tavm Just watched a rare showing of this obscure Allen Funt hidden camera movie on fancast.com. It lives up to the title when-in the beginning-a woman casually walks stark naked to an elevator asking for directions from various men walking by. From there, it goes on to frank discussions of sex to people of various ages and genders. There's also some interviews with underage kids who seem to think they know all but don't really. In fact, one of my favorite exchanges was when after Funt asked what a premature baby was, this boy said, "It's one who knows a lot for his age." LOL! I also loved seeing that scene with that red-haired woman when she faked an orgasm after getting spray-painted! And some of the reactions of the preview audience was priceless. So on that note, I highly recommend What Do You Say to a Naked Lady? P.S. Richard "Shaft" Rountree makes his debut here as part of an interracial couple seen kissing in order to get various reactions of people watching them.

bensonj How often does one remember only a few brief scenes from a film and find on re-viewing years later that it was only those few moments that are worth remembering? NAKED LADY, one might think, being a film of individual moments, could well be such a film. Happily, this is not the case. (Only the little kids on the lawn and the extended reprise of faces and "smile" moments at the end seemed at all tacky.) The passing years have only added to the film's value, for it turns out to be a revealing portrait of changing attitudes to sex in the late sixties, when people of all ages with open minds were receptive to new ways of thinking about sex. The film has an innocence and a hopefulness, a simple charm that we've all lost today for many reasons. It's Funt's film all the way, of course, and it's his masterpiece! His personality dominates the film; his voice constantly heard, challenging his subjects to say what they think and to think about what they say. The naked ladies in unusual places are there to sell the film, to provide entertainment value, but people are what endlessly fascinates Funt. He really likes people, and he loves to talk to them. The core scenes are all talking heads; the co-eds talking about guys on the dorm, the young people and their parents talking about sex, the woman who "prostitutes" for free because she likes it, his interview with a prospective model, even the "man in the street" comments about "how birds do it." It's no accident that the film is interracial, because Funt's belief is that you can't judge a person by their looks. Sometimes people are true to type, but just as often they're not. An IMDb viewer says that, based on his recollection, the current version differs from the original release. I wouldn't have remembered the changes he mentions, but my own recollection suggests an excision of a character in the greatest sequence in the film in which Funt, as a bus ticket clerk, feels people out on their feelings about an interracial couple. I recall clearly that there was a young, long-haired hippie type who was very outspoken against the couple, who was contrasted with the older man who says, "what's the difference, it's a big world," and prefers love to war profiteering. I did misremember that great line of the passing English bicycler at the beginning which I recalled as, "What you got there, Charlie?" when it's actually, "Charlie, how'd you get caught with that one?" But I can't see how I made up the young long-haired hippie; I'm certain he was there in the original release. The comments of the older man whose son married a Mexican girl, his difficulty in accepting the marriage so touchingly mixed with his pride in his grandchildren, again brought a lump to my throat. Moments like this must have been what Funt lived for. In his earlier days, going way back to "Candid Microphone" before TV, the emphasis was always on human interaction. (I remember, for example, a theatrical short where Funt, as a travel agent, insisted, with total courtesy and friendliness, on selling a customer a fancy vacation when they wanted something plain and simple.) The TV show had moved away from that to sight gags like cars splitting in half. This film was Funt's attempt to return to his roots. It's a very serious film by a very serious filmmaker, Funt challenging his audience to examine their own feelings and beliefs, and gently urging tolerance for the infinite variety of mankind. It's a far better, more enduring film, in fact, than some of the documentary "classics" (GREY GARDENS, for example) that were made in the same era.

SpiritualOne53 I grew up with Allen Funt shows and this movie only proves how much laughter Allen Funt has brought to people and it has never been to make anyone feel anything but glad to be included in his wonderful work.I think the cast was perfect and a remake would be great for younger people at this time. It was done with excellent taste as always by him. He has always shown great respect for all people. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys to laugh.

SanDiego Gem of a film that captures the humor of the original Candid Camera while setting the groundwork for Alan Funt's adult version for the Playboy Channel called Candid Candid Camera. There have been many mimics of Candid Camera (including the hybrid home video shows) but only Funt's projects had warmth and humanity, never laughing AT people being themselves. The audience laughs because it knows it would do the same thing or worse in the same situation. As Alan Funt used to say, 'We (as an audience) laugh at ourselves.' There was a certain gentleness and wholesomeness in Candid Camera and in this movie. Though "What Do You Say to a Naked Lady" deals with what ordinary people do when confronted by naked ladies and sometimes naked gentlemen, the same gentleness, same wholesomeness applies. The film was very bold for it's time not being tame with regards to how much nudity it showed (for it showed full frontal male and female nudity)...however...the film is not about sex, is not crude, is not offensive. It explores society's reaction to nudity in 1970 and the hypocrisies that society has set up for itself. People are nude, natural, beautiful. In one segment a classroom of students is surprised to find that a lecture on sexuality is given by a beautiful woman in the nude! Given the reactions of an older class (shocked and giggling, some leaving) versus a younger class (shock and giggling quickly overcome to reveal a poised and attentive class) says more in itself than any words the lecturer might say. Unlike sexploitation films of the era this film had something to say. I think this film should be made mandatory in high school sex education classes. Despite the fact that the film is thirty years old not much has really progressed regarding this subject and the film is quite appropriate today.