article what I did to the one on Life Is Sweet - namely, strip it to its chassis and start all over again.  
Thanks, kudos and respect to whoever started the article in the first place, and whoever actually provided information, instead of mere critique.  The rest of the article does not reflect very well on the many people who have been tinkering pointlessly with it instead of doing what needed to be done. Lexo (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not good 

message: Whoever wrote this is very skilled and erudite.  However, the conclusions arrived at concerning the theme are quite self indulgent.  Johnny is an oppressed member of the working class.  There is no mention of his near homelessness condition, lack of a decent well paying job and his criticism of society and the capitalist state.  This is a study about society not the inner workings of a particular character's psyche.  what about the women?  What are they going through?  Sadness, lonliness. quiet desperation, all a result of Capitalism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:C0BC:F3D3:F846:F2E3 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Class analysis 

message: Should there not be a Reception section included here? The article is sorely lacking one. 
--71.55.123.56 (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Reception Section? 

message: This is an important film in Leigh and Thewlis' careers, besides for the ensemble cast, most of whom went on to other good work, so I expanded the article, including plot and production notes that were missing. I added themes and re-worked the lead to reflect the article. Some of the original plot summary was well-written but subjective in nature, so I re-worked that to reflect the story, rather than the author's take on the story. There's one paragraph from the plot summary that I moved to "Themes." It remains subjective, but I think it can stand. I took out any opinions on character or plot that I couldn't back up with references or commentary from Leigh and Thewlis. --Utilizer (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence is there that Jeremy/Sebastian was actually the landlord of the property? His say-so isn't enough, as his actual identity is shrouded in mystery given his multiple names, and the fact that he seems to be known personally to Sandra, who doesn't refer to him as the landlord. --Scherben808 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: I never knew people took that opening scene this way until years after I first saw the film, but on rewatch I can see how it might be interpreted that way. What I think is actually going on though is that they were having consensual sex in the alley and then got rougher than she was comfortable with, which angered her.  Note that they were already clearly having intercourse in the opening shot, and the woman is moaning and encouraging him ("Oh, go on").  But a few seconds later, she protests "What are you doing, you're hurting me!"  That sequence of events doesn't make sense if it was a rape from the beginning. SlackerInc1 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leigh has said "Johnny is not a rapist"