My take on the sex scene - Harold and Maude (1971) Discussion

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

A lot of people are viewing the sex scene as gross and disgusting

The movie has no sex scene. What they seem to view as "gross and disgusting" is picturing someone of Maude's age having sex....

my take on it is that Maude took the time to teach Harold how to live in the real world and usually that includes sex at some point in time.

I don't see the implied sex as a "teaching moment". I see it as an expression of love that Harold and Maude feel for one another.

reply

[–] klules664 13 years ago

I see what you're saying but it still enabled Harold to go on with a full life experience. I do believe they loved each other. I don't think she set out to "teach" him but nevertheless it happened.

"Oh Blanche? You know we got rats in the cellar"

reply

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

I see what you're saying but it still enabled Harold to go on with a full life experience.

I think he got that pretty much even without sex with Maude. There is nothing in the film that indicated that this 20yr old was a virgin...

I don't think she set out to "teach" him but nevertheless it happened.

The sex happened and Maude taught him a lot. But the film did not indicate taht she taught him about sex. She taught him about life...

reply

[–] ClassicFilmEra 13 years ago

She taught him about life...

That is what klules664 meant. Not that she taught him about sex.

"It's funny...God makes us mad if we work and go mad if we don't." -Bud Cort

reply

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

That is what klules664 meant. Not that she taught him about sex.

You may be right, but that is not the impression I got. From the statement: "Maude took the time to teach Harold how to live in the real world and usually that includes sex at some point in time", my impression is that klules664 is suggesting that Maude taught Harold about life AND also about sex.

I agree that Maude taught Harold about life, but I believe the sex came about not as a teaching moment, but arose from a shared love of each other and a desire to express that love in a physical manner.

reply

[–] ClassicFilmEra 13 years ago

I see where you developed your impression. I made a different one based upon klules664's second post.

I agree with you that the sex was not a "teaching" moment, but a moment of shared affection. Therefore, there is no need for you to be didactic towards me. Klules664 is the one you want to convince-not me.

"It's funny...God makes us mad if we work and go mad if we don't." -Bud Cort

reply

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

Therefore, there is no need for you to be didactic towards me

I am didactic to everyone. It is in my nature to educate and teach. In addition to trying to expand my knowledge, educating others is one of the reasons I come to these types of discussion boards.

Klules664 is the one you want to convince-not me.

I don't want or need to convince anyone of anything. I was disagreeing with Klules664 statement and giving my reasons why in order to discuss what seemed to be a difference in opinion.

reply

[–] ClassicFilmEra 13 years ago

I am didactic to everyone. It is in my nature to educate and teach. In addition to trying to expand my knowledge, educating others is one of the reasons I come to these types of discussion boards.

Giving me your opinion of the implied sex scene when the topic at hand was Klules664's interpretation, and not yours, was not an education, but just that-an opinion. What you did was bombard me with your opinion before I could disagree with you (except in this case, I agreed with you, but you assumed that I wouldn't)-and quite frankly, I do not appreciate it.

I don't want or need to convince anyone of anything. I was disagreeing with Klules664 statement and giving my reasons why in order to discuss what seemed to be a difference in opinion.

You may not realize this, but in trying to "educate" others and discuss differences in opinions, you come across as one who is condescending and attempting to assuage (and I am not the only one who is of this opinion).

"It's funny...God makes us mad if we work and go mad if we don't." -Bud Cort

reply

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

Giving me your opinion of the implied sex scene when the topic at hand was Klules664's interpretation, and not yours, was not an education, but just that-an opinion.

Then why did you say that I was "didactic"?

What you did was bombard me with your opinion before I could disagree with you (except in this case, I agreed with you, but you assumed that I wouldn't)-and quite frankly, I do not appreciate it.

Again I am . I don't know what I did to upset you, that was not my intent. I provided my opinion on the scene to clarify my opinion. I provide it upfront to try and avoid misunderstandings on where I stand. I don't understand why you would not appreciate people being upfront on their opinions. It is standard practice where I work and also in my dealings with friends and I prefer people to be upfront on where they stand to avoid misunderstandings and arguments where people argue about things they agree upon.

And for the record, I do not appreciate the implied personal attacks you seem to be lobbing when you butted in to a conversation between the OP and myself. Unless you can speak for the OP I don't see how you can clarify what the OP meant to say or imply.

You may not realize this, but in trying to "educate" others and discuss differences in opinions, you come across as one who is condescending and attempting to assuage (and I am not the only one who is of this opinion).

I don't see how I could be both condescending and attempting to assuage. To me they seem almost mutually exclusive. One can be didactic and atempt to assuage and I would expect that behaviour: indicating an understanding on an opposing viewpoint but sharing an alternate interpretation and potentially educating someone on an opposing viewpoint that also fits the facts.

Condescension seems to me to be antithetical to being didactic, as when one is condescending they tend to feel that their beliefs are facts and that there is no opposing viewpoint. It is an attempt to force a view on someone else. Assuaging and being didactic is to broaden their horizons and see and possibly appreciate alternate viewpoints differnt than their own.

Perhaps in my attempt to be succinct I did not temper my opinion and express it in hopes of understanding where the OP believed that the film suggested that Maude was teaching Harold about life AND also about sex or where there was a suggestion that Harold knew nothing about sex before.

As I said, I don't see any suggestion that the scene was anything about an expression of love being Harold and Maude, but I will wait for the OP to clarify what else that he/she believes the film suggests about that scene.

reply

[–] ClassicFilmEra 13 years ago

Then why did you say that I was "didactic"?

Because I feel that you express your opinions as facts.

Again I am . I don't know what I did to upset you, that was not my intent. I provided my opinion on the scene to clarify my opinion. I provide it upfront to try and avoid misunderstandings on where I stand. I don't understand why you would not appreciate people being upfront on their opinions. It is standard practice where I work and also in my dealings with friends and I prefer people to be upfront on where they stand to avoid misunderstandings and arguments where people argue about things they agree upon.

I am not against people being up front in the least. In fact, I get into arguments with people regarding their circumventing straightforward questions and statements. I was upset because we weren't discussing your opinion. We were discussing klules664's opinion, and yet you expressed yours in (to me) a factual tone (but now I see that you did not do so with mal-intent).

And for the record, I do not appreciate the implied personal attacks you seem to be lobbing when you butted in to a conversation between the OP and myself. Unless you can speak for the OP I don't see how you can clarify what the OP meant to say or imply.

I have the right to express my opinion in any thread and/or conversation that I want. I think that the Internet poses fewer boundaries as compared to speaking in person. I am not trying to attack you. I felt attacked before and was trying to defend myself. I don't have to clarify what the OP meant to say. It is my opinion that the OP thinks that the sex inadvertently taught Harold about life-not about how to be intimate (of course, you and I agree on the viewpoint that it wasn't a moment of teaching). Until he/she speaks for him/herself, I am going to retain my stance.

Condescension seems to me to be antithetical to being didactic, as when one is condescending they tend to feel that their beliefs are facts and that there is no opposing viewpoint. It is an attempt to force a view on someone else. Assuaging and being didactic is to broaden their horizons and see and possibly appreciate alternate viewpoints differnt than their own.

You often express your opinions as facts. Thus, you seem condescending. And because you act as though there are no alternate viewpoints, people feel that you are trying to steer them into believing something else.

Perhaps in my attempt to be succinct I did not temper my opinion and express it in hopes of understanding where the OP believed that the film suggested that Maude was teaching Harold about life AND also about sex or where there was a suggestion that Harold knew nothing about sex before.

Thank you, yes, this is what I have been referring to.

"It's funny...God makes us mad if we work and go mad if we don't." -Bud Cort

reply

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

Because I feel that you express your opinions as facts.

But that is not what didactic means. To be didactic is about intending to teach or instruct.

But on facts vs opinions, it seems to me that using the words "I don't see" and "I see it as" and "I think" are explicitly stating that these are opinions, and thus not facts.

I do state some facts: "The movie has no sex scene" and that "There is nothing in the film that indicated that this 20yr old was a virgin"? Are you disagreeing with those facts?

I am not against people being up front in the least.

Yet when I did you seemed to indicate to me that you don't appreciate it.

We were discussing klules664's opinion, and yet you expressed yours in (to me) a factual tone (but now I see that you did not do so with mal-intent).

I thought you started discussing your interpretation of the OP's opinion and how your interpretation of what I believed was the OP's opinion differed from yours. My response was to clarify what I thought was the OP's opinion and also to clarify what my opinion was to not stray from the topic of the thread.

We need the OP to clarify what he/she meant. There is no need to debate what our opinions on what the OP meant, but we can discuss the topic at hand (the meaning of Harold and Maude having sex: a purposeful teaching moment, unintentional teaching moment, or an expression of love between adults.

I have the right to express my opinion in any thread and/or conversation that I want.

Yes you do, but lobbing attacks at people expressing their opinion is not good manners no what the forum.

I am not trying to attack you. I felt attacked before and was trying to defend myself.

As I see it, I responded twice to the OP. When you replied to me, I clarified my thoughts and opinions and you lobbed attacks at me. Where did I attack that made you feel the need to defend?

It is my opinion that the OP thinks that the sex inadvertently taught Harold about life-not about how to be intimate

And I agree that the OP may have meant this, but that is not my impression from the first 2 posts, though I admit I am not sure exactly what the OP meant. The first post suggests to me that teaching Harold about sex was port of her education to Harold about Life. The 2nd post suggests that the OP believes Harold learned about sex from Maude since he was a virgin.

I disagree with both interpretations

Your take on the OP's opinion, that the sex taught Harold about Life, I don't really see from the OP or from the film.

You often express your opinions as facts.

I don't agree. Do you have any examples? I showed in my replies to the OP an explicit indication of opinion. I spoke facts to you since I spoke about myself, since you seem to want to steer the conversation away from the film and give your opinions about me, which I disagree with.

Thank you, yes, this is what I have been referring to.

And if from posts on this page, where it seems to me I was clear about opinion and facts you can't understand me, then I will stick to my own interpretations of what the OP said and not use yours....

reply

[–] ClassicFilmEra 13 years ago

I never said didactic meant stating opinions as facts. I said that you state your opinions as facts, and then DIDACTICALLY tell people about them.

and also to clarify what my opinion was to not stray from the topic of the thread.

You should've said that from the beginning! I thought you were waging an opinion war on me by thinking I was disagreeing with your own personal interpretation of the scene!

I see nothing wrong with my message board etiquette. I have not cursed at you or made any derogatory remarks. Message boards are PUBLIC for a reason (but in YOUR OPINION it is called "butting in"-which you stated as a fact). As I said in an earlier post: I think to chime into a conversation face-to-face is very different from adding to a computerized, impersonal back-and-forth exchange on a public message board.

Yes you do, but lobbing attacks at people expressing their opinion is not good manners no what the forum.

Ah, yes. Another opinion stated as fact. I don't see it as "lobbing attacks." I explained above why I felt upset and became defensive.

The 2nd post suggests that the OP believes Harold learned about sex from Maude since he was a virgin.

Right there, you're stating your opinion as fact. The impression I got from his/her second post (and 1st post as well) was that he/she thought the sex taught Harold about life, not about how to be intimate. But until the OP clarifies (you even said so yourself that this speculating is fruitless), we won't know for sure.

"It's funny...God makes us mad if we work and go mad if we don't." -Bud Cort

reply

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

I never said didactic meant stating opinions as facts.

Not explicitly. But when I explicitly asked: "Then why did you say that I was 'didactic'? " you replied: "Because I feel that you express your opinions as facts. "

Which suggests to me that you believe that stating opinions as facts is 'didactic'.

I said that you state your opinions as facts, and then DIDACTICALLY tell people about them.

I see nothing like the this definition in any of your posts.

You should've said that from the beginning!

I thought I had replied directly to your response...

I thought you were waging an opinion war on me by thinking I was disagreeing with your own personal interpretation of the scene!

I don't see how you can say this, since you say I was expressing facts and not opinions. If you knew they were my opinions and knew I believed them to be opinions what are you lobbing attacks at me for?

I see nothing wrong with my message board etiquette.

And as stated, I do, so I guess this means that I will just avoid discussing with you. You seem to believe that being didactic is bad and that educating and being educated is bad. In my experience (just to be explicit 'in my experience' is another way of stating it is an opinion, since you don't seem to get my implicit indications) people who get offended when someone tries to educate tend to be close-minded. I come to these types of boards to discuss and broaden by mind by having people educate me on their opinions and experiences, but you seem not to "appreciate it".

As I said, I don't appreciate having to dodge personal attacks, as I consider it (again my opinion) rude, though it seems you believe there is nothing wrong with that type of behavior.

In addition your misuse of words suggests to me (OPINION) an immature person trying to sound more intelligent than they are or trying to portray an immature person.

So goodbye and have a good life. If you reply to me I will not answer.

reply

[–] ClassicFilmEra 13 years ago

Lol, you think I'm sad that you won't be replying? I am elated! Usually I am the one to tell you to quell the debates!

I don't see how you can say this, since you say I was expressing facts and not opinions. If you knew they were my opinions and knew I believed them to be opinions what are you lobbing attacks at me for?

No darling, I said that you stated your opinions AS facts, not that you had stated facts. What you call "lobbing attacks" is me telling you that I don't appreciate being told that there are no alternate perspectives/my opinion is wrong since yours is "fact." Additionally, the only fact you EVER said was to the OP, and not to me, which was "There is no sex scene, but an implied sex scene."

You seem to believe that being didactic is bad and that educating and being educated is bad. In my experience (just to be explicit 'in my experience' is another way of stating it is an opinion, since you don't seem to get my implicit indications) people who get offended when someone tries to educate tend to be close-minded. I come to these types of boards to discuss and broaden by mind by having people educate me on their opinions and experiences, but you seem not to "appreciate it".

You're being the "close-minded" individual. You think that you have to "educate" people even when they agree with you or when your perspective is NOT the topic being discussed. And "broadening" your mind is not arguing with other people's viewpoints, as you are clearly doing with tylerdanielblack and those who think Sunshine died and Harold's spirit lived. :)

You only seriously began utilizing the implications when I made you cognizant of them. I suggest that you return to some of the other threads you've commented on and apply these "implications" to your posts: "If you think Sunshine Dore' died, then you're saying Geer is a bad actress and Ashby a bad director" (that's right, only you can determine good acting from bad). "For Harold to be a spirit, there would have to have been a halo or wings" (hmmm, I think you should brush up on the Twilight Zone episodes where ghosts are portrayed as people).

As I said, I don't appreciate having to dodge personal attacks, as I consider it (again my opinion) rude, though it seems you believe there is nothing wrong with that type of behavior.

I agree, I find that behavior to be very rude. Dodging your personal attacks is not easy (i.e. "In addition your misuse of words suggests to me (OPINION) an immature person trying to sound more intelligent than they are or trying to portray an immature person"). The first is laughable, since you still dont always recognize when your opinions are being portrayed as facts (see examples throughout post). Furthermore, your name-calling and refusal to take accountability is what's immature.

I thought I had replied directly to your response

After 5,000,000 posts, you finally did. :) You should've stated in your very first reply to me why your perspective was relevant when we were discussing the OP's opinion and not yours. By not doing so, you made it seem as though you wanted to change my opinion (which I hadn't even made known at that point).

I see nothing like the this definition in any of your posts.

That is because I've never combined those two entities in one sentence before. I said REPEATEDLY you state your opinions as facts, and then overwhelm people with them (what you call "educate") so as to show them why you're right and they're wrong.

This has most likely never entered your mind before, but doesn't it seem 'odd' to you that your "educations" don't always end peacefully? (ex. See below conversation with tylerdanielblack.) That is because you tell people they are wrong (I.e. Sunshine tested the knife. There is no way she could've misused it and died. Or, "The second post suggests the OP thinks she taught Harold about sex") instead of OPENING UP YOUR MIND and accepting the fact that some people think differently than you.

Not explicitly. But when I explicitly asked: "Then why did you say that I was 'didactic'? " you replied: "Because I feel that you express your opinions as facts. "

Which suggests to me that you believe that stating opinions as facts is 'didactic'.

Exactly. Stating them as facts means that you are telling people there are no alternate viewpoints. You don't consider informing people that there are no alternate viewpoints to be educational? :)

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] corpus_callosum 10 years ago

It is in my nature to educate and teach. In addition to trying to expand my knowledge, educating others is one of the reasons I come to these types of discussion boards.

does this include having sex with them?

reply

[–] dbrockskk1 9 years ago

I know it's hard to believe but you can actually go to college for 4 years or so, major in education, and actually become a teacher! Cool huh??

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zacies_hot 11 years ago

Okay, now, this is pretty stupid and random of me to ask. But since you brought this up, this has got me wondering. I understand that someone on this board probably wouldn't know either. They don't mention it anywhere in the movie, but... Do you think that Harold might have been a virgin before Maude? After all, he was in a boarding school which are usually all boys. And he seemed to be too interested in death to care about anything else. I'm not asking this to make fun of the character in anyway. Just a random thought...

reply

[–] Gus-69 10 years ago

There is nothing in the film that indicated that this 20yr old was a virgin...

Really?

Can you actually picture Harold having sex before meeting Maude? I seriously doubt you watched the whole film.

For someone who considers himself an "educator", you could use some education yourself.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

I think what people have a hard time accepting is that someone of Maude's age would have sex with someone as young as Harold.

I disagree completely. I can think of many older people who would love to have sex with a person in their 20s and I don't see why anyone would question a desire by someone of Maude's age to want a younger man for sex.

One could question the physical attraction that Harold may feel for Maude, but I think that is the point of the film: Harold loves Maude and thus wants to express his love in a physical sense.

Which doesn't make it any less creepy.

Then it seems to me that you missed one of the points of the film.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

People are not questioning whether or not Maude wanted to have sex with Harold, they are questioning whether or not she should. Harold is an emotionally vulnerable individual, he needed a friend and found that in Maude but he didn't need a lover and if he did, he certainly didn't need one who would sleep with him, make him fall in love with her and then kill herself when he is about to propose.

But that is not the issues being raised. The issues being raised are about the age difference...

I didn't miss the point of the film at all, I just it could have been made equally effectively without that sex scene.

Then don't watch the special edition with a sex scene. All the versions I have seen do not have ANY sex scene in it... This version is very effective at implying the love they feel without showing any sex between the two of them.

If you think the sex scene was integral to the point of the film then I would wager that it is you and not I who is confused about the message this film is trying to portray.

As I said, I love this film and I have never even seen a sex scene from the film so I don't think it is integral at all. None of the versions I have seen (film, VHS, DVD, TV on TCM) have had the sex scene in it.

I personally am glad I have not seen the sex scene. Even though I love Ruth Gordon as an actress I don't think I could see her through Harold's eyes and generate the spirit of the sex scene. I prefer my sex scenes with younger bodies.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sdckapr 13 years ago

Yes, that is precisely what I said.

No you were debating things unrelated to the age difference. You noted:
"Harold is an emotionally vulnerable individual, he needed a friend and found that in Maude but he didn't need a lover and if he did, he certainly didn't need one who would sleep with him, make him fall in love with her and then kill herself when he is about to propose." which is immaterial to the age difference.

You also seemed confused about Harold's age, calling him a "young boy" when he is an adult: a young man of consenting age.

You know very well that by 'sex scene' I am referring to the scene immediately after Harold and Maude have sex.

I know that NOW, but it is NOT a sex scene. They don't have any physical contact during the scene. I infer that they had sex (and I think the film means to imply that they had sex) but it is not definite. But even with that implication it does not make a sex scene any more than someone can complain about the TV series "I Love Lucy" had a sex scene in it since they show Lucy pregnant. We can infer that they had sex, but there is "no sex scene"

Pedantic and pointless. If that's your prerogative, consider your post a success.

I find it neither pointless or pedantic. I don't think the film needs a sex scene and I think it works well as it with no sex scene. I think the implication that they had sex is good and works to help inform us of their relationship and for me deepens the impact of his loss. It is not the loss of just a friend or a (grand)mother figure or even a mentor. It is the loss of a lover which is a different kind (and to me a deeper love) than the other types of love.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kotl77 13 years ago

Whoa. I'm glad this conversation actually ended, I had feared that it would go on forever.
Lol
I used this combo as a form things that could have and should have ended before they started.

Bleach the animu/mango is on that list too.

reply

[–] droptoonswatchacid 13 years ago

Good (Holy) God. This is actually too much of a thread for me.

I was trying my hardest to make a Jacques Tati movie.

reply

[–] steve-2140 12 years ago

Spot on with your ideas! Totally agree. I have an uncanny mind that remembers many many things. I did not have to see this the second time as many times in my life I have reviewed this movie in my minds eye. I saw it first on the big screen and tonight on my HTPC connected to my 37 inch LED in my bedroom with 5.1 audio. Just like at the movies only smaller screen and better popcorn. Really enjoyed it the second time. Very powerful movie IMHO and no I was not grossed out by Harold blowing bubbles in bed clearly naked under the bedclothes as is Ruth Gordon's Character Maude. Its a celebration of passing over life from someone who is ready to become the free spirit she longed to be whilst passing on her love of life to Harold who had so little before their week together. What a great ending!

So loved Cat Stevens music which I have but not played in years.

Don't listen to the trolls klules664 not everyone sees what we do!
Best regards
IceHappy

reply

[–] zacies_hot 11 years ago

I'm only 22 but I say: DAMN! That lucky lady! Maude is my hero. When I'm 80, I'd like to bang a young man like that.

reply

[–] dellascott2004 9 years ago

It depends on what you call a "sex scene." Even though I have serious problems with this film, I thought that that particular aspect was handled in a very tasteful and dignified way.

"I didn't betray you--I simply put a stop to you."

reply

[–] robken0174 9 years ago

Ha, but if the genders were reversed, you people would be saying how disgusting the old man was. Especially the little feminazis. Typical double standards.

These pc-obsessed times are getting old.

reply

[–] bsharporflat 9 years ago

Ha, but if the genders were reversed, you people would be saying how disgusting the old man was. Especially the little feminazis. Typical double standards. These pc-obsessed times are getting old

Damn right! They should make a movie starring Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump gang banging a feminist. And then make her give them some ham sandwiches and get them some beers. That would teach her a thing or two about so-called "Women's Rights".

On second thought, make it Hilary Clinton who gets taught a lesson. If there is anybody who doesn't understand what a woman's role in American society ought to be it is her.

I mean look at the history of this great country. Who was always president? White men, that's who. First we get a black president. Then a woman president. What next? A gay president? Trans-gender Jenner for president maybe?

This whole nation is falling apart and it all started with the movie Harold And Maude. Why didn't they make it an old guy banging a young chick, the way it's supposed to be? Huh? Right, robken?

reply

[–] Zebb67 9 years ago

I've seen this movie a gazillion times, and the closest thing to a "sex scene" is Harold and Maude lying in bed together with Maude asleep and Harold blowing bubbles while another Cat Stevens song plays on the soundtrack. They are both covered up to the shoulders with a blanket. It's implied they did the deed, but we don't see it take place.

reply