If you strain your eyes, you can catch a glimpse of a boobie. This is very daring on North American television, in a show with brutality and mutilated bodies.
You should really watch episode three before the comment lest you make yourself look foolish.
ChrisM said:
I thought the sex was a bit much in episode III. I didn't think it added too much to the story and would have ben better off implied - but this is HBO, so they just had to indulge.
The Marines on Guadalcanal had diarrhea so bad they often cut the seat out of their pants and went around pretty much shitting anywhere they could. It was true to life but it doesn't mean I want to watch it on TV. The same goes for other bodily functions, including intercourse. The sex in episode three was not "a boobie". I have no idea what show aiabx was watching. It was a complete intercourse session from start to finish. Granted, it was realistic. I don't really have anything for or against it, but I do think it was kind of jarring in that I agree with Chris - it had little to do with the war in the Pacific, but mostly, it limits the ability of North American parents to watch this show with their teenage sons and daughters. It's age inappropriate. Say what you will about European norms, sex being natural, etc. etc., I'll repeat - I don't really care to watch someone vomiting or taking a dump either.
Don't get me wrong; it was realistic; she didn't scream and holler like a porn star; there was even that awkward pause where you know he's figuring "hey, I guess I gotta put my schlong inside her now." And you see it all in excrutiating detail (though there was no frontal nudity - strangely, there was full male frontal nudity in episode 4 - gotta love HBO). And just as realistically, it was over in about three thrusts. What intrigues me about sex in that era is that while males today have all kinds of "visual aids" to drive their expectations (mostly in the wrong direction) about what it will be like, males then pretty much had no playbook other than the lies their buddies in boot camp told them, what their brothers might have told them (probably also lies), and any unfortunate discoveries they might have made about their parents (ick).
How accurate was it to the real Bob Leckie's sexual adventures? No idea, never read his book, though it would be interesting to know if he covered that aspect in any great detail. Some writers from that period did - Fred Cederberg, a Cape Breton Highlander, was no shrinking violet when it came to writing about sex, but it was still probably pretty reserved and I doubt that too many 1940s era writers - even if writing decades later - approached the "letters to Penthouse" treatment that HBO gave to that scene.
**MINOR SPOILER**
That being the case, not sure why the director went that way. Again, I wasn't particularly revolted by it, but I'm not sure what we're supposed to get from it. Traditional cinema generally uses sex to imply something dirty - Tony Soprano's liaisons with his mistresses were shown in great detail, for example, but 'lovemaking' with his wife was only hinted at. Given that the script called for Leckie to have actual feelings for this woman the prolonged intercourse seems like an uncharacteristic directorial choice. It's like when someone in Hollywood says "throw in the F word so we can have an R rating, otherwise, we'll get a G and no one will pay money to see us." Guess they needed it to be a true HBO show or somefink.