In the new (excellent) film “American Beauty” there’s a shot where Thora Birch takes off her top and is filmmed by the boy living next door.
According to the IMDB, she’s only 17, which would, IIRC, make that shot somewhat controversial (and illegal). I looked this up after thinking “how old is she now, anyway?”, remembering her turn as Sally Ryan in the Tom Clancy movies a few years ago.
It didn’t look like a body double (her face is visible the whole time), and due to the sweater, shirt, and bra she removed in the scene, it didn’t look prosthetic, either.
What’s the SD? Anyone else see this damn good movie?
It’s real, no tricks, and I think there are dispensations for movies if it’s part of the plot, which I’m guessing it was. It wasn’t for titillation’s sake, it was for the movie.
Not that I’ve seen it.
“So what you are telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else that you have never seen.”
So, they escaped the censors and religious right because of the “intent” of the shot?
It was, of course, integral to the plot (her character was “opening up” to the boy filming her).
What’s the difference between this and say, “Apt Pupil”, where there were charges that underage boys were shown naked in a gym shower scene? Or, the famous obscenity ruling in Oklahoma about The Tin Drum?
If I’m not mistaken, the Oklahoma Tin Drum thing was overturned by a higher court. (Don’t have Westlaw here right now.)
I think there are artistic/first amendment issues that come into play. Just showing a naked under 18 year old is not child porn. Showing a naked 20 year old is not porn.
I think you have to look at what they’re doing while naked. Well…if you’re into that kind of thing.
Hmm, okay. I suppose you’re right. I’ve seen underage children nude in film (babies without diapers, young girls without shirts), but never one who’s reached puberty.
Don’t forget that Brooke Shields appeared nude (full frontal) in “Pretty Baby” when she was a child (I think she was 10 or 12 years old), and it was in a sexual context.
The Apt Pupil controversy was about on-set nudity, not in-film nudity (of which there was little). The problem was parents under the impression that young boys were forced to parade nude for the shot, when in fact they weren’t forced, or even nude I don’t think, and it was all carefully supervised.
“So what you are telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else that you have never seen.”
From what I’ve heard of the Apt Pupil controversy it was a case of some parents deciding that film companies have a lot of money and would be willing to give them a bunch of it to avoid an embarassing lawsuit. Better luck next time, Mom & Dad, maybe Michael Jackson will slip you a few thousand for a weekend with your son.
As for underage nudity, Michelle Johnson appeared fully nude in Blame it on Rio at the age of seventeen. And I’ve never heard anyone claiming any great artistic merit to that film.
IIRC, the producers avoided legal trouble by having her wear a transparent body-stocking, so that technically she wasn’t nude. And her mother was here every minute! That comment always amused me, for some reason.
I remember Pretty Baby also…and Brooke was definitely fully nude with no body suit…IIRC every one was more upset with her mother than any of the film producers.
I feel more like I do now than I did when I got here.
I made my OP because I recall when Return to the Blue Lagoon (or whatever the sequel was called) was made a while back, Milla Jovovich, 14 at the time, wore her hair really long and the filmmakers went to great lengths to cover her up. If, apparently, it’s okay to show under-18 teens naked (American Beauty), why was it a big deal when Milla, or Brooke, nearly did it?
According to the IMDB, the original Blue Lagoon was released in 1980, and Brooke Sheilds was born in May 65. That means that at filming time, she was at most, just barely (no pun intended!) fifteen.
Because the movies in which they appeared were intended for a general audience. If you showed in a major studio release a fraction of the explicit acts that appear in a “hardcore” pornographic movie, the outcry would be tremendous, since the expectation would be that the film would have a big publicity budget and would be easily accessible to the general public of all ages (in most theatres, there is no rigorous checking of who ends up in which viewing room.)
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.
[quote]
Because the movies in which they appeared were intended for a general audience. If you showed in a major studio release …
[quote]
Do you not watch much TV? I can’t watch it for an hour without seeing an ad for American Beauty. If it’s not a major studio release, it’s doing a darn good job of acting like one.