The stuff in the pool is somewhat less racy than the scenes in Tarzan and His Mate.
BUT.
When she undresses before she jumps into the swimming hole, you can clearly see her breasts and her nipples. It really was unexpectedly shocking even now, given that the actress was indeed twelve when it was filmed. It's not hard to see why MST3K would pass on this one.
Oh it would be a LOT more "shocking" today because American society has fallen back to the dark ages when it comes to morality. Nudity of any kind is taught to be shunned and considered dirty and obscene.
It's not hard to see why MST3K would pass on this one.
For the show, yeah. But wouldn't be surprised if the host hasn't seen it at least once. ;-)
jk90us
Oh, shut up. This isn't nudity for ~*THE ART*~. This is nudity in a goddamn exploitation film. It's underage nudity for the sake of it, just barely hiding under the guise of wanting to abolish child brides. It has nothing to do with the barely-there "plot" or "character development". I don't know what the audience for this movie was, but I know that they couldn't give much of a damn about child marriage. It didn't need to be there, and it certainly didn't need to be 5 minutes long.
Do you know what the difference is? It's disgusting.
There's nothing salacious about the scene, which certainly differentiates Child Bride from most every other "exploitation" film. Countless films have had obviously sexy scenes in which females strip nude down and then swim. This isn't one of them.
shareDo you know what the difference is? It's disgusting.
How any times did you watch it to make sure? ;-)
jk90
_______
38 of the last 44 Best Actress Oscar winners have been nude in films.
See how that works?
It's just a breast, It isn't gonna bite and it won't turn you into a pedo for seeing it.. Chill.
People get really weird about underage nudity in films. I don't think anyone should be offended by the scene and I don't see anything wrong with child nudity in films.
share[deleted]
The nudity, and this whole movie, IS exploitation, BUT---
What people don't get about "underage nudity" is you're either attracted to someone or you're not. If you're not attracted to 12 year olds, it doesn't matter if you see them naked. And if you are--it ALSO doesn't matter. They show babies naked in diaper ads in America, but what would you think about A PERSON if they complained about THAT?
The "underage nudity" by (then) teenage actresses like Nastassja Kinski, Phoebe Cates, Virginie Ledoyen, and Melanie Griffith bothers ME a lot more, but that's probably because they're older and physically mature and I thus find them sexually attractive, naked or not. There's nothing "shocking" here. I, for one, ALREADY strongly suspected that 12-year-old girls had nipples and butt cracks
"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"