Let me rephrase that not child porn, but isn't it illegal to film or take nude shots of kids under the age of 18? Just wondering. Also why did they make a big deal about her calvin klein ad when she was naked in a movie around the same age.
shareChristopher Atkins was already eighteen when he did his nude scenes. Brooke Shields turned fifteen during the making of this movie, but she had a thirty year old body double for all of her nude scenes.
That being said, no, it isn't illegal to have a nude child or teenager in a movie. Consider that Elva Josephson and Glenn Kohan did their own nudity, and they were about eight. Also, Chad Timmerman did his own nudity as a baby.
If you want to see just how illegal this isn't, check out Pretty Baby (but I warn you, the story's a bit of a downer).
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.
good answer.
still I wonder, why, when you have a photo of a nude child, it's concidered chipd porn, and in a movie it is allowed?
Try to set up a website with nude childs... !
Maybe it's depending on the situation... wherever it is functional or not.
A photo of a nude child isn't automatically child porn. Google on David Hamilton, Sally Mann, and Jock Sturges. They sell books full of naked children, and they aren't in jail.
It seems to all come down to two things: is it sexual? and do you have a good lawyer?
If it isn't sexual, doesn't include crotch shots, and stuff like that, then it's all good and legal. Of course, that doesn't mean that some pandering prosecutor won't try to railroad you, so have that lawyer handy, and run everything past her before you try to put it out.
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.
Jock Sturges, in fact, did have a terrible run-in with the San Francisco police over his photography, particularly his pictures of Misty Dawn and other children in a nudist colony. It looks more like something you'd see in National Geographic or the Art Nouveau movement. In 1990 they raided his apartment and took everything, and I mean everything, including his clothes and even his cat. This was all part of the right wing culture wars. He thinks the attitudes in this country toward nudity and sex are insane, but his work is not dirty, and neither is this film.
Listen to the spoken word recordings of Jello Biafra to learn more about what happens behind the scenes. He tells the truth in a listenable, humorous way.
I'm all right, I'm alllll right!
It's not about sexuality but about the business of profit. In a movie making setting, the children are highly protected from abusive people, whereas the child porn industry is ALL about abuse. Two different worlds.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
They said, I believe on the DVD commentary, that the movie couldn't be made today. Chris was completely nude in a few scenes, and Brooke Shields wore strategically placed cover (except in scenes done by a nude body double). They shot in a particularly good evening light that didn't last very long. They were always looking for opportunities for Chris to lay on top of 14 year old Brooke. She was pretty naive; they even briefed her that he might get "aroused", but she said on the DVD commentary that he never did.
However, note the remake of "Lolita" where one scene of simulated sex did make it past the censor.
They said, I believe on the DVD commentary, that the movie couldn't be made today.
He's probably right about that, at least by a major American studio. For an independent or a foreign company they could make it, but distribution would be a bitch; they would have all kinds of local legal challenges everywhere they tried to release it.
That said there have been some brief underage "nude" scenes in well known films. I put nude in quotation marks because people often say nude scene when they mean topless. In "American Beauty" they show 17 year old Thora Birch's bare breasts. A French film called "À ma soeur!" (retitled 'Fat Girl' in the English speaking world) generated controversy for showing the bare breasts of a 13 year old girl. They even ran into some legal issues preventing a screening somewhere in Canada. All in all it seemed much ado about nothing since it's just boobs and since it's a French film and if said French girl was walking down a public beach in France topless it wouldn't be a big deal.
"Walkabout (1971)" features a 16 year old girl and a 7 year old boy both fully nude and is available on DVD in the US with no problem. Of course it's a small film from 40 years ago and isn't that well known. If someone tried to release it to theaters today it would be controversial.
I'm a nudist and there are plenty of nudist families where nudity among the children is common and not considered dirty or sexual. I've been to several nudist resorts where whole families are members. I've seen nudist videos where they interview nudist families and even show the children naked. It's not child porn, and in my opinion nothing is wrong with any of it. Now since they are videos by and for nudists they have few problems from others. If you put that on the shelf at blockbuster or tried to show it at the local theater some people would raise hell about it and create legal challenges. The courts have been pretty clear that such things would win out in the end but it would be expensive to fight it. The thing about our legal system is that even if you will win in the end the other side can make it costly enough that most people would just rather avoid it all together.
"The thing about our legal system is that even if you will win in the end the other side can make it costly enough"
True enough. In our legal system, nobody wins a lawsuit but the lawyers.
everyone involved with this movie is now in prison, and very good 'look alike' doubles have taken over their lives.
"in this world there's two kinds of people ... those with loaded guns, and those who dig."
You are correct, Sir!
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ You can help change the world.
It is child porn, isn't it? Especially the first 45 minutes or so. And the censors over here in the UK rated this 15? How do they get away with that, exactly?
shareIt isn't child pornography because you don't have shots that focus on the genitals, not do you ever see any underaged person do any actual sex stuff.
You see the little kids running naked on the beach, but that isn't pornography. You see Brooke and Christopher kiss and hug, but you don't see anything that tells you that it's anything other than simulated, which in fact it was. In fact, you don't even see Brooke's "forbidden parts," though it would have been legal if there weren't any crotch shots. It was a thirty year old body double.
I would recommend this movie for teenagers the world over. In many parts of Europe it airs in prime time as a family film.
this post has been deleted because it could no longer keep its anger in check
What about the scene about half an hour in where the little kids are swimming in the sea? The genitals aren't focused on for a long time, but they're there. They can clearly be seen by the human eye. That's not good, in my opinion. The nudity shouldn't be there at all. Abigail Breslin could easily have been nude in Nim's Island, but she wasn't, despite having an island all to herself.
I'm still working on my signature...
Genitals being visible doesn't make it child pornography. Genitals being the whole point makes it child pornography.
I haven't seen Nim's Island, but from the little bit I've just seen in the trailer and a quick look at its IMDb board, it seems that it is an entirely different story than The Blue Lagoon. TBL is a story of what happens when two children grow up and fall in love without any benefit or hindrance of society. Presumably Nim's father taught her that it wasn't proper to be running around naked (and Nim took the lesson from Daddy better than Richard and Emmeline took it from Paddy Button).
this post has been deleted because it could no longer keep its anger in check
Genitals being visible doesn't make it child pornography
You're mental.
shareI take that as a compliment. Thanks.
I'm still working on my signature...
Since they were swimming they would obviously not be wearing clothes.
Duh.
I'd never let my kids swim totally naked. THAT would be mental.
I'm still working on my signature...
You don't wear your clothes when you take a bath, do you?
this post has been deleted because it could no longer keep its anger in check
I'm not talking about taking a bath. Even if I was alone on a desert island and wanted to take a swim, I'd keep my clothes on just in case. You never know who's going to pop up, or who's there already, hiding.
I'm still working on my signature...
You've NEVER gone skinny-dipping?
this post has been deleted because it could no longer keep its anger in check
I may have when I was really young, like a baby, but I can't remember that far back.
I'm still working on my signature...
Well, I am rather sure that you have been swimming nude during whole nine months. In the uterus. And if you had a twin he/she would have been watching you all the time.
sharePeople dream of desert islands and tourists consider them to be among the most looked after places so they can be nude and even more free than on ordinary naturist beach.
It is as if you go to a concert and there use screen and earphones to enjoy videos...
Now that's plain weird. Plus, obviously, they didn't have a bathtub there. So, for them, swimming in the ocean WAS taking a bath. Duh.
shareYou have some self-esteem issues. You are even afraid of someone seeing you on a deserted island?
My god, the other guy was right. You are mental.
And no, nudity does not mean porn.
__________________________________
''All art is quite useless'' - Oscar Wilde
[deleted]
Who cares it was all innocent..They were on an island, what do you expext, damn did no on ever go skinny dipping as a kid....
You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..
Better Living Thru Chemistry
I wouldn't either for my kids, but If we're stranded on a tropical island, it's not like w could go put up swimsuits at Target.
Plus, how many sets of clothes did they have on then? One? No more than 3? I'd reckon having dry clothes would win out. Being kids far removed from civilization, they'd have no qualms.
ORANGE for all
__
_____
This was not child porn, some people want to make mountains out of mole hills....
You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..
Better Living Thru Chemistry
{quote]The genitals aren't focused on for a long time, but they're there.[/quote]
What a shame, so many so good surgeons in USA and none of them removed kids' genitals!
Stop your B!tching and enjoy the movie.
As long as it dosen't show childen *beep* eachother, or doing erotic poses for sexual purposes, i'm fine with it.
Damn.
In a French film, Innocence, a whole school full of girls swam in a lake, with no adult supervision. They were wearing their underwear the whole time. It is down to the director of a film to tell the kids what to do. Randal Kleiser is an idiot.
I'm still working on my signature...
WHO.CARES.
Again, if it dosen't have PORN involving children, or erotic poses for sexual purposes, I an everyone else should be fine with it.
Randal Kleiser is an idiot.In what way? I mean, I guess he could be; I don't know the man personally. But he didn't strike me as an idiot in those TBL commentaries.
I seem to remember that in the commentary (it might've been somewhere else, but I definitely heard it), Kleiser mentioned that he originally had the idea to shoot the whole movie in the nude (that's the actors, not him). I stand by my original comment.
I'm still working on my signature...
So he is an idiot because
a) he wanted to shoot the whole movie in the nude
b) he didn't shoot the whole movie in the nude
c) a+b
Please mark the correct answer
Back when I was a director, I always shot my movies in the nude.
But then I gained forty pounds and the actors couldn't stand it anymore.*
This post has been deleted because it could no longer keep its anger in check
* flagged for the humor-impared
Read my comment again. I can't stand repeating things.
shareKleiser mentioned that he originally had the idea to shoot the whole movie in the nude
Actually, the book Tarzan of the Apes explains that Tarzan did indeed start to identify himself as human. He always disliked his hairlessness, because it caused him not to fit in with the other apes. But during his rebellious teen years, he discovered the natives, and started to identify with them, even as he considered them his enemies (because the first one he saw killed his foster mother, Kala). He even made a point of learning to use a bow and arrow, just like them.
This would not have been the case with Richard and Emmeline, as they never saw the Melanesians before their teens, and they had no community to fit in with besides each other. They shouldn't've cared a whit about clothing at all, except for the fun of playing dress-up.
And as you point out, everything they had to dress up in would've rotted away.
- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.
Restrictions on child porn are not about nudity, but about the dirty profiteers that benefit from it. Difference.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
re: Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction
Was it even a second? You'd think it was ten hours of hardcore porn, the way everybody freaked out.
God, people. Have none of you ever seen a nipple before?
Men are strange beasts.
- John Clayton, Lord Greystoke
re: Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction
This film was not child pornography. Besides what was mentioned in above posts about it already, child pornography is when children are exploited and abused. These were ACTORS, and its not a crime to show nudity in actors under the age of 18 IF the parents sign a permission form and/or are present on the film set with their children.
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."
Fiatlux-1 is 100% right. Did the kids have sex in the movie? NO. Did the kids get abused in the movie? NO. Did the kids get raped in the movie while the camera was rolling? NO.
They were just nude. The parents signed a permission slipped and watched the kids throughtout the movie.
Everybody knows that. This movie came out in 1980, if it had child pornography, it would have been banned like 15 years ago.
They were just nude. The parents signed a permission slipped and watched the kids throughout the movie.
i think to many people get uptight when they see a teen nude in a movie. brooke shields is beautiful and the movie was a good movie done in good taste.
sharefunny. i didn´t even NOTICE that there was something "abnormal" in this movie. and i never would have the idea, that this film containes something like pornography. there were just some kids being nude at the beach and in the water. maybe all germans are sick, because here it´s quite normal that kids are nude, if they play at the beach. you even see little kids nude in fountains in the city. and no one cares. when i was a kid, my mum took me and my brother to a park in berlin - and we played nude in the gras. and - oh my god, no one cared!
i think it´s really sad, that people actually have to think about it, if it´s ok to show nude babies and children in such innocent scenes at all. nudity is just something natural, and not necessarily "sexual". kids, that are 3,4 or 5 years old, don´t even know, what the word "sexual" means.
i really had to laugh about the comment about janet jacksons nipple. we had some articles in our yellow press about that "scandal", but the thing, the people were interested in, was not the nipple itself (here you can see nipples in free tv or even in commercials that are much hotter *lol*) it was the hysteria, that nipple caused in america ^^
Well obviously then you Germans must have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world.
Oh wait, that's us.
- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.
[deleted]
Robbie, you're onto something. Back in the 1800's, there was no such thing as a bathing suit and people swam in the nude all the time. Usually it was sex-separated, but in that situation, it was perfectly natural. Also remember, many island tribes (along with African, Australian, and South American tribal culture), they often wear little to no clothing. It is a cultural thing.
shareDamn them body doubles had some tiny breasts.. lol. I'll be honest, it threw me at first to see Chris naked.. but I mean when you thing about it, their alone on an island, and they didn't really have that much cloting anyway. The movie was made to portray what would happen on an island with two people alone. I just wonder how awkward it was for the two of them. Especially the 1st sex scene where "he" is laying on Brooke.. I wonder what was going through her mind.. LOL
shareMy dad recorded me in the bath, singing and playing and through the bubbles you can see pretty much all of me. I was laughing and splashing water everywhere like kids do. That's not child pornography just because I was naked. I know plently of parents who've recorded there children in the bath.
I used to run around naked on beaches aswell, mostly because I wouldn't keep my costume on and there are clips of me like that on my holidays. That's also not child pornography.
A film that doesn't show the genitals being displayed for sexual purposes isn't porn.
]I know why I'm not popular.I'm a *****. Please **** off
Nudity isant porn, Human body's are beautiful just the way they are made so being naked isnt porn or shameful, its only porn when the person taking the movie or photo has the wrong intention for the image, if they want it to be lustful. and this movie is about love.
shareVery true. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the nudity was actually of adults: Chris Atkins being over 18 at the time and Brooke Shields using a body double who was in her 30s.
The only 'under-age' nudity was of Elva Josephson and Glenn Kohan (Young Emmeline and Richard); and Chad Timmerman and Bradley Pryce (baby and child Paddy respectively) and these are only scenes of them playing on the beach. Hardly constitutes porn, does it??
I think that this topic could go on for eternity!
shareI think that this topic could go on for eternity!Probably. Or, as Must Be Tuesday put it:
Pornography is something that is intended to sexual arouse or stimulate someone. If Brooke was touching herself or randomly spreading her legs or something sexual, then it would be porn. If the director wanted, he could have had Brooke walking around the island fully nude WITHOUT the use of a body double, and it still wouldn't have been porn. The nudity is shown in a naturalistic and realistic setting, it is not intended to be sexual. People who think that an underage nude scene immediately constitutes child porn are retarded.
In American Beauty, Thora Birch was only 16 and she had a topless scene.
In The Secret Garden, Kate Maberly was only 10 and she is also shown topless.
In Once Upon A Time In America, Jennifer Connelly is shown nude from behind and she was only 13.
In Bolero, Olivia D'Abo is seen almost fully nude and she was only 14.
In Lawn Dogs, Mischa Barton is shown topless and she was 10.
In Pretty Baby, Brooke Shields is shown fully nude (front and back) and she was only 12.
In Return to the Blue Lagoon, Milla Jovovich was 15 and she had topless scenes and she was 16 when she was nude in Chaplin.
In Heavenly Creatures, Melanie Lynskey was 15 and Kate Winslet was 17 and both have brief topless scenes (their breasts are semi-visible whilst bathing together, Lynskey is briefly nude in a sex scene, and both are nude during the lesbian sex scene.)
All these scenes are shown in a non-sexual way, so they are acceptable. In fact even sexually, underage nudity can still be used;
Michelle Johnson was 17 when she was fully nude in Blame it on Rio, including during sexual scenes.
Phoebe Cates was only 17 when she filmed her nude scenes for Fast Times At Ridgemont High and Paradise (which included full frontal nudity) and these scenes included sex scenes.
In The Hole, Keira Knightly has a topless scene during a very sexual scene, and she was 15.
Also everyone worries about Brooke Shields being nude, but no one has pointed out the nude toddler running around. Why are the two any different? Both are underage, both are nude.
I like pigs. Dogs look up to you, cats down on you. Pigs treat you as equals.
[deleted]
In the year 2109, a seventeen year old girl named Anzu James attends a movie convention in the nude. Her two friends go as Marilyn Monroe and the Bride of Frankenstein. Another con-goer, dressed as Darth Vader, asks her:
“I recognize the Bride of Frankenstein and Marilyn Monroe,” he said, in that deep echoing voice, “but who are you supposed to be?”Later, a man she meets suggests that she add Nastassja Kinski from To the Devil... A Daughter.
Time for my list.
“I’m Shirley Mills in Child Bride,” I announced, “and Shirley Temple in Curly Top. I’m Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby. I’m Olivia Hussey in Romeo & Juliet, Jenny Agutter in Walkabout. I’m Kate Maberly in The Secret Garden. I’m Olivia D’Abo in Bolero, Melanie Griffith in Night Moves, Tatum O’Neal in Circle of Two and Daniella Edmund in Alien 3. I’m Mischa Barton in Lawn Dogs and Thora Birch in American Beauty.”
Boy, you got that right.
Have a look at this:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2006/07/18/photos
Let's just say that God doesn't believe in me.
Thanks for the link, Molly.
Having read the article, and also having had a bug up my arse about precisely this sort of injustice for many years, I was quite naturally incensed and appalled by the specifics of the story.
The witch hunt described - and all the countless others that occur in America each year - makes me sick to my stomach. I can't believe I live in a world where peoples lives are at such risk from over zealous, ill-informed, ignorant, stupid, judgemental authorities (and drug store employees!)
Every time this subject comes up I become enraged all over again! The article was very well written, and perfectly described the senseless injustice of it all. And, more specifically to this particular thread, it also highlighted to me the dangers inherent in owning a DVD of the Blue Lagoon!
The OP has proven (as if we needed any further evidence of the inherent stupidity of some folks!) that even a film as innocent and tame as The Blue Lagoon can be perceived by some as child porn. And knowing what I know from the article I've just read, and many other similar accounts, it is entirely conceivable that ownership of this attractive and innocuous movie could result in hideous accusations and unthinkable repercussions.
I think I'll burn my copy now!
The OP has proven (as if we needed any further evidence of the inherent stupidity of some folks!) that even a film as innocent and tame as The Blue Lagoon can be perceived by some as child porn.
Odd, I was thinking the same thing. People who think it's child porn completely miss the point. It's actually quite the opposite: the nudity is is used to portray childhood innocence.