Child nudity is not necessarily child porn. And porn is when the actors actually have sex which does not happen in mainstream films, or when involving children, when a nude body is portrayed in a salicious manner. Therefore, "Pretty Baby" and "Blue Lagoon" are not child porn on any level.
You are aware that Brooke was a child model who posed nude (in a non-sexual way, I might add)? There are plenty of pre-adolescent children who walk and run around naked (I was one of them) and it's perfectly innocent and not sexual.
Many parents take photos of their children in the nude before puberty and there's nothing wrong with that. It's only with the over-sensitivity and policitical correctness of today's world (which does have its place up to a point but is oftent taken out of context), that people freak out. I know we know more now about pedophiles and such, but if they get off on a non-sexual photo of a nude pre-adolescent child it's not the fault of the photographer. Pedophiles attack fully-dressed children so you can't really say it is due to nudity in films or photos. Those creeps are sexually attracted to children no matter what. It's like saying that rape victims are targeted because of they way they dress and act, which is not true.
It's really no different than child actors in films where there is violence and/or horror - they know it's not real because they are actors, they are there every day and know how it works, surrounded by crew, director, and their parents who supervise (as Brooke's mom did). Should child protective services been called in because a child actor is in a film where violence is portrayed? I've seen people attacking the mother of Linda Blair for letting her appear in "The Exorcist" but Linda wasn't affected by the filming experience - it was the press and the public that gave her a hard time because they were the ones who had issues with it - Brooke's experience was similar but maybe not as extreme. Linda had to go into hiding because she received kidnap and death threats (which is why she decided never to have children of her own, due to her trauma, which was because of the public reaction, not her view on being in the film herself)- and it was just a fricking movie! Notice the pattern - the public and the press are the ones that can't seem to handle it, who add fuel to the fire and blow everything out of proportion - not to generalize and say they all do but there will always be disturbed people and extremists to take things too far.
Both Linda and Brooke were child models and understood the professionalism of the business and knew they were there to do a job, plain and simple.
Brooke's mother has also been accused of "pimping her out" but Brooke remained a virgin until she was 22. I find it annoying when people can't separate fact from fiction or actors from characters they play in that context - people assumed that Brooke was really having sex with adult men or older boys as a child and teenager because of the films she was in - please, it's called acting.
Jodie Foster was the toddler used in the original and reprinted Coppertone ads that show her bare behind - should that be considered exploitation and child porn?
There are films that were made in the 70s and 80s that couldn't be made today or at least not made in the same way because of political correctness - never mind viewer discretion and no one has to view the films if they don't want to. Had "Pretty Baby" actually been child porn (which it is not, but the press insisted on referring to it as that, never mind that Brooke's character Violet is not shown having sex with anyone nor is her body displayed in an exploitative manner), I could see the outrage. Brooke herself wasn't traumatized by it and and is still close with her mother.
I find it interesting that there is all this noise about nudity and sex in films, but not to violence and yet there doesn't seem to be the same kind of reaction.
reply
share