MovieChat Forums > Pretty Baby (1978) Discussion > Why the nudity bothers me...

Why the nudity bothers me...

posted 9 years ago by gra05
28 replies | jump to latest

I guess what I am having a hard time getting my head around is how the people (mostly men) who support this film on the internet, saying the nudity is okay, are also the same people getting excited over the fact that "it shows her pubic area". In other words, the same people saying this film is artistic and okay are also the ones exaggerating the nudity.

I have seen the film and I don't understand where a lot of you are getting the idea that there is full frontal nudity in this. I am against child nudity of any form in a movie, mainly because the child's decision is being made for them and when they become adults they will look back in embarrassment. Having said that, I won't lose sleep over the fact that in the 70s there were a few films that showed chest and rear nudity of boys and girls in an innocent manner, as long as it is brief. But showing a child's genitals is never excusable and that is why I am so disturbed by the amount of men on the internet claiming that "this movie isn't porn" while at the same time insisting that this movie shows her genitals and celebrating that fact.

Showing genitals in American film whether sexual or not, unless it is shown briefly on a toddler or infant in an innocent manner, has always been considered porn. The only reason rated R films have been relaxed about adult female full frontal nudity is because the genitals are covered by pubic hair. So why are the same people who are playing around with the pause button when watching this movie, insisting that you can see her vagina when the rest of us don't notice it, ....why are you the same people who are claiming the nudity is innocent?

Please explain yourselves. I am very disturbed right now. I even found a discussion online once where a bunch of men were lamenting the fact that not enough bare, shaved , vaginas are shown in mainstream American films, and then they listed a few rare films, including Pretty Baby. I was very disturbed by that.

So when you perverts claim that this movie shows full frontal nudity , please explain to the rest of us what the H*ll you are talking about. Are you talking about how you just see her lower belly underneath her belly button? What are you talking about? How much time are you spending pressing the pause button? And most importantly, if you insist in a giddy manner that this film shows her genitals then how in the world can you say this isn't porn?????? The fact that this movie has terrible acting tells me that you like it so much for one reason only. If it were a boy instead of a girl would you men still be so accepting of this garbage?????

[–] ExplorerDS6789 9 years ago

You're either a troll or a prude. Are you ashamed of the human body? We're all naked under our clothes. Accept that and stop flooding message boards with your nonsense.

[–] gra05 9 years ago

And yet you don't answer any of my questions. If this were a boy in the film would the same people be okay with it? What do you guys mean when you say this film has full frontal nude scenes?

When I saw this I didn't see any details below her belly button other than skin. I am asking because I find it disturbing that so many people on the internet get excited over the nudity in this and claim you see her pubic region. They are drawing unnecessary attention to a film that should have disappeared a long time ago. It makes me wonder how many of them are jumping through hoops to get the full screen version and then sitting and playing with the pause button during the bath scene.

How am I a troll? If you haven't noticed lots of people are disturbed and asking questions about this film and I am one of them. You supporters of the film claim this is art but then you turn around and in another discussion laugh with the other perverted men about how "if you get this version of the film and pause it here you see this". This film is obviously enjoyed because of Brooke Shields' nudity and nothing more. And then you wonder why people like me ask about and want it banned.

Considering everything I say above, how in the world can the nudity in this be considered tasteful. Where do you draw the line? The movie is about a twelve year old prostitute and you claim it isn't porn even if they show her genitals (according to only some of you on here).

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gra05 9 years ago

Thank you so much for your support. The only thing I don't agree with is when you compare male child nudity to female child nudity. It is very hard for me to imagine the general public being more okay with underage female genitals than male in movies, in fact, I would guess the reverse is more true. I just think female underage nudity comes across as more accepted on these websites because of all the perverts it attracts. You make a good point about the gay angle and the child abuse on set for sure though. I am like you. I don't support either male or female child nudity ever.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

Because the original film did show such, you are viewing the cut version.

[–] nammage 9 years ago

You lost me at "terrible acting". And, it seems you only find this film "garbage" based solely on the nudity, and/or, others fixations on the nudity. Doesn't make your opinion on the film, as a whole, relevant.

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] cathy-creswell 9 years ago

I agree. There were several exploitive films in the 70's. Taxi Driver, endless love, etc. I was a teen then and resented the adults making female teen nudity and sexual situations "edgy" and "relevant". It doesn't matter how you package it, it's exploitive. The porn industry exploded then, and appetites needed to be Fed. It's a known fact now that pedophilia is a problem in Hollywood. Try looking at this from a teen girls perspective. You get oggled on the way to and from school. Cars with male's in them follow you occasionally, its frightening. Boys lean out of car Windows and shout things. At family gatherings the talk about you is about how you are growing up and filling out. Walking alone with a boy is tense, you've had bad experiences in the past. Dates are a minefield of problems. Its obvious you are seen first as sexual, lastly as a person. Then Hollywood makes it worse by making sexual films they justify because it's "relevant" or "art". I don't expect male's to understand. Use words like prude, cold, repressed all you want. You are clueless.

[–] WalkAwayRenee 9 years ago

Maybe as a whole we've made way too much of nudity as being a highly sexual thing. We are born naked. The first man and woman lived on this earth free with their nudity. It seems strange to me personally that parts that we all have, just like an eye or a hand, are considered something to be covered up, lol. That's just me. I guess, going back to Adam and Eve eating from that tree of knowledge is what ruined what was supposed to be non shame about our bodies. And the reality of life, that a lot of people can't or won't or don't want to accept is that teenagers have sex. It's not about being edgy or relevant, at least it shouldn't be, and I think that too makes way too much out of it because it's actually something that is reality. Sure, things like this are going to be considered "controversial" to some. But do you really believe there aren't child prostitutes out there? Is it a good idea? No. Kids shouldn't be prostituted, in whatever definition you want to take that in. For that matter, adults shouldn't be prostituted. But there are plenty of movies that portray prostitution, and people having sex and people being naked. In my opinion, it's only as exploitative and relevant a subject as any specific individual wants to make it. Endless Love was the reality of a first love between two young people, and as you'll recall, based on a book. Was the book exploiting teens? No, it was telling a story as old as time, from the point of view of those particular characters, in admittedly sometimes raw detail. Such is life. In fact, from the circumstances of those characters their love was ill-advised, and subsequently doomed.

[–] wvsarafan 9 years ago

You're not a troll I agree. You're just very, very stupid.

[–] MsSpiderGrrl 9 years ago

Yours is the only stupid statement on this thread. So STFU -- the grown-ups are talking.

[–] shaunwebb66 9 years ago

You never, ever see this 12 year-old's vagina. You see in one or two scenes her flat chest and in the bathtub scene, her legs are closed far too tightly. In the other nude scene, she is wearing a thong, unbeknownst to you. Pubic hair would have been far more noticeable. This was not exploitative, but necessary in this type of film. I never found Ms. Shields to be titillating in any degree. It was how it was in early 1900's New Orleans. The film accurately portrayed its time....simple as that.

[–] bingobingo25 9 years ago

It may have been appropriate for the setting of the film, but it was still the exploitation of a child actress. Shields (who was under-age at the time) herself has said that she didn't really consent to this film. Her crazy mother consented for her because she was making money off of her. That's why Shields eventually got emancipated from her mother. She had forced her into sexual and risqué situations like this to make money even though her daughter was uncomfortable.

That alone is why I despise this film. I think nudity is fine in films...when it's consenting adults. Forcing children to be in situations they're uncomfortable in, however, is a completely different story. I don't think this film has a whole lot of artistic merit to it. The cinematography was nice, but that doesn't change the fact that this was basically child abuse.

[–] LittleFrida 9 years ago

Brooke Shields said:

"As a child, I was like a little shark sensing blood in the water and loved all my roles. I didn’t understand the furore around Pretty Baby. My mum was furious. I remember her saying: “Did you like what you did?” I said yes I did, so she said: “Then *beep* ’em if they can’t handle it.”"

Also look up the interview with her on youtube on Pretty Baby.
I don't know where you got it from that she wasn't really consent to this film.
In her own words it sounds like she loved it and doesn't regret it at all.
She speaks very enthusiastic about playing Violet and said that it was a "wonderful experience" and that she wasn't forced at all.

[–] bingobingo25 9 years ago

She eventually emancipated herself from her mother because her mother was so controlling.

I saw an interview she did once where she said she felt uncomfortable on set. I can't remember who she was speaking to, but she has said it. But if she's said otherwise since then she's said otherwise.

I still think that even in that case, she could have maybe been "excited" as a kid because her mother was excited and she trusted her. I really feel like in a situation like this, where a child (keep in mind she wasn't 16. She was 12. She wasn't just a minor by a bit. She was a CHILD.) has to be naked or act in a sexual way at such a young age, the whole consent thing just comes across as so strange. It's so easy for a child to be exploited by whoever makes decisions for them.

[–] pgfan92 8 years ago

Or she's like everyone else in Hollywood and lies so much she doesn't know what the truth is and so is constantly contradicting herself?

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

LOL, it would be her vulva and pubic cleft, not her vagina, which is internal. And you do see it in the original film.

[–] przgzr 9 years ago

It is interesting, and tells much more about adults and their state of mind than about kids they are supposedly protecting, that the only thing that us all over again repeatedly discussing is child nudity.

Noone ever asks how a child feels having to sing in a movie, though maybe shy, embarassed, feeling unable to sing good enough or not liking to sing at all. (In fact, it is not only something that happens in movies, many of us parents force kids to go to music schools and they appear in concerts, school performances, but they don't like it at all, they are either afraid or shy or simply dislike it. We don't believe them, we think it is just kid's caprice or defiance. And when we watch kid's singing we praise the kid, praise the director and composer and parents and never ask if the kid liked or was he forced, argued, blackmailed to do it.

Noone ever asks how a child fells when having, due to the role, a close contact with an animal. I have never read that anybody asked if a child liked being with a dog, cat, horse, parrot, or maybe felt uncomfortable or afraid. We will never know if some kid playing in any of countless versions of Lassie or similar movies was terrified, paralyzed by fear, but still pushed and ordered to do it by parents who wanted money, career or something else. We don't know, and director probably didn't know either. But the only thing that he could have done to prevent it was not to make movie at all. So, we shouldn't have Lassies, Red (and other) Ponies, Black (and other) Stallions, Beethovens, Annies, Andres etc because we can never be sure how was the child actor feeling and maybe been forced to the scenes with animals.

Even some ordinary, non-controversial scenes may appear to be traumatic. Just one example: when kid's tears weren't good and convincible enough, the director told him that his pet dog had died. The kid started crying and the scene was successfuly shot. And the director was praised for his work by audience who didn't know (and care) how this magnificent scene had been made.

I could go to even more extreme examples, like child actors in horrors (and ask if movies like Omen, Shining, Poltergeist and many others, some of them real classics, should have ever been made). Because nowadays it is normal to be a killer but not to be nude under a shower or on a beach.

Finally, many kids (maybe today less then 20, 30, 40 years ago - but we are talking about a decades old movie; yet in many countries things didn't change that much) are used to be nude among people, because this is the style of life they have practiced since they've been born (as they parents and grandparents did since their birth). So, some of them wouldn't feel uncomfortable or embarrassed, and would need no convincing or threatening. Regardless being boy or girl.

As for any other kind of scene. We just don't know the truth.

So it is just a state of viewer's mind that makes him decide what the kid (regardless being boy or girl) should have been protected from. And the fact that there is only one thing people are taking care of talks a lot about our society.

[–] ricky_says_hi 8 years ago

Obviously you absolutely couldn't make a film like this today with the nudity. But it was the 70s. Filmmakers no longer had the Hays Code censoring and micromanaging every little detail of their work, so they went nuts with their newfound freedom. In hindsight, the film could have done without the nudity. At least the one scene there is of Violet being photographed on the couch. It's not really that important to the story.

The movie Witness has a nude scene that's important for example. In this case it's an Amish woman who has lost her husband but fallen in love with a man outside her sect. So she's never allowed anyone but her deceased husband to see her nude. In that sense, the story wouldn't have the same effect without it. The movie Sirens is another example - the protagonist is a repressed Englishwoman who's shocked by the free-spirited Australian models and she's encouraged to embrace her sexuality.

Pretty Baby however should not be condemned for the nudity. It's not exploitive or particularly gratuitous. Violet having sex however is shot tastefully - and emphasis is on how harsh an experience it is for her. It's unfortunately a real representation of how things used to be. There was a time when the marrying age was twelve, and many girls were considered old maids by the time they were sixteen. The film pulls no punches about how Violet's life is. That being said, the one nude scene that I remember wasn't necessary to do that.

[–] przgzr 8 years ago

I agree with you, and you give good examples. As for the scene you have mentioned, I can say yes and no. The movie could really be without it (though, most movie could be "without" almost any scene, or it could me replaced by another or shot in some different way - yet, would it still be the same movie?). But, on the other hand, it can be watched and analyzed from (at least) two angles.

First, this scene leads us to the next one where Violet, bored and angry and a bit disappointed, feeling neglected, destroys Bellocq's photo. (It is something that most 21st century people with digital cameras won't understand, because the cost of this photos was incredible compared to no-cost photos people take today, the time and effort used to make a photo was incredible compared to modern photos made by just pressing a button, the knowledge to make a photo needed a professional while modern cameras do it all by themselves, and the damage was irrepairable, each photo was unique and original with no back-up.) Also, it leads us to next scene where Bellocq pushes Violet from his apartment, when she suddenly feels completely alone, abandoned, thrown away, so in just few days her position has changed - from brothel where she is exploited by clients but loved by the members of the staff (including her mother), then developing and upgrading to being admired and loved by Bellocq what she didn't appreciate enough, so now she entirely depends on his mercy, literally alone and naked. (Without the former scene there would be no explanation why would she be naked ih hotel corridor - and her being naked, I guess most people would agree, shows a great symbolism of her situation and gives more complexity to the scene.)

Second, this shows the difference of what children are considered to be now and were a century ago. Children were small people. Real childhood involved first 6-7 years. Nobody cared much for them, yes, they were given food, clothes (if necessary), taught simple prayers but not much more - adults didn't have time for them and, besides, often illiterate, didn't have knowledge themselves to transfer it to their offspring. So kids spent free days mostly unsupervised by adults, with no tasks. When they became 6 or 7 it was possible but not obligatory to go to school (rarely more than 4 years) and kids were given their first duties - to watch younger siblings, go to pasture with cattle, take part in simplier activities in fields or give hand to father if he was a kind of craftsmen (blacksmith, tailor, bricklayer...). When kids grew up to 11 or 12 they became equal to adults in their duties, they had to work and were allowed to marry (usually not by their own choice, either work or marriage). So when Bellocq decides to take photos of Violet he considers her an adult, expecting her to pose patiently as his former models (again something the 21st century people have problems to imagine - models had to keep their position, even look on their face, for a long time; making a dozen of pictures could last a whole day). But, used to be a child only few weeks ago, living free and almost uncontrolled in the brothel, only occasionally invited to do some "small work" either in the kitchen with dishes or in the room with clients, both things not boring and followed again by freedom and play, Violet has problems to adjust to a role of an adult. In this particular couch scene we see Violet bored as probably never before, so she is disappointed; Bellocq however doesn't understand her, she is not behaving as a model he expected to have but as a spoiled brat, so he is also disappointed and this is where the conflict begins.

Yes, the movie could have been made without that scene, but would lack some of these messages. You could cut the scene out, but the scars would stay.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jedite1000 8 years ago

You wouldn't like going to the a nudist beach