I've seen "Christopher and his kind" and I don't think showing Matt's behind would have done any bad to the film. (: Anyway, no need to get restrictive.
Ooh, I'm sorry, I saw it on German TV a few weeks ago so I can't give you any links. :( That's quite odd, normally we have to wait at least a year to see new stuff from the BBC.. (if it's shown at all *thinks of DW*)
I find the Christopher And His Kind prohibition rather disturbing and possibly homophobic. I don't remember there being any similar ruling when Tennant raped his wife in a very disturbing scene in "Recovery". He played a man suffering from brain damage who swore copiously, made inappropriate sexual comments and appeared stark naked in front of strangers. People seemed to survive that, so why the prudishness regarding a bit of gay sex?
I completely agree! I don't know anything about the book, but Matt's film has a much lighter tone, compared to Recovery (which was truly disturbing). It's a story about love.. I honestly can't see the problem they're having. Perhaps DT already had a more "established" image at that time, so he was allowed to do other things? I have no idea.
Comments 10
Reply
Reply
That's quite odd, normally we have to wait at least a year to see new stuff from the BBC.. (if it's shown at all *thinks of DW*)
Reply
Reply
I don't know anything about the book, but Matt's film has a much lighter tone, compared to Recovery (which was truly disturbing). It's a story about love.. I honestly can't see the problem they're having.
Perhaps DT already had a more "established" image at that time, so he was allowed to do other things? I have no idea.
Reply
Leave a comment