Hey, love the movie, and I'm a big fan of Mia Kirshner's
Now this came out in 1994' and Mia was born in 76'
So in 86 she was 10 years old.
In 96' she would have been 20
But if this was in 94'
That would mean she's 18 in it.
But wait, her birthday is the 25th of January, so if they filmed the nude scens in 93'
Then she was underage when they where filmed, when was the movie filmed?
Barbarella Owns you all!
Formerly known as the_duke37
Not sure of the dates, but this was filmed in Canada. And she wasn't having simulated sex.
Look at Lyne's recent LOLITA. There were many suggestive scenes, and some nudity, if I remember correctly, or close to it, and Swain was only 15 at the time of filming, I believe.
When you say "underage", what do you mean underage for?
"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun
Well, I know that in the states, it's illagal to film anyone under the age of 18 nude. I'm not sure about Canada though.
For some reason movies always seam to get around this.
Barbarella Owns you all!
Formerly known as the_duke37
Legally speaking, nudity—or even simulated or explicit sex (see P.S.)—is not the same thing as obscenity.
A minor can be filmed or photographed nude, as long as you have the consent of a legal guardian, and as long as it is not done in an obscene manor. The legal definition of obscene in America is: the portrayal of human sexual behavior with the goal of sexual arousal and without artistic merit—manor.
The exact line between artistic nude, and obscene can be hard to legally define, and has varied from time-to-time, and place-to-place. But it does not included simple nudity (children or adults). If it is not legally obscene, than it is not “child porn” either.
In Pretty Baby (1978, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078111/), Brook Shields was filmed fully nude at the age of 12 (she turned 13 close to the film’s release). To this day Pretty Baby is generally considered to have artistic merit—therefore it is not obscene—and can be shown legally in the United States.
Now, I am not a lawyer, and some of the recent laws designed to protect children, may make filming scenes like these more complicated in the future… (and I am not saying that’s a bad thing) There will be lawsuits and/or prosecutions, but if the material is simply non-obscene underage nudity, then the producer will win in the end if they are willing to fight in court.
Even so, existing films will almost assuredly be grandfathered (out of practicality if nothing else).
P.S. sex scenes
Explicit sex with a minor has always been illegal. However, based on the rules for nudity, a non-explicit sex scene involving a minor is theoretically legal, if the production has artistic merit. Having said that recent laws have made "simulated sex" with a minor illegal as part of a ban on virtual child porn, and so most studios would not currently consider even borderline legal scenes, due to negative publicity, and the inevitable NC-17 rating.
The reverse is more interesting. We all know that adults can perform explicit sex legally in the United States with no practical requirement of artistic merit (most porn), but there is a catch. Under a recent U.S. law, adults that look underage, and who are portrayed as underage, may not perform explicit sex acts. This is part of a ban on “virtual child porn” that has not yet faced a complete Supreme Court ruling.
In the commentary track for "The Girl Next Door" they mention that during the scene where the main character is running down the street naked (showing him from behind running down a dark street - so you can see his ass) they had to use a body-double because the actor was only 17 at the time and they weren't allowed to show him naked, even in such a limited way.
So who knows?
They're wrong or it was a regional thing, because in Now & Then there is scene of a similar nature and they are clearly not doubles.
"Passion is just insanity in a cashmere sweater!"
[deleted]
well, you make a lot of sense. but in the case of this movie, i'd like to see a producer argue for "artistic nudity" (and definitely not sexual arousal) to a judge about a scene where an underage female plays a stripper and dances with her shirt open in a club called exotica. Seems like a tough sale.
anyway, for those who can't help defending the movie as not an erotic movie - I know, I agree, I really liked the movie. Still wouldn't want to be the producer who'd have to plead that case. yikes.
>>well, you make a lot of sense. but in the case of this movie, i'd like to see a producer argue for "artistic nudity" (and definitely not sexual arousal) to a judge about a scene where an underage female plays a stripper and dances with her shirt open in a club called exotica. Seems like a tough sale.
anyway, for those who can't help defending the movie as not an erotic movie - I know, I agree, I really liked the movie. Still wouldn't want to be the producer who'd have to plead that case. yikes. <<
Dancing with her shirt open is as far as it went; under circumstances where it was clear that the rules prohibited the customer from touching her. Hard to have sex without physical contact. Think about the movie "American Beauty" and the scene were an underage (then 17) Thora Birch takes her bra off in the window when she knows the boy next door is watching her. Certainly it's meant to be arousing, but clearly there can be no sexual contact (there's two windows and a yard between them). There are a number of movies with underage nudity in them. Walkabout - the australian outback movie has Jenny Agutter taking a swim full nude at age 13 with her brother and an aborigine who's sexually aroused by her. Or you might see "To the Devil, a Daughter" which featured Nasstassja Kinski in full frontal nudity at age 14 appearing to tempt (and seduce) the hero; again there was no contact and it was actually just an image of her, not her physical presence (in the film).
Of those films though, it's pretty clear that American Beauty is an "artistic" film (Academy Awards Best Picture); Exotica is also an "artistic" film not a film designed to inspire lust. Once you've seen the whole picture it becomes clear that Francis' attachment to Christina is not so much sexual, but rather an attachment to his child, who was murdered and who Christina used to babysit. Walkabout is another "artsy" film. To the Devil a Daughter is a plain horror movie, and probably the one with the most exploitive use of underage nudity. That's probably the one I'd be most likely to ban on those grounds. In Exotica, despite the fact that she's dancing in a strip club, I don't recall that you got more than a half second half glimpse of a tit inside an open shirt - and you might have even imagined that for how quick it came and went. In any event, that's my take on it.
Thora Birch was 16 when she filmed American Beauty. It was released when she was 17.
shareA body double was used for the nude scenes in LOLITA.
share[deleted]
Moot point actually, she was born in '75 not '76 so she was 19 when this was released and 18 at the time of shooting.
share18 is the age of concent in canada. so she was not a minor.
Martyswild: Its A State Of Mind
Someone referring to Brooke Sheilds in Pretty Baby was probably correct. Or is correct, whatever, anyhow, I recently read she lost rights to a picture taken of her naked as a 10 year old and is hung up in some museum, I think in New York, because it was considered Art, and sorry, she was nude, not naked. Apparently, they quoted her as being embarrassed by the picture. That is not the exact vocabulary that would come to my mind. I don't know how Terri could allow that, especially back then.
shareJBowmore, thansk for your reply, very helpfull.
To the other replies, what is wrong with you? Read my entire post. I said, If filming was done in 93' she would be 17.
Also, according to everything I've read, she was born in 76' and is tuning 30 in a few days.
Please, to make IMDb an easier place to use, read my entire post :P
Barbarella Owns you all!
Formerly known as the_duke37
Then why would you even POST this crap??? Some of us have great strengths in language, but not in mathematics. Why try to "trick" people by wasting our time with this worthless post? *shakes head*
shareI don't know why you're bringing this up thefearedmachina. Plenty of underage actors do nude scenes all the time. I'm not sure but I think if they're under 18 they have to have the consent of a parent.
Anyway, was Mia Kirschner even nude in this film? I haven't seen it in awhile but I don't remember her ever being naked.
strip club scenes she was briefly nude. Shirt flashes open a few times.
I think the line here is whether it is nudity or simulated sex. Like I said before, look at Lyne's LOLITA. They had to be very careful about how they filmed Swain's scenes, because even though the audience understands what is implied, they still had to film it without simulated sex. Kirshner has no simulated sex scenes in EXOTICA, she's just topless a few times in the strip club scenes. And I'm not an expert on Canadian law, so I don't know what guidelines they had to follow. Also, who cares? This was more than a decade ago, and if something was wrong or illegal, it would have been prosecuted already.
"Nice beaver!"
"Thanks, I just had it stuffed."--The Naked Gun
Ok, you got me. But isn't there a law against an adult portraying someone underage doing sexual things? Like you can't have a 20 year old woman pretending to be 15 and then show graphic sex or nudity. I thought I heard that somewhere. I guess even with a body double they had to be careful about what they 'pretended' to portray.
There is no night as deep as this
Inevitable mind's abyss
Where I now dwell with foes alone
[deleted]
Saw parts of it, but I wasn't inclined to see the whole thing. I like more substance than just sex; something that movie apparently was all about.
There is no night as deep as this
Inevitable mind's abyss
Where I now dwell with foes alone
[deleted]
If an actor is of age, then they are of age. Whom they are portraying is irrelevant. That is why they deliberately use of age actors to portray underage characters. If you start messing with that, then you have a state where the government can dictate content, and that's just not the case in Western countries including the U.S.
shareActually, Mia was born in 1975. The movie was released in 94, but probably filmed in 1993. So in January of 1993 she turned 18. Whats the problem???
"I was born a poor black child..." -Navin Johnson (The Jerk)
No, Mia Kirshner was born in 1976. She was underage in this movie but she had her parents permission.
shareUmm, check her IMDB page. She was born January 25th, 1975. I was born in 1976 though. Just facts...
"I was born a poor black child..." -Navin Johnson (The Jerk)
Most sources say she was born in 1976. And in an interview she said that she needed her parents permission to do nudity. Her father had to sign some contract.
shareHmmm. I do see that. I was going according to my textbook for my Criticism of Broadcast Media class at UCDavis. But I see that most net fan sites, including Mr.Skin has her pegged at 1976. She made a movie in 1993 where she appears topless in called Love and Human Remains according to Mr.Skin. Must have needed permission for that too.
"I was born a poor black child..." -Navin Johnson (The Jerk)
She was born in 1975, according to every official source out there. Why would an actress who is now over 30 want to lie about her age to seem OLDER?
shareI believe that before Exotica, Mia played a dominatrix in a Canadian movie (can't remember the title). Don't think she was nude in it.
share[deleted]
Probably fudged on the year of her birth to stay marketable longer. I don't think the producers would take a chance on an underage woman. But then again there was nothing explicit and Brooke Shields played a much more daring role at a younger age in the film "Pretty Baby".
Live Long and Prosper!