I was introduced to Marlon Brando through a great movie The Godfather. As far as my knowledge says the acting did by Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone was not just an acting a man do after reading a script, he lived that life and that’s why we could sympathise with a criminal.

If someone does such an important role in his life then how can he move on to a movie like The Last Tango in Paris which contains so much explicit scenes and so much adult scenes (I don’t want to use adult words because I just hate those things). You must have seen yourself that that movie contains so much of adult things that it takes our mind away from the main content, it never let us to sympathise with Brando. I’m not just talking only about that butter scene but all the other unclad scenes too.

How can a man who has done such a great movie like The Godfather , that ** You were my brother Charlie you could save me** dialogue of On the Waterfront can do a pornograhic movie like The Last Tango in Paris ? Why someone would want to play an addicts character who dies like an addict and not as a sober and lamenting addict? I know money can’t be behind this, there must be something else.

I doubt myself that it’s me who has not understood the real meaning the of that pornographic movie, because Marlon Brando will not do movie which doesn’t contain any special message about the life of a man whom no one sees but in fact really phenomenal. Therefore, I request you to please explain me the real message of The Last Tango in Paris in light of things I have outlined above.

  • 2
    Just because you may be prudish and consider Last Tango to be pornographic does not mean everyone does. I don't want to sound mean, but it seems like you are not the target audience, just as I am not the target audience for many/most movies, especially musicals. As to what you mean by "As far as my knowledge says the acting did by Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone was not just an acting a man do after reading a script, he lived that life and that’s why we could sympathise with a criminal," I'm unsure what you mean. The Godfather didn't accurately portray the mafia. It was almost entirely fiction. Oct 12 '19 at 10:56
  • 1
    Welcome to the Community! I agree with Meat Trademark ( though I would have tried to be more tactful and diplomatic ) that this was not the type of movie you should have seen if you didn’t enjoy those types of films. If seeing Brando act was the main draw, you still had the option to stop watching when risqué material began to appear. You did watch until the end though and that’s your decision.
    – m1gp0z
    Oct 12 '19 at 13:12
  • @m1gp0 Yes you’re right why I watched it till end? The reason was that I hoped in last there would be some explanation regarding those explicit scenes (I mean why Brando became an addict even if he loved Rosa, his wife, so much). Oct 12 '19 at 13:39
  • 2
    Welcome to the site. You might find the question is better received if you take out some of your personal distaste for the movie. There's a decent question here about why Brando chose to take such a controversial role - but your personal opinions about how it diminishes him as an actor because of your personal dislike of the movie doesn't really add much positive to the question.
    – iandotkelly
    Oct 12 '19 at 14:56
  • Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting this because the movie is a personal favorite of mine. I don't like the movie but don't consider it pornographic either. I'm just pointing out that a decent question is buried in a wrapper of personal taste which obscures it.
    – iandotkelly
    Oct 12 '19 at 14:58

The movie was initially X-rated and banned in some countries. Perhaps some make the distinction between porn and 'porn with a point', tho the point may be too small for others to readily see.

Here are two interesting review excerpts [I enjoyed reading them in full] that express the movie's trip to the dark side of human nature.


For the movie is about need; about the terrible hunger that its hero, Paul, feels for the touch of another human heart. He is a man whose whole existence has been reduced to a cry for help -- and who has been so damaged by life that he can only express that cry in acts of crude sexuality.

...The girl, Jeanne, is not a friend and is hardly even a companion; it's just that because she happens to wander into his life, he uses her as an object of his grief.


He holds back nothing, and it’s enthralling, but sometimes hard to watch. So is the movie. Like his protagonist, Bertolucci wants to get down to the core of things, and that descent into the primitive sometimes feels as artificial as high-tea table manners. Schneider and Brando’s characters attempt to abandon their humanity, but their sex scenes feel raw and unreal, emptying out into a revelation of emptiness that itself feels a little empty. Like Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs the year before, it offers a nihilistic vision of what it means to be human, using sex instead of violence to show the beastly impulses beneath our most refined feelings, and the way the beast within always wins.

On another note, there appears to have been fallout from the film:


Schneider declared in an interview that "Marlon said he felt raped and manipulated by it and he was 48. And he was Marlon Brando!".[21] Like Schneider, Brando confirmed that the sex was simulated.[16] Bertolucci said about Brando that he was "a monster as an actor and a darling as a human being". Brando refused to speak to Bertolucci for 15 years after the production was completed. Bertolucci said:

  • Thank you so much. Now I understand that the movie was not for sex amusement but expressed a thought of which sex was a medium. It’s just like Freud’s treatises on sex. Thank You. Oct 12 '19 at 17:44

According to TV Tropes:

When Marlon Brando was asked what the movie was about during his 1979 Playboy Magazine interview, he responded, "Bernardo Bertolucci's analysis."

Bernardo Bertolucci was the film's director. I take this to mean that even Brando himself didn't know what his acting was supposed to convey.

For the record: Brando hated working on the film, came to deeply regret it in later life, and even told Bertolucci: "I was completely and utterly violated by you. I will never make another film like that." We'll probably never know for certain why he agreed to star in the film in the first place, but considering it earned him about $3 million (nearly double what he earned from The Godfather), it is possible he did it solely for the money.

  • Let me tighten this up: "Why he agreed . . . $3 million." Oct 12 '19 at 11:00
  • @F1Krazy I may agree that he did for money. Can you please cite some more facts, I really liked your answer. Oct 12 '19 at 13:32
  • @MeatTrademark It seems to me that you have got something personal with me. My question may upset you but my question can’t be called illogical or nonsensical. Oct 12 '19 at 13:34
  • @Knight .... there's nothing to indicate anyone has 'something personal' here. Debate and disagreement are expected in a Q&A site like this.
    – iandotkelly
    Oct 12 '19 at 14:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .