Naked World: America Undercover (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews (10)

But is it art?

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 13 February 2005]

The subject of this wonderful documentary, Spencer Tunick, was a surprise when it was shown on cable recently. The controversial artist is seen in an uncanny account of the way he works by the director of the film, Arleene Donnelly Nelson.

We watch as the photographer travels to different countries in order to capture in film humans that pose against impressive backgrounds naked. Mr. Tunick speaks candidly about his ideas and how he goes about it. In interviews we see some of his subjects discussing before hand their ideas and reservations.

It's surprising that Mr. Tunick is able to get the hundreds of people to pose for him "en masse" without so much of a problem. His shoot in front of the Cutty Sark, a London landmark, is one of the best pictures we see in the film. At the same time, it surprises how the Parisian guards of the Louvre come after him when he tried to photograph a naked man in the museum's courtyard with the I.M. Pei pyramid in the background. We are shocked, in a way, because if anyone, in our minds, should be more understanding, would be the French!

The pictures are not pornographic at all! We see ordinary people posing nude, but there is no desire whatsoever to project anything sexual to the would be viewer, in any way. The people posing for Mr. Tunick do so out of their own free will, as no one is pressured to do otherwise.

After watching the film, we get an understanding of the artist and his vision.

Definitely Not Porn...

[arson83 · 7/10 · 4 November 2003]

It was 2 in the morning and I couldn't sleep even though I had to wake up in 7 hours. So I put on something called "Naked World" - which my DirecTV described as "An artist asks people to pose nude in the streets." Obviously, I was intrigued.

What I saw was NOT porn at all. Unless you consider 73 year old men standing naked in a field a good turn-on. And then, you have issues.

However, this was actually really good. This artist went around 7 continents (yeah, Antarctica also) and took pictures of random, common people (some good looking, some old, some the anti-supermodel) standing naked, in non-sexual poses.

It wasn't all nudity. It showed culture, reactions, and how everyone is diverse, yet we are all the same. Yeah it kinda had a message. Granted, the 400 people naked in the last scene was a little weird.

If you have time, check it out.

7/10.

It's barely art

[raymond-15 · 7/10 · 13 September 2004]

I guess Tunick's work as a photographer will always be controversial. Is it pornography or is it art? May be neither. He does insist though that he does not want to replicate the work of others. He has gone out of his way to create something new...nudes en masse in public places. To use naked human beings thus is certainly original. He crowds thousands of them into his foreground...lying on their backs on cold damp pavements or kneeling with rear ends up. He is evidently trying to invent a new texture. It could be done with a thousand sheep (though difficult to control) but using humans in a public place is daring and adds a touch of eroticism.

Is it a coincidence that in nearly every shot we see in the background an erect structure...a mast, a tower, a steeple or spire?

Some of his experimental photos are better than others. One needs a lot of imagination to accept the prone figures lying haphazardly on the wharf below the "Cutty Sark" as a part of the ocean.. I ask you does it really look like a seascape of rippled water or rocky shore?

The most interesting part of the film is his interviews with people of different cultures and different attitudes inviting them to divest themselves of their clothes for the sake of "art". In his world tour he found the people of Montreal cooperative but not so in France or Japan. Amazingly 4000 turned up in Melbourne (Australia) to bare their bodies in rather bleak weather. Is it something to do with mass hysteria? As for Antarctica the few nudes in that icy region did not look at all relaxed and the penguins were rather perplexed too. It was contrived and senseless. A bare backside perched on an icy ledge has no meaning and verges on the ridiculous.

One soon gets used to the nudity which pervades this film. A number of people are asked why they agreed to be naked in front of the lens. The response in most cases was the same....it gave them a feeling of new found freedom.

Note that in one scene there is a risk of danger in baring one's bottom in a public square. A man hurriedly dons his pants when an unexpected dog appears barking madly!

There is one detail which puzzles me. It's this....how do 4000 people find their clothes again after discarding them in some back alley?

What will Spencer Tunick think of next and how long will this novelty last?

Not a documentary, more a record of events with barely any critical analysis

[bob the moo · 16 May 2004]

The New York based artist Spencer Tunick takes pictures of nudes in public places – contrasting the naked bodies with the harsh architecture of the cities etc. Fed up of being arrested in New York for public indecency he decides to set out to go across the globe taking nude shots as well as doing group shots of nudes. With each country he gets different problems and benefits – the French are the most reserved, the Japanese afraid of losing jobs for being naked and the Australians barely need to be asked twice.

I generally seem to have a problem with modern art because some of it deliberately tries to be controversial and actually have very little merit other than shock value. The argument that this type of art is good because 'it gets people talking and brings people to all art' is nonsense and never washes with me. However, I generally try to reserve judgement on things until I actually see it – hence me watching this film. I have already seen some of Tunick's work and was quite unimpressed by it, I didn't get the point and just saw it doing stuff that gets headlines. Watching this film I got an impression of the logistics of organising the shoots as well as the motivation of the people who had agreed to get naked. Other that this the film manages to deliver very little other than the interest/curiosity factor of watching lots of people pose nude in public places.

What I wanted was insight: basically Tunick is given lots of chances to really talk about his work and his aims but he doesn't take any of them, only giving vague comments about his intentions – in fact he contradicts himself when he agrees with a South African's concept of his work (in order to get him to pose). As well as missing this chance to help us philistines understand his work, Tunick also comes over as selfish, rude, pushy and full of his own sense of self-importance. He insults people on the street and calls them 'rude' for walking past him as he hands out fliers (we all walk past these people everyday), he gets angry for the police for arresting him (accusing them of basically being idiots). When he is asked what makes his picture special, he replies 'because I took it'. The film only allows about three critically voices in the whole film – and all three of them are Australians who are given seconds to say a quick soundbite or two each. Contrast this with the huge amount of adoring voices surrounding him – only the head of the Russian Museum dares to question him, but even then she concedes to him. All those around him seem to hang on his every word and treat him as if he is doing the most important thing in the world. Even more insulting is how people who 'don't get it' are viewed – they are seen as idiots, the Japanese are openly attacked as being corporate drones.

Those looking for critical insight will also be disappointed because nobody dares ask anything challenging of Tunick. Where does his money come from is what I was interested to know – he flies all over the world but then ends the film complaining about not selling enough pictures. He loves the media and he acts up for the camera, seemingly overjoyed at the chance to talk one to one to the camera. This greatly weakens the film's value – if you love his work and see him as an important artist doing important things then it is likely you will enjoy this. However if you dislike him or are unsure of your stance, then this will do nothing for you – Tunick shows himself to be lacking ideas and comes across as arrogant and self-important, completely wasting the chance to just honestly and without pretension say what his work is about.

Overall this is an interesting film in terms of logistics and the chance to see unusual sight of lots of people getting naked in unusual places. However I came to it willing to be won over to Tunick's vision but only found a rather empty film that lost ant potential I thought it had. Novelty interest - yes; but artistic value or creative insight? No. (And, as an aside, what was with all the use of subtitles? The film uses subtitles for people speaking English! Understandable with one or two very thick accents but it also subtitles people in Australia and London! Did HBO an American audience would struggle with anyone not speaking with a raised inflection?!)

A good movie about something though I really am not sure what

[artisticengineer · 7/10 · 21 March 2010]

Art and nudity have been together in the Western world for thousands of years-dating back to the Ancient Greeks who viewed the body as one of the if not the most beautiful work of art. That, at least, is the western viewpoint. Other cultures vary; not so much as to whether the body is beautiful or not but rather as to when it is appropriate to display the body to all. Mr. Tunick, in this film, goes around the world to try to show the "body is beautiful" viewpoint belongs worldwide. And, to a significant degree, he succeeds. Actually, his film could be viewed not so much as a film about the human body or nakedness but rather about cultural differences overall. For example, his ease of obtaining volunteers in London versus the problems he had in Ireland shows the cultural differences still existing between those societies.

Particular mention and praise should be made to him going to a post apartheid South Africa and attempting to recruit (mostly) black models. Virtually all of the models in his previous photo shoots have been white; and this is certainly understandable in places such as Russia (only Black Russian I know of is a drink!). However, other peoples with much different skin tones exist and by going to South Africa he certainly attempted to diversify his selection. I commend him for that even though he seemed to be less than totally successful in that endeavor.

The only part of the show that I really object to is the Antarctica session. He wanted to do a worldwide show and, in that regards, I understand his decision to go to the Antarctic. But, I still object for a couple of reasons. The first one, most importantly, is that the Antarctic does not have any indigenous human population-the one part of the landed world that does not. The second objection is more of an artistic nature, and that is due to the environment a nude human being is in no way "natural" in Antarctica. What we see in this movie is the coastal region in SUMMER; the most benign area and time of the year for that entire continent and it is still way too cold for people to venture out without insulating clothes. The models are nude for just a few minutes at a time; yet it is obvious that they are at their limits even then and certainly could not survive for much longer in a nude condition. Nude humans and the Antarctic are therefore oxymorons; they do not go together and Antarctica does not belong in Spencer Tunick's portfolio.

Having mentioned that I will say that overall this film is a good example of artistic figure studies.

Not much nudity really

[jaroslaw99 · 3/10 · 25 March 2011]

I will say that I rented it for the nudity but tried watching the documentary. This guy Spencer Tunick is such a flake and so arrogant. He is asked what makes a bunch of naked people standing around so special and he can't really even defend his own actions. He has a partner who comes across brainy, but then talks and talks without saying much. I would say the most artistic thing in the whole 76 minute movie is some naked people on beautiful rocks by the ocean. As if that hasn't been done a million times by other photographers. Amazing that he could get so many people to get naked for free. Oh, what I mean by flakey? He says in one shoot something like "Only 400 people showed up? I expected 700 - how can I possibly complete the project?" (what is the difference and he didn't pay them!) Like I said, I rented it for the nudity; male in particular. It was either moderately close shots of large numbers of people walking close together (so you only got a millisecond look) or it was a long distance shot, or from an angled side view or people walking by and you see them from the back. Or they were curled up on the sidewalk/pavement. Let me be clear - I didn't expect porn or eroticism, or extreme closeups but if you're going to have all these naked people, show something or else what is the point?

Naked World - Ephemeral Art

[rcoss2001 · 10/10 · 17 October 2006]

Hello, Well I am not in "Naked World", or in "Naked States" but maybe in the next one...? There is an old, very hard to find documentary on Spencer called "Naked Pavement" 1998 by Joshua Tunick (no relation) which was done in his early career. "Naked States" was next, by Arlene Donnelly, the same who did "Naked World". Arlene is a friend of Spencer's and while there is no critical voice in the movies, the movies are more to document what those of us who pose for Spencer feel and to show Spencer at work. Spencer is a visually oriented person, not verbal and when working is highly pressured by the changing light, the fact that we are naked and cold, etc. So he comes across as more abrupt than he really is. Is he an artist with artistic temperament. Oh yes! But as more and more museums have his work, including the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Albright-Knox I would say it's art. Will it last? I don't know. Wouldn't you like to have a documentary of past artists at work?

Very Well Done!

[Scott-6 · 10/10 · 3 November 2003]

I've seen many documentaries and I'd rate this among the best I've seen. Perhaps it does not cover new ground as far as a documentary style, but the pace, photography, and music are excellent. Some people dismiss this piece because of the artist and his work. My vote is for the documentary and is not intended to be a vote regarding his art.

Powerful interviews of those photographed.

[demian7 · 1 March 2016]

Naked World is a documentary about a documentarian, Spencer Tunick, who sets up crowds of naked men and women, and photographs them (most often) lying on the cold, wet, rocky ground in well-know locations.

His images are almost anti-erotic, and sometimes clumsy looking. They appear mostly to be noteworthy moments during an event, which is focused on public nudity.

I love nudity, however, the real highlights of this movie were the interviews of those who were photographed.

In particular, I was moved by the HIV+ lady who consoled a sobbing gal who had found being photographed to be a healing experience. I also greatly appreciated the Africa poet, as well as others who addressed racism.

Demian, Sweet Corn Productions

Outrageous and insulting

[Gordon-11 · 23 August 2006]

This film is a film of thousands of naked bodies that is disguised as 'art'.

It is a very fine line between 'art' and 'porn'. I am not very convinced that this guy is making art. From the film, he admitted that he was doing this for personal satisfaction. I think that the only thing that he could be applauded for was being a persuasive person to create a mass hysteria to take off their clothes.

I also found it very insulting to the interviewees, that they actually put subtitles to non American speakers of English. I could excuse them putting subtitles on the Russian woman who was speaking English with an accent (but it was completely understandable English). However, I found it inexcusable to put subtitles on the AUSTRALIANS who were speaking perfect English.

Another outrageous thing was that he critised the French for "not relaxed about their bodies as they think they are". Just because some of the French people refused to pose naked for him, did not mean he could attack others like that.

I am angered by this film.