User reviews

"Diary of a Nudist" is an exploitation film that was made at a nudist colony. Several similar movies were made and proclaimed that they were educational in nature, but they really were just excuses to show some lovely naked bodies to audiences. And, it's pretty hot stuff for 1961, though like other nudie films of the era there are no crotch shots.

Arthur assigns one of his reporters, Stacy, to go to a local nudist colony and write a spicy exposee in order to drum up readership and get the place closed. But, unexpectedly, Stacy finds she likes the folks there and the nudist lifestyle and joins the place. So, Arthur arrives in order to write his hit piece himself. Will he, too, succumb to the naturalist lifestyle?

There really is little in the way of plot....just lots of naked folks. But compared to many other nudie flicks of the era, this one has a bit better production values and lovely bodies (many were, conversely, not so lovely in other films). A strange but watchable curio.

This is a very deep movie. It addresses so many social issues in a very subtle way. This should be required viewing for any film class. The director didn't waste valuable screen time with dialog. Instead she got lots of shots of tits. Okay, so a newspaper editor discovers a nudist colony and decides to expose the group to the public and have it shut down. To do this, he assigns his best reporter and tells her to act like a nudist. In other words, let's see those tits. Here's where the story really takes off. The reporter is given a tour of the place by an ugly, old lady who doesn't get naked. We're all grateful for that. While on the tour she's exposed to people playing shuffleboard. The people playing shuffleboard are having a wonderful time, watching a puck slide. They're all happy, smiling and even excited. Playing shuffleboard. They're grinning from ear to ear. Playing shuffleboard. They're naked. Playing shuffleboard. They don't speak. They just grin and laugh and play shuffleboard. The reporter finds herself enjoying the place. All the guests are fairly young and in decent shape. No fatties or old farts. You can see boobs all over the place. The reporter starts to think there's nothing wrong with letting her tits hang out. She thinks playing shuffleboard naked and getting all excited is okay. Then we see the swimming pool. A woman gets out of the water and dries herself. She's smiling. She dries the same spot on her leg for like a minute. She's happy and excited just like the people playing shuffleboard. She doesn't speak either. She just grins and dries herself. I guess she's happy that everybody can see her tits and she's getting paid to show them. Then the story takes us to another place. The editor shows up. He doesn't get naked. He wears this ridiculous bikini bottom that covers his belly button. It looks stupid. He walks around and sees the idiots playing shuffleboard and grinning and women getting out of the pool and drying off and grinning. And of course he sees a bunch of boobs. The editor changes his mind about the place and even falls in love with the reporter. Her dedication to the job, her writing skills, her tits. He decides the place is okay. I mean you've got a bunch of boobs to look at and nobody says anything. Director to actress - "Okay, in this scene I want you to look at the people playing shuffleboard and think to yourself how great it is" Director to cameraman - "Make sure you get her tits in the shot" Most people would think this movie was nothing more than an excuse to show boobs and butts but maybe it isn't. Sure, there's a scene where we see the reporter just looking the place over and showing her boobs. She doesn't speak. She just stands there with her boobs out. Sure there are more scenes where nobody speaks and we see more boobs. But deep down the movie is sending a message. Take your clothes off and play shuffleboard. You'll turn into an idiot. I would give this 10 out of 10 stars but I didn't like how they never told us the score in the shuffleboard matches. So, I give it 1 star out of 10.

Diary of a Nudist (1961)

** (out of 4)

Doris Wishman directed this story of a newspaper editor who gets lost in the woods and stumbles onto a nudist camp. Back at his office he talks a female reporter into going to the camp and getting a day-by-day account of the activities. DIARY OF A NUDIST is yet another boring film from the director but I'm actually going to give her more credit than normal because she actually makes this film look like a professional one, which if you've ventured into this genre much you'll know that this isn't often the case with this type of movie. I'll also give Wishman credit for having a good eye for "talent" as the majority of the nudist range from extremely hot to incredibly cute looking. This here is always a major plus but sometimes these films don't deliver that. Obviously the main goal of this film was to show off as much nudity as possible so fans just wanting to see that are going to be in for a real treat. While this here might have been shocking or interesting in 1961, when viewed today you can't help but look at it as being tame. You also can't help but feel incredibly bored because even naked cute girls get boring after a while. There's really no story to speak of and the entire expose of the colony was just used by the producer to make you feel as if you were seeing more than just the nudity. Fans of the genre will probably want to check this out but I'd say most people are going to have a hard time making through the entire thing.

Ever watch a dull, plotless movie just to see naked women?

Director Doris Wishman is known for pushing genre conventions to the limit, and here she combines wall-to-wall T&A with a phenomenally predictable storyline and a stunningly silly ending. (A few naked men, too, but they're not the focus.) The unrelenting wholesomeness may be shocking if you're familiar with Wishman's later, far seedier work.

Diary Of A Nudist was the kind of movie that was extremely controversial and daring 45 years ago. This was the kind of movie that teenagers with fake I.D.'s would go out to see at the drive-ins. For years, mainstream cinema never offered up any skin and seeing the kinds of nudie-cutie quickies from Russ Meyer, Herschell Gordon Lewis, and Doris Wishman certainly were a shock to the system. Today, films like this are considered to be curiosity pieces. There is tons of nudity but very little else. No titillation, no sexual situations, and nothing explicit. Just a group of healthy, beautiful people doing everyday things in the buff.

Still, the movie is a lot of fun to watch; even though there seems to be so much tedium and is slow moving. The scenery is beautiful and you feel you are seeing what Heaven would look like in 1961. There are some fine looking women who always seem to be carrying around hats, towels, and magazines over the more "controversial" private parts. Also, Davee Decker is quite lovely; even though her voice is dubbed.

If you long to see what an "adult movie" was like in the early days and can accept the fact that it is only nudity and nothing more then you will have some fun with this one. It airs occasionally on Drive-In Classics.

I think that the comments from other reviewers about this nudie-cutie are a little too harsh.This Film is fluffy & contrite yes;but exudes an American ideal of paradise at the time of the Kennedy pseudo-crusade of 'Camelot'.Meaning that America was then riding the crest of a wave of optimism.This Film seems to capture some strange,incongruous 'feel-good' factor that epitomises this.It has the Pine Trees of Florida,the blue of the everglades & the flesh tones of the Sunny Palms Lodge.The music soundtrack is atmospheric mood-jazz & 12-bar blues.Tiki-stone gods & white Chevrolets all add to the genre. We had a similar Film in Britain at the same time: 1961 called 'Naked As Nature Intended' but Cornwall isn't as HOT as Florida (in both senses of the word). I would recommend people not be put off seeing this Doris Wishman gem.It is well worth the current price of a DVD. Having watched this film recently;it has lost none of it's 'feel-good' impression on me.The 'dubbed' dialogue:- I assume is still the original actors?.This gives the film extra charm because the background noises i.e. birdsong,typing clatter are all on the same track.

I have to agree with the gentleman from England. Seeing this film for any other reason than simple fun would be a mistake! This film is a nudie-cutie. In this day of hardcore, it is hard to imagine that this was the "hardcore" of its day. Beautiful cinematography, beautiful locales and sun-drenched bodies offer a sleepy, idyllic look at an alternate reality. It should be remembered that in those times the idea of the naked form and sin WERE synonymous, therefore, Davee Decker would have been regarded as a lowlife to many for being photographed in the nude. To my mind that makes her a bit of a hero! What makes it more interesting to me is the fact that she looked like the typical young housewife of that era, the lady next door that you would have borrowed a cup of sugar from. A fun little cult film, not to be taken too seriously, I'm really curious to find out if she is still alive and what made her do nudie movies when it was taboo at that time.

Doris Wishman and her rival contemporary Russ Meyer shared somewhat parallel careers. Both churned out a fair amount of rubbish, but somehow along the way achieved an almost cult status. Indeed, both film-makers were honoured in 1988 when no less than Jonathan Ross interviewed them and discussed their work. In the case of Ms Wishman one must judge Diary of a Nudist as her key offering, a film that was regarded as just another nudie flick when it came out in 1961. However, on closer inspection, it now comes over as a wicked satire on both nudists and the nudist film genre.

Doris has a great time here poking fun at basic naturist psyche. For instance, in one memorable scene we see two guys relaxing by the pool probably discussing sports. A naked girl wiggles up to them and they politely, almost reluctantly, give her a few words. She slinks off and they get back to the Dodgers. No suggestion the boys are gay -- just standard emotionless nudists. Ironic that their names are Bill and Ben, since even the Flowerpot Men showed more imagination. Similarly, whilst new girl Stacy is being shown round the camp by the supervisor, she's introduced to Eleanor, John, Helen and Fran who are sitting on the grass doing naked flower arranging. Although it's explained that this is important for the summer festival, one does suspect that Doris has her tongue firmly in her cheek. The main method of having an exciting time here seems to be drinking coffee and throwing endless pebbles into the stream. Stacy is also introduced to a little girl called Phyllis, but how she was conceived is an unexplained mystery.

The other target for satire is the fundamental problem faced by every nudist film in 1961. Although most of the body could be displayed on camera, the "naughty bits" had to be out of sight, which led to all manner of cover-ups, camera manoeuvres and coy posing. So, when the girls emerge from the changing hut, we see waistlines covered by first a towel, then a folded blouse, followed by a hat, a shopping bag, a newspaper and lastly (running out of camouflage ideas) another hat. There's a bizarre game of volleyball between the shorts and the no-shorts. Needless to say, the shorts are filmed from every angle, but the no-shorts only from the back. And how those girls struggle to look natural while posing behind a bush (no pun intended).

As for the technical credits, these are quite impressive with attractive photography and good sound. However, since the cast are all amateurs, the dialogue has been post-dubbed at the famous Titra Sound studio in New York. A disconcerting consequence of this is that anybody who has just seen Hercules Unchained will probably notice that Arthur and Stacy have the same dubbed voices as Steve Reeves and wicked Queen Omphale. One must also give credit to the music score which is a delight, right from the bouncing title song (composed by Doris's niece) to the cool jazz for xylophone and brass that accompanies the sun bathing and swimming. If only someone had released this as a soundtrack album, it could have been a haunting classic.

An amusing postscript came to light when old episodes of What's My Line were later repeated. Camp owner Zelda Suplee (using her real name Yolande Reed) crops up in a 1953 episode, challenging the panel to guess her occupation. Witty panellist Steve Allen had already worked out the answer when he posed the immortal question, "Would the services you provide improve my eyesight?"

Is this a great movie? No. There is no real plot and no acting to speak of. But it's a great reminder of how movies were pre-Deep Throat.

Obscenity laws forced nudie filmmakers to make it appear that these movies promoted public awareness.

Hence, this is done as a pseudo documentary. Not unlike some of Russ Meyer's very early flicks. (Mondo Topless, etc.)

There's plenty of T&A. Full frontal female nudes abound.

The guy's are naked too, only you don't see anything.

What is striking about this movie is how hot the girls are. It's a fun movie to watch, but don't expect anything close to porn. It's really just hot girls lounging around in different places at the nudist colony.

It's so innocent it's great!

This is one of those films that falls into the category of so bad its funny. The film has very little plot and most of the scenes in the film are taken up by showing the various female cast members showing off their best "assets". Also, if you look very closely, almost the entire dialog in the film is dubbed and very badly too. In fact, the same company that did much of the dubbing for films in the Godzilla series, Titra Sound, did the dubbing for this film (and this film was produced in the United States). Also, the ending of this film was one of the sappiest ever. If you want to have a good laugh, you should definitely watch this film, only don't expect lewd, expect nude.

Positives: This film showed a lot of positive nonsexual nudity, and that people who actually experience it are likely to be changed for the better. It is a great movie to watch with a friend that you want to show some things about what it is like to visit a Naturist club. It is true that it is dated, but the positive non-sexual nudity is what most non Naturists, just don't get.

Negatives: There seemed to be only beautiful bodies shown. Yes I realize a lot of people would consider this a positive, but it was not a true representation of Naturism.

Lots of white butts and boobs. (Actors were not Naturists.)

At times, towels were not used when people sat down.

Audio was very badly degraded.

Midsections were always hidden. I realize this was probably to appease censors of the time.

OVERALL. A very good movie for putting someone at ease, if they are interested in visiting a Naturist club.

An interesting artifact from a bygone era, the "nudie-cutie" move, like the "nudist" movie and magazine arose during the few years between the allowing of nudity in movies and the de facto legalization of hardcore pornography. And then disappeared when hardcore porn became readily available and the skin magazines more explicit. Like "The Raw Ones" and later "Educating Julie" you can take this one as a "documentary" on the nudist lifestyle or an excuse to see naked bodies-girls-but in an un-explicit and more tasteful manner. I am amused to see the "acting" dismissed as "wooden", seen plenty of big budget productions with big names that did not do any better, and appearing in the buff took a bit of nerve back then. So sit back and enjoy it for what it isi.