i thought this scene was wrong. having the child see the naked woman like that. i see a lot of posts stating that it was fun, humorous etc. i just imagine the scene when they were rehearsing it and they made the woman expose herself to the child with the cameras all around etc. what were the real parents of the child thinking when they allowed this to happen.
shareI thought also that the father was proud to share the moment with his son.
shareIf he was indeed actually there (and the scene wasn't shot in 2 sequences) then I tend to agree it was inappropriate.
But to be honest, this was the late '70s. Nudity wasn't viewed the same as today.
Nor was it viewed the same by PEOPLE, in general. Kids don't learn that nudity is shameful or even sexual until they either 1. Hear it from their parents/siblings/classmates 2. Media teaches it to them.
Until then, nudity is natural & no big deal. If the actress was indeed naked in front of the child actor, its likely he found it to be no big deal either.
I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.
no-I think in a real situation, the kid might've been struck dumb or frightened--pubic hair does that to kids because they don't have any. this scene was false, just done for a laugh.
share'But to be honest, this was the late '70s. Nudity wasn't viewed the same as today'.
-----------------
In real life, sure it is. I was around then, and haven't noticed significant change. The 1960's was when it was different. For the fikm, it says it has to darken the scene to avoid an r rating
I was around then too, but I should have been more specific: I am referring to how nudity is viewed in films.
Nudity was much more 'rampant' & the MPAA ratings were more lax.
They were more concerned with violence than they were nudity, in the '70s & '80s.
I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.
I misunderstood
shareI believe they use adult stand-ins for scenes like this...could have been a little person. If I recall the scene correctly, you only see the back of his head. And even still...it's the human body. Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world
share[deleted]
The scene felt very out of place with the rest of the movie. I don't think it was neccasary. The only gripe from a near perfect movie.
shareWhat in God's name is wrong with a naked human body? She wasn't doing anything sexual or being provocative in any way.
While I wouldn't advocate, necessarily, running around like that purposely (it's unnecessary), there's no need to call for the smelling salts, should a youngster come upon a nude person, accidentally.
By the way, I'm almost certain that they wouldn't have had JoBeth expose herself during rehearsals.
Do the P-I-G-E-O-N
I agree that it was weird, embarrassing, and unnecessary. She didn't even cover-up right away.
Reminds me of this crappy movie I saw recently; Poltergeist 2015. For no reason (other than maybe a lame attempt at humor) they have a kid walk in and see his parents humping. Makes you wonder if the director gets his jollies off at this.
[deleted]
Good point, or is that protrusion Nan.😄 Billy didn't even give a s<>t, as I'm sure most little kids wouldn't. It is just the pc moral brigade projecting and getting up on their high horse for something that was in context, and also sweetly humorous for a quality film with good intentions.
Now if this scene was reversed and it was a little girl who inadvertently ran into her mother's naked male lover in the hallway, I bet she would have giggled herself half to death and the man would have been even more embarrassed than Williams ever was.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩
[deleted]