MovieChat Forums > meathead > Replies
meathead's Replies
That's because prosecutors know a big studio could afford to pay excellent lawyers that would rip the prosecutor's case to threads by citing Supreme Court rulings and other precedents on the matter (which state that child nudity is not automatically child porn), whereas some regular guy taking a home movie of his kids in the bath would be seen as an easy mark unable to defend himself whose prosecution would make them look "tough on crime".
LOL, it would be her vulva and pubic cleft, not her vagina, which is internal. And you do see it in the original film.
Because the original film did show such, you are viewing the cut version.
Because it does show full frontal nudity in two scenes - the first is when Brooke is in the tub and stands up and turns around while clutching a towel - in the uncut version of the film, you absolutely do see her pubic cleft quite clearly when she stands up and starts to turn. You are probably going by the current American DVD release, where the lower half of the screen is cut off above what used to be shown, so that you only see her lower belly. This doesn't change the content of the original film. Brooke's pubic cleft is also partly visible in the scene where she is lying nude on the couch - this is present in the DVD release. Inappropriate or not, the nudity is there.
It's one thing to hold that showing a minor's genitals in a movie where the character is presented in a sexual manner is unacceptable, and quite another to say it should be automatically unacceptable to show such in an innocent situation and manner, such as a scene of a mother bathing her child or a child skinny-dipping. And what the hell does the presence or absence of pubic hair have to do with it? Would you be just fine with a full-frontal nude scene of a 12-year old girl, as long as she had sufficient pubic hair to fully conceal her pubic cleft? I guess Maladolescenza is fine in your book then.
Oh, all right, then no, there's no evidence that they used condoms. It's doubtful they put that much thought into it - they may have assumed that because of the girl's ages, they could not get pregnant (which would be a stupid assumption, especially considered both girls were "developed" and presumably had their periods). And that's assuming that the boy had access to condoms in the fictional universe, which he may not have. But I doubt the potential consequences of unprotected sex ever crossed any of their minds.
She was indeed 14. She was born Jan. 22 1969, and the movie was filmed (shot) from April-August 1983, per IMDB, so yeah she definitely was 14. (The character she plays - Paloma - is only 13.) As to the legality of it... it depends. Just showing a 14-year old girl nude taking a bath might not be illegal if the scene is presented matter-of-factly and in a non-erotic fashion (i.e. as in an art film), but this scene occurs in a soft-porn film that is all about showing skin and the dialogue about the girl Paloma is pretty questionable both in this scene and elsewhere. Here, Lida (Bo Derek) comments on Paloma's developing body (which we are given a good look at, front and back) and Paloma proudly responds "I am woman, ready. Juicy, too" which makes her out to be an object of desire. Of course, slightly earlier in the film Paloma says that she expects to be "taken" sexually by Paul when she is a bit older, to which Lida outrageously replies "I hope your fourteenth birthday comes soon" with the clear implication that she will lose her virginity to Paul at that time. (Miraculously, Paloma is still a virgin at film's end, far as I can tell.) How the hell D'abo's parents agreed to this is beyond me.
Yeah, I've seen a few sort-porn movies of the Emanuelle type (and of the series), but none of them had anything like this. (O.K. so a few had nudity of girls in the 17-year old range, but pretty tame with this in comparison.) I can't believe none of the cast objected to this knowing the girl's age. And where were the girl's parents? I wonder what the hell the laws were in Cypress at the time - was this actually legal to film?
Is it intercut, even? Yes, he's show touching her nude body during the sculpting sequence, but given that he is blind we would expect that - even if he had no sexual interest in the girl at all, all he's got to finish the sculpture is his sense of touch. Only after he completes the sculpture does the sex scene per se begin, with him lowering her to the floor. So what we see is actually in chronological order, as far as I can tell. That he sexually desires her is pretty well established throughout the film - his interest clearly goes beyond wanting to sculpt her. She is also clearly infatuated with him, and the fact that she never make the slightest attempt to resist what he is doing during the sex scene - no struggles, no cries of "stop" or "wait" - suggests that this is neither a surprise nor unwanted. I think she was perfectly aware that he would have intercourse with her if she went to see him, and wanted it to happen.
... this doesn't fly. If they were not intimate, why would she be nude in his bed? We know he felt her nude body all over while making the sculpture, and we see the finished sculpture during the scenes you admit are real (after her mother finds her, she gets dressed and they enter his studio), and we see him doing followed by the sex scene, with nothing to indicate a transition from actual to fantasy. Moresoever, the sex scene is more explicit that a young virgin would likely be able to conjure up in her head, including her clenching her teeth in momentary pain at the instant she loses her virginity. Why would she include that in the fantasy? Also, consider who directed and wrote the film, and there is no reason not to believe that Paul actually had intercourse with Laura. She probably looks disappointed because of some feelings of regret (after the fact) over having had sex at such a young age, or perhaps feeling that Paul used her (which is somewhat unfair since the sex only happened because she freely chose to go to him - no visit, no sex.)
The fact that they seized your copy is neither evidence for or against its legality - police often will base their actions on what they assume is illegal or want to be illegal, regardless of what the law actually says (and showing them the laws/statues in question protecting your right to own something will not result in an apology, dropping of charges, and return of your stuff, but rather a doubling-down). And the fact that there is a prior Supreme Court ruling protecting artistic child nudity will not prevent your arrest and conviction if the authorities and a jury choose to ignore it. (I'm shocked they let you go after seizing your copy - after all, if it's illegal, shouldn't they have held you and charged you with a crime? And if you didn't commit a crime, they had no right to seize your property.)
They didn't actually have sex - they did all but, but they did not have actual intercourse - at least, not while the cameras were running...
Kinski's official government records show she was underage, sorry.
Do you recall which one that was or any information?
However, I have seen her actual birth record - the official government one - and the DOB it gives definitely makes her no more than 14-15 when the scene was shot. Her Wikipedia entry discusses the fact that her DOB was fudged to make her older than she actually was.
That's not correct. Neither had stand-ins in their most infamous nude scenes - Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby and Kinski in To the Devil a Daugher. In both you clearly see their faces and privates at the same time - Brooke when she get up in the tub and turns around and also while lying down on a sofa to be photographed, and Kinski when she is walking full-frontal towards the camera in the scene near the ending of To The Devil A Daughter. (Shields did have a stand-in in the Blue Lagoon, and in several scenes in Pretty Baby she did wear a skin-colored cloth over her privates - but in the scenes where she is wearing the cloth her pubic cleft is not visible, whereas it clearly is in the two scenes I mentioned). Wishing they did not do something does not make it so. Oliva D'abo was full nude at age 14 in a bathtub scene in Bolero, and Livia Russo (an otherwise unknown actress) was extensively nude in the Laura Gemser flick Emanuelle: Queen of Sados (the BBC cut 7 minutes of her nude for the British DVD release under the Protection of Children Act; the American DVD, oddly, was allowed to be released totally uncut - go figure.)
There is also a poster you can order online with a publicity pic from the set of her topless in the tub, a image not taken directly from the film, and it is close-up and crystal clear that it's her. Great view of her face as well as... ahem, her assets.
Yeah, I've seen her DOB entry in the General Registry of London myself - it's definitely her. Remember, folks, they give the parent's names too in those entries, so what are the odds that two people with the exact same first and last names as D'abo's parents gave birth to a baby girl in London, D'abo's birthplace, and gave her the same first and last name and it's not her? LOL.
It's just that people are getting frustrated when they show that official government records have a DOB that makes her 14, and yet people insist on her being older as if those records didn't exist.
The official records at the General Registry of London would have to be wrong, too.
And in any case Bolero was shot first - the cast of Conan the Destroyer celebrated D'abo's 15th birthday on the set in January of 1984. Bolero had wrapped up filming months before.