MovieChat Forums > Return to the Blue Lagoon (1991) Discussion > um dude, why isn't the little girl weari...

um dude, why isn't the little girl wearing a shirt?


can they do that? is it legal to do in movies? it was kind of disturbing to see her without her shirt running around the island.

reply

I actually find it disturbing that you find it disturbing.
'88

reply

Agreed. For God's sake if you are worried about the girl not wearing a shirt, don't watch the 1980 prequel where the kids are running round with nothing on at all! .

reply

That is what I liked best of the sequel over the original... the little girl was only topless and she was cute, where in the original the girl was cute but way over exposed!

reply

Blocherd I don't know if by exposed you mean simply completely uncovered or if you think Elva Josephson who played the child version of Em was pressured into doing these scenes and essentially exploited and I also wonder if you think that any of the other child or teen actor were pressured into doing any scenes less than fully clothed. I have scene the original movie and listened to the directors commentary many times and the only person in the first movie who is mentioned to have any problem doing scenes less than fully clothed is Brooke Shields who to make the scenes work she is always is somehow covered or has a body double. That said if they were willing to compromise for one of the major actors I imagine if either of the child actors who played young Em or Richard had said they didn't want to any or some of the scenes naked they would have found another way to make the scenes work. Also this applies to both movies as I and many other people on this conversation have said children are naturally immodest so maybe when they hired the kids who played the younger versions of the characters they probably asked when they interviewed them with a parent present if the child had any objections to doing the scene less than fully clothed. Also I am pretty sure that it was after the 1980's movie was made that people got frankly paranoid about child nudity. I am not sure when you saw the original movie but at most the children versions of Em and Richard are fully naked for a few minutes when they first decided to go swimming they are originally wearing undergarments but not long after they take those off likely because the wet clothes were uncomfortable as well as the heat right after that Paddy is chasing them trying to make them wear something to no avail in both these scenes they can be seen frontally nude but if you blink you can miss it around the same time they are both playing on the sand clearly still naked but as they are facing away from the camera you don't see much.

reply

Totally agree, and I am sure that they gave their approval and mother's consent when they were being casted! These kids are also from England, and Europeon children commonly swim topless (possibly nude).

reply

If you find this offensive, you better not ever watch Superman: The Movie.

reply

Why? She has no boobs, she's a little kid. Why are westerners sexualizing a 6yr old? You see kids like that everyday, no one bats an eye.

reply