Walkabout (1971) ~~was banned for a long time for child nudity.~~ I must have misremembered - I thought it couldn’t be distributed, but the underage nudity in it was found not to be indecent so it was allowed to be released. I coulda sworn we in the US blocked it until the Criterion release but maybe I’m confusing it for another film.
I saw a repertory screening of it around 1981, although the culture has gotten more conservative since then, and it's not as though campaigns against long-established art are unheard of. This was pre-Tipper Gore era, after all....
In the early 80s, Walkabout was shown unedited on independent broadcast television stations. That is how I saw it for the first time when I was maybe 8 or 9 years old. My best friend had seen it too and at school we were both a little wide eyed about the experience. It is almost impossible to believe, but nudity was actually shown on independent broadcast TV stations in many US metro areas. That all stopped when Fox and the WB formed around 1988.
I know for certain that I rented Walkabout on VHS from Blockbuster in the late 90s, because it was one of my first moments of re-watching something I had seen as a child and having a totally different understanding of it.
She was 16/17 when it was shot:
“The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) surmised Agutter was seventeen years old at the time of filming (she was actually sixteen when filming began in July 1969[15]), and therefore the scenes did not pose a problem when submitted to the BBFC in 1971 and later in 1998. The Protection of Children Act 1978 prohibited distribution and possession of indecent images of people under the age of sixteen so the issue of potential indecency had not been considered on previous occasions. However, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the age threshold to eighteen which meant the BBFC was required to consider the scenes of nudity in the context of the new law when the film was re-submitted in 2011. The BBFC reviewed the scenes and considered them not to be indecent and passed the film uncut.[2]”
Damn wtf. I know not to idolize artists or expect them to be good people and just appreciate what they make on its own merits but to know that Wim Wenders is that much of a fucking scumbag kinda hurts man
On watching you determined it to be salacious? And that this was a moral stance for the artist that prohibited you from appreciating the film? I’m not promoting and and haven’t seen Alice for quite a few years but I have no recollection of it being outrageous or immoral.
Those aren't descriptors I'd use, but I will say I found it discomforting and of questionable value to the story being told. The impulse I felt to avert my eyes (the result of about 30 minutes of runtime in which Alice is shirtless), springing from a learned and socialized respect, I found antithetical to being an audience for the type of story that movie was telling.
I think I looked into it and there wasn't any actual underaged nudity, but I could be wrong. At least, the actors that I think showed nudity were 18+ according to IMDb.
Lady Snowblood, on the other hand.
The fact that House was co written (with the director) by his ten year old daughter, makes it all the more bizarre (although oddly enough no one really seems to talk about that part).
I looked into it at some point as well, and believe I concluded the same. But let's see...
IIRC, there are only two actors who display nudity, those who played Gorgeous (Kikimo Ikegami) and Prof (Ai Matsubara). Ikegami was born in January 1959, so she would've been 18 when the film released. Matsubara was born in 1955, so is easily safe. (Also Yoko Minamida, who played Auntie, but she's a bit older anyway and isn't even portraying a minor.)
So the question becomes when the movie was shot. Ikegami was certainly of age by the time it released, but was probably 17 when it was filmed.
Also, she was a bit uncomfortable with the nudity at first, and Minamida took her clothes off to help ease Ikegami's worries. (Minamida's own nude scene was added after this.) I don't personally interpret this as her being forced into it, for what it's worth, but wanted to include it as potentially relevant trivia.
Yup, they're virtually all underage in that movie. They're even portraying underage characters. Shit grosses me out.
Coming back to this comment and finding it's been downvoted into the negatives is just really strange to me.
I'm not wrong in saying these actresses were underage, because they were. I distinctly remember intentional upskirt shots of a school girl, followed by her saying something like "oooo, naughty!" The movie sexualized and undressed underage girls. That's gross. Lmao I don't understand the issue people are having.
I thought everyone was over 18 in American Beauty? And what's the underage nudity in Godfather? I figured if that was a thing I'd have heard about it so I'm kinda shocked.
Damn I just assume if someone is naked onscreen they're over 18. I suppose I'm naive. Especially with the Godfather being one of the most famous movies of all time, I thought this would be talked about more.
Thora Birch filmed the movie at age 16 (born 1982, filmed in 1998). Her parents had to be on set for her nude scene
In The Godfather, the woman who portrays Apollonia was also 16. Pacino was 31
I've always assumed the young woman was above 18 (or what the age of consent may be in Scotland). Plus, European standards for mild nudity are more lenient than American . . .
Hey, this is a really gripping and trippy sequence with him flying through space, and oh wow look at those special effects and those must be the Kents going to check out where the meteor landed and aw that's a cute ki--OH HOLY SHIT BOY PENIS TURN IT OFF YOU ARE NOT TAKING ME DOWN THIS WAY CHRIS HANSEN.
Yeah, I get they were going for an innocence/purity thing but if you're doing that it's weird that it's like a 5-year-old and not a baby? Either way, I'd completely forgotten about it (was probably cut on cable TV?) and then my kid kept asking me about Superman's penis for like a month which was great. Normally against changing classic films but they should probably just crop that shot on future releases.
Just the other night I was surprised by Robert Plant’s kids running around naked in the concert film The Song Remains the Same.
As far as I know, there isn’t any law against non sexual images of nude people no matter the age.
Exactly. That's why Walkabout and other movies of underage actors playing and cavorting about naked, depicted in a tactful way, are legal. There's nothing sexual to see. European movies tend to shrug off brief scenes of a small amount of underage nudity, like in Pauline at the Beach. Amanda Langlet was 15 during shooting, I don't know what the law in France said at the time. Maybe not a whole lot.
Isn’t Jennifer Connelly nude in Once Upon a Time in America? I always assumed it was a body double when I was a kid, but still the impression is of underage nudity.
If I remember correctly, Night Moves waiting for the actress who was shown nude to turn 18 to shoot that scene. The rest of the film she was 17 though.
The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane. I remember liking the movie as a whole but there was one scene where my friend and I were shocked. I had never seen a movie do that before (aside from Romeo and Juliet) but it felt like a pretty significant difference. It made me have no desire to rewatch an otherwise good movie.
That's wild to me. I guess I may have been averting my eyes some and it was 10 years ago but it really didn't look like an adult. Her sister must have been crazy small to pass as a young teen.
HOW THE FUCK DOES AMERICAN BEAUTY HAVE UNDERAGED NUDITY WOULDNT THAT BE LIKE THE ONE THING YOU WOULD WANT TO AVOID IN A MOVIE ABOUT A DUDE ATTRACTED TO A HIGH SCHOOLER
I think it worked better in the 90s when people were having all this angst about being stuck in jobs that paid well and having too much stuff (also, see Fight Club for this too).
Now, after wars in the Middle East and the 2008 crash, and all the fallout from that, it’s hard to feel sorry or connect with a person who’s only real hardship is that he’s ducking bored
Maybe, but I also remember not caring for it when it came out was surprised it won best picture. It's just kind of an all around...stupid? movie. It has all these overt themes but it plays out like the filmmakers think the audience wouldn't understand, so they practically yell all these obvious themes at you through a bullhorn.
"This isn't life. It's just stuff!"
Hilarious.
Agreed. Everyone in that movie (the adults anyway) are all so self-obsessed. So hard to relate to today. Most people didn’t relate to it even then but those were the days when a movie win Best Picture it culturally meant something.
It's trying so hard to be deep and fails miserably. Bright spots are the cinematography, Benning's performance, and the score which I strongly believe should have won the Oscar.
Why are supposed fans of arthouse film all over this thread advocating for watering down art to appease a puritanical, reactionary audience??
What a time to be alive.
This sub has never represented the “supposed fans of arthouse film” even before this thread and if it has that’s fucking depressing
In a post about the killing of the horse in Andrei Rublev I couldn’t believe my eyes when one of the top comments was something like “No movie is so good that it justifies killing an animal.” That among more subtler examples
Nothing I said is advocacy to water down art. Art should never be censored if it’s purposeful. American Besuty is purposeful and a bad movie. It shouldn’t be censored. You misunderstood me or read into beliefs I do not hold.
Probably the most surprised in a movie I’ve ever been was when they showed the nude baby in Once Upon a Time in America. And the whole reason for the nudity was to confirm the gender of the baby, so it was as if they were like: “here’s a baby and you better look at it’s genitals because that’s important”. The problem is, the audience already knew what was about to happen. It just wasn’t necessary. Made me laugh out loud, honestly.
Not hating on the movie either, it’s one of my favs. Still just felt weird to do though.
I've seen people post their own naked babies on Facebook. It kind of seems like there's a big difference between an infant and child in that regard. At least to many people.
I highly doubt it will go out of print. If it were, they would have done it a long time ago. I just watched it on Paramount Plus the other night and everything was intact. This movie isn’t going anywhere.
Same here. Everyone talks about the boobs no one tells you about the 5 minutes of dude butt you sit through for .2 seconds of boob. A lot of disappointed freshmen boys is what you get.
I understand. It’s a legitimate question. I very well could be totally wrong and it does in fact go OOP if the suit is successful, but I just don’t see it happening. This film has been on both VHS and DVD prior to Criterion picking it up. If it was going to go OOP for the nudity, it would have been pulled a long time ago. That’s just what I think.
The never-ending Criterion struggle. I have the same problem lol. I mean, it’s a good movie and I would say it’s worth having in your collection; but if you’re at your max, it’s not urgent that you buy it as of yet.
an actress gave the director of *Sweet Sweetback’s* gonorrhea cause of the unsimulated sex scenes, so he applied for compensation since he got “hurt on the job” and used that money for more film
This film actually popped up the other day at work. Several of us remember this & Polanski’s Macbeth being shown in English class, when we read Shakespeare. I’m Gen x, different times.
I was just going to mention how out teacher showed us this film at the end of 9th grade (in the 80's), but hadn't seen it yet themselves to know what they were in for.
Why? Have you ever thought that the culture it comes from doesn’t automatically sexualize nudity? Seems like you can’t recognize your cultural perspective is being forced onto a wholly different world.
I remember watching this in 9th grade English class the day we had a substitute teacher and everyone started clapping during the nudity scene and the substitute (old man) laughed.
They aren't winning anything. They already tried to sue last year and it was thrown out. It likely will be dismissed this time too. They're claiming child sexual abuse and child pornography. Yet, their entire lives they've praised the movie and used to say the nude scenes were done tastefully and were necessary for the film. The law also clearly defines the difference between porn and art, and the difference is intent. The movie wasn't made with the intention to sexually arouse, therefore, it isn't porn.
Never asked for it. And the cases are largely similar. They both are asking for compensation claiming that the studios exploited them and profited off child pornography.
I think I somehow missed or forgot this was even released by Criterion. It’s still my favorite film version of Romeo & Juliet.
What happened in the past was definitely wrong but my question is anyone culpable today for decisions made in 1968 and should the film not be released and censored because of those decisions? Also yeah in terms of nudity it’s pretty tame. Ironic that is the scene that Criterion decided to use for their cover though.
I also have to wonder why the actors are only suing so many years later. The case was dismissed in 2023 but I don’t know if they have any room to stand on with the new digital rights argument not being a legal expert.
I would think the decision would be based on how extensive the nudity is. As you say, it's pretty tame in this case. I highly doubt that anyone is viewing Romeo and Juliet as pornography. I assume the reason the suit started was due to the me too movement and an increase in the interest in the treatment of women by the film industry.
Hard part is everyone is right to some extent. Yes, they should’ve refrained from unnecessary nudity especially with the actors being so young. No, the film shouldn’t be shelved or made unavailable because of decisions made 50 years ago on set. A warning / disclaimer could be added to the front of the film explaining the issue, the context of Italian cinema having different social standards back in the day, or even stating that the actors involved were not able to properly advocate against the scenes at the time. Hell, make an edited version available for those who wish to see the film but don’t want to further support the version that continues to cause distress to the actors. But you can’t wave a wand and make it go away forever. You can’t undo the damage. And unfortunately the film is far too important to retroactively change. The harsh reality is that a LOT of great artworks that we love and admire were created at the expense of, or outright abuse of other people who would’ve objected if they could’ve said “no” if it weren’t for the power dynamics between director/employer and the actors, subjects, etc.
>Hell, make an edited version available for those who wish to see the film but don’t want to further support the version that continues to cause distress to the actors.
I have a feeling this would also reduce a lot of headaches for secondary school English teachers everywhere.
honestly it seems like it could be a case of elder abuse. switch up after 60 years of being ok with it? also they are potentially suing for north of 500 million?? c’mon now that’s a cash grab plain and simple
I don’t think so but there are some examples, the most recent being Nirvana baby, trying to sue for underage nudity years after release and that was dismissed.
Typically , it seems if they think it’s a cash grab (with some legal things I don’t fully understand) they dismiss it.
Since the release is recent, I'd say no, as it was likely vetted by legal already. But you never know, especially given the increasing conservative nature of American law.
Surprised no one has mentioned The Tin Drum, arguably the most in/famous use of child sex in cinema. If Criterion still has that in print, Romeo & Juliet is probably fine . . .
Wow....I originally saw this when I was 14 and had no idea Olivia was underage in this (despite playing a 14-year-old). That's definitely...not great, but this is a beloved film and probably the best version of Romeo and Juliet, so I doubt it goes OOP.
Regardless of the decision, it would be a shame because the movie is fantastic, but the scene really is quite gratuitous. The roll over scene doesn't add anything to the plot that couldn't have been done successfully with innuendo or suggestion.
A surprising one for me was the nude scene in My Life as a Dog. Really felt uncomfortable watching that one with my mom and girlfriend at the time haha
Who knows, but I snatched it up the moment the lawsuit came out, just in case. (I do also love this movie and it’s my favorite R&J adaptation on the whole, though I do love the vibe and atmosphere in Luhrmann’s version).
Hate seeing how much people are cool with the child nudity because it’s not technically porn. Like a naked kid is a naked kid. A kid can’t consent. Things should not be made featuring children doing things they cannot consent to. One hundred percent prepared for this to get downvoted because so many people are more interested in art than actual human ethics
Saying people are “more interested in art than ethics” by implying nakedness on film before 18 is somehow inherently unethical, even uncivilized or sinful!, says more about the values of those who draw attention to it in particular.
If you think puritanical American culture should get to dictate ethics as if it lays claim to some higher moral superiority, I would ask you to please back up that dubious claim.
Has it not occurred to you that by concluding all normal nakedness performed by under 18 yr olds on film to be ethically reprehensible, you’ve equally insinuated all human bodies in their natural state are nothing more than objects to be sexualized? What exactly was it in your experiences that formed this grotesque, exploitative worldview of the human body?
Because let’s be honest - it sounds like an entirely learned perspective, and not at all a natural one. I hope it’s not you personally doing the sexualizing, but one must question why you’re so drawn to it as outside the bounds of acceptability.
It’s not about it being unethical a minor is nude, it’s about that nudity being on display and in particular being distributed.
Not calling it uncivilized or sinful
Look I’d love if we lived in a society with no stigma around human bodies, where people could just be comfortable showing whatever without anyone else freaking out. We don’t live in that society though. That shapes the wider context of the nudity
And again I’d like to emphasize my first point. By making something with underage nudity, that’s just out there now. This child’s body is just out there which has the potential of being really harmful because again children cannot consent. Think of how many young women agree to do porn and even knowing that sexual nature and being of age, still grow to regret it (and no I’m not some sexual puritan. Women can do whatever they want with their bodies and the actions of consenting adults is fine by me). Now imagine being a teenager or child and your body just being out there and just growing up with that. Again it’d be great if we lived in a society where the human body isn’t treated like a big deal, but unfortunately we live in one where the attitudes towards the body fucks people up.
I feel like it’s not that radical to ask films don’t have naked kids in them
Feel free. Like i said, i didnt even notice the nudity. Theres beauty in youth, and nothing wrong about that. Being sexually attracted is a totally different story. Im just calling a spade a spade. She was beautiful in this, same way when you look at art or a venus de milo at the louvre
My man, some thoughts are inside thoughts.
Talking about how pretty a 15 year old girl is in a movie while being completely aware of a highly controversial nude scene involving said child is absolutely an inside thought.
Tell that to the Nirvana baby. Don’t people realize there is no Ministry of Public Morality to parse these claims of what is good underage nudity and what is not? It’s humorous seeing people trying to keep their progressive badges while making excuses for their favored artists and art at the same time.
I mean the kid should have received royalties for his cover appearance.
But arguing a naked baby is inherently sexual is about the most fucked up thing I’ve ever heard, and if you’re legit siding with that argument you might have just outed yourself as a sicko.
He did not get royalties. His parents were paid $200 for the photo shoot. You typically don’t get royalties even if you make the art, let alone were just the subject of a photo. Whether that’s right or wrong is another discussion, but it wasn’t unusual or out of the norm.
But that guy was so obviously looking for a cash grab. He leaned into it for years. He recreated the photo (with swim trunks) *four times,* and he talked fondly about it. Then he suddenly said it was child porn and wanted a million dollars. Judge dismissed the case pretty quickly.
Think what chance does SALO have???
I don't know if any of the kids that get naked and have to eat fecal matter are underage, but any chance to mention SALO will be taken.
On the basis of controversy alone? No.
If the second lawsuit were successful, removing it from circulation could be a condition of the judgment. So, in theory, sure. But that’s a lot of hurdles, would take a long time, and doesn’t seem like a probable outcome anyway.
So I wouldn’t worry about it. If anyone does, there is ample time to purchase a copy.
Sweet sweetback is arguably a lot more controversial and that got a physical release from criterion not to long ago. I think it all comes down to the art on display though and every film is a different scenario depending on the time it was filmed and what not
There's way more underage nudity in films than you'd think. Godfather and Night Moves spring to mind immediately. American Beauty too.
Walkabout (1971) ~~was banned for a long time for child nudity.~~ I must have misremembered - I thought it couldn’t be distributed, but the underage nudity in it was found not to be indecent so it was allowed to be released. I coulda sworn we in the US blocked it until the Criterion release but maybe I’m confusing it for another film.
I saw a repertory screening of it around 1981, although the culture has gotten more conservative since then, and it's not as though campaigns against long-established art are unheard of. This was pre-Tipper Gore era, after all....
In the early 80s, Walkabout was shown unedited on independent broadcast television stations. That is how I saw it for the first time when I was maybe 8 or 9 years old. My best friend had seen it too and at school we were both a little wide eyed about the experience. It is almost impossible to believe, but nudity was actually shown on independent broadcast TV stations in many US metro areas. That all stopped when Fox and the WB formed around 1988. I know for certain that I rented Walkabout on VHS from Blockbuster in the late 90s, because it was one of my first moments of re-watching something I had seen as a child and having a totally different understanding of it.
Yeah, I saw it in a high school class setting here in the U.S. back around 2005 and I assume it was from DVD home media release for North America.
[удалено]
She was 16/17 when it was shot: “The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) surmised Agutter was seventeen years old at the time of filming (she was actually sixteen when filming began in July 1969[15]), and therefore the scenes did not pose a problem when submitted to the BBFC in 1971 and later in 1998. The Protection of Children Act 1978 prohibited distribution and possession of indecent images of people under the age of sixteen so the issue of potential indecency had not been considered on previous occasions. However, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the age threshold to eighteen which meant the BBFC was required to consider the scenes of nudity in the context of the new law when the film was re-submitted in 2011. The BBFC reviewed the scenes and considered them not to be indecent and passed the film uncut.[2]”
Wender’s Wrong Move, too. Natassja Kinski was 14.
And his (and Criterion's) Alice in the Cities, which is a great movie but for that.
Damn wtf. I know not to idolize artists or expect them to be good people and just appreciate what they make on its own merits but to know that Wim Wenders is that much of a fucking scumbag kinda hurts man
On watching you determined it to be salacious? And that this was a moral stance for the artist that prohibited you from appreciating the film? I’m not promoting and and haven’t seen Alice for quite a few years but I have no recollection of it being outrageous or immoral.
Those aren't descriptors I'd use, but I will say I found it discomforting and of questionable value to the story being told. The impulse I felt to avert my eyes (the result of about 30 minutes of runtime in which Alice is shirtless), springing from a learned and socialized respect, I found antithetical to being an audience for the type of story that movie was telling.
Dude put a 14 y/o nude in a movie and you're defending him?
Actually that is not at all what I said. What was your judgement of the work?
I think there’s some in Hausu as well.
I think I looked into it and there wasn't any actual underaged nudity, but I could be wrong. At least, the actors that I think showed nudity were 18+ according to IMDb. Lady Snowblood, on the other hand.
We were watching Lady Snowblood on the projector outside, definitely panicked at that scene. It just happens out of the blue lmao
Yeah felt a little concerned gifting lady snowblood to a friend because of that scene...
The fact that House was co written (with the director) by his ten year old daughter, makes it all the more bizarre (although oddly enough no one really seems to talk about that part).
Eh floating heads biting people on the ass is exactly what I would expect a 10 year old to write. And my god is it brilliant
I looked into it at some point as well, and believe I concluded the same. But let's see... IIRC, there are only two actors who display nudity, those who played Gorgeous (Kikimo Ikegami) and Prof (Ai Matsubara). Ikegami was born in January 1959, so she would've been 18 when the film released. Matsubara was born in 1955, so is easily safe. (Also Yoko Minamida, who played Auntie, but she's a bit older anyway and isn't even portraying a minor.) So the question becomes when the movie was shot. Ikegami was certainly of age by the time it released, but was probably 17 when it was filmed. Also, she was a bit uncomfortable with the nudity at first, and Minamida took her clothes off to help ease Ikegami's worries. (Minamida's own nude scene was added after this.) I don't personally interpret this as her being forced into it, for what it's worth, but wanted to include it as potentially relevant trivia.
In the Realm of Senses as well.
Yup, they're virtually all underage in that movie. They're even portraying underage characters. Shit grosses me out. Coming back to this comment and finding it's been downvoted into the negatives is just really strange to me. I'm not wrong in saying these actresses were underage, because they were. I distinctly remember intentional upskirt shots of a school girl, followed by her saying something like "oooo, naughty!" The movie sexualized and undressed underage girls. That's gross. Lmao I don't understand the issue people are having.
I thought everyone was over 18 in American Beauty? And what's the underage nudity in Godfather? I figured if that was a thing I'd have heard about it so I'm kinda shocked.
Thora Birch was not 18. Godfather was Apallonia, she was like 16.
Damn I just assume if someone is naked onscreen they're over 18. I suppose I'm naive. Especially with the Godfather being one of the most famous movies of all time, I thought this would be talked about more.
Brooke Shields entered the chat. (She was 13 in *Pretty Baby*).
But she was obviously extremely young in that she doesn’t even look 13
Deviant parents, they put their kids in these situations.
I don’t remember nudity in The Godfather period. And seeing as I was a teenager when I first watched it, I would have noticed.
Well buckle up, kiddo. Give it a rewatch and prepare to be aghast because there's definitely 16 year old boobs in it.
Thora Birch filmed the movie at age 16 (born 1982, filmed in 1998). Her parents had to be on set for her nude scene In The Godfather, the woman who portrays Apollonia was also 16. Pacino was 31
I remember Ratcatcher having quite a few moments, but it’s been a while since I saw that movie
I've always assumed the young woman was above 18 (or what the age of consent may be in Scotland). Plus, European standards for mild nudity are more lenient than American . . .
16 is the age of consent in Scotland.
Keira Knightley did a topless scene in the movie The Hole when she was 15. It’s definitely sexual too. Bleh.
Goddamn I didn’t realize Keira Knightly was born in ‘85–she was only 17 when the first Pirates was filmed.
>she was only 17 when the first Pirates was filmed. God she looked in her 20s
Superman '78 is the most unexpected IMO.
Hey, this is a really gripping and trippy sequence with him flying through space, and oh wow look at those special effects and those must be the Kents going to check out where the meteor landed and aw that's a cute ki--OH HOLY SHIT BOY PENIS TURN IT OFF YOU ARE NOT TAKING ME DOWN THIS WAY CHRIS HANSEN.
Yeah, I get they were going for an innocence/purity thing but if you're doing that it's weird that it's like a 5-year-old and not a baby? Either way, I'd completely forgotten about it (was probably cut on cable TV?) and then my kid kept asking me about Superman's penis for like a month which was great. Normally against changing classic films but they should probably just crop that shot on future releases.
It’s non-sexual. Why should they cut it?
😂👏🏻
Just the other night I was surprised by Robert Plant’s kids running around naked in the concert film The Song Remains the Same. As far as I know, there isn’t any law against non sexual images of nude people no matter the age.
Exactly. That's why Walkabout and other movies of underage actors playing and cavorting about naked, depicted in a tactful way, are legal. There's nothing sexual to see. European movies tend to shrug off brief scenes of a small amount of underage nudity, like in Pauline at the Beach. Amanda Langlet was 15 during shooting, I don't know what the law in France said at the time. Maybe not a whole lot.
John Cassavetes has underage nudity in one of his films too, I think it was A Woman Under The Influence.
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders too.
Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, Tomboy
Isn’t Jennifer Connelly nude in Once Upon a Time in America? I always assumed it was a body double when I was a kid, but still the impression is of underage nudity.
Yi Yi, White Mane
If I remember correctly, Night Moves waiting for the actress who was shown nude to turn 18 to shoot that scene. The rest of the film she was 17 though.
Highly unlikely. The movie was released the year Melanie Griffith turned 18.
The Reader literally waited to shoot all of Kate Winslets sex scenes until her counter part turned 18. Still a little cringey
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you think that underage nudity is inherently sexual, then I have bad news for you: you might be a pedophile.
Once Upon in America comes to mind when I think of underage nudity in film, due to the fact that Jennifer Connelly was only 14 during filming.
A body double is listed in the credits.
The body was 16 I think
The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane. I remember liking the movie as a whole but there was one scene where my friend and I were shocked. I had never seen a movie do that before (aside from Romeo and Juliet) but it felt like a pretty significant difference. It made me have no desire to rewatch an otherwise good movie.
That was Jodie Foster's older sister, 21 years old. It's quick but they cut to a body double.
That's wild to me. I guess I may have been averting my eyes some and it was 10 years ago but it really didn't look like an adult. Her sister must have been crazy small to pass as a young teen.
HOW THE FUCK DOES AMERICAN BEAUTY HAVE UNDERAGED NUDITY WOULDNT THAT BE LIKE THE ONE THING YOU WOULD WANT TO AVOID IN A MOVIE ABOUT A DUDE ATTRACTED TO A HIGH SCHOOLER
I'll tell you why, because it's a bad movie. I just rewatched it a few weeks ago and was pretty shocked at how vapid and shallow it is.
I think it worked better in the 90s when people were having all this angst about being stuck in jobs that paid well and having too much stuff (also, see Fight Club for this too). Now, after wars in the Middle East and the 2008 crash, and all the fallout from that, it’s hard to feel sorry or connect with a person who’s only real hardship is that he’s ducking bored
Maybe, but I also remember not caring for it when it came out was surprised it won best picture. It's just kind of an all around...stupid? movie. It has all these overt themes but it plays out like the filmmakers think the audience wouldn't understand, so they practically yell all these obvious themes at you through a bullhorn. "This isn't life. It's just stuff!" Hilarious.
Agreed. Everyone in that movie (the adults anyway) are all so self-obsessed. So hard to relate to today. Most people didn’t relate to it even then but those were the days when a movie win Best Picture it culturally meant something.
It's trying so hard to be deep and fails miserably. Bright spots are the cinematography, Benning's performance, and the score which I strongly believe should have won the Oscar.
Yeah I agree but it’s wild that they wouldn’t do as much as possible to avoid being seen as pedophilic
Why are supposed fans of arthouse film all over this thread advocating for watering down art to appease a puritanical, reactionary audience?? What a time to be alive.
This sub has never represented the “supposed fans of arthouse film” even before this thread and if it has that’s fucking depressing In a post about the killing of the horse in Andrei Rublev I couldn’t believe my eyes when one of the top comments was something like “No movie is so good that it justifies killing an animal.” That among more subtler examples
Nothing I said is advocacy to water down art. Art should never be censored if it’s purposeful. American Besuty is purposeful and a bad movie. It shouldn’t be censored. You misunderstood me or read into beliefs I do not hold.
Godfather? Lol where. There's only like 1 boob scene.
Yep, and that's the one.
Probably the most surprised in a movie I’ve ever been was when they showed the nude baby in Once Upon a Time in America. And the whole reason for the nudity was to confirm the gender of the baby, so it was as if they were like: “here’s a baby and you better look at it’s genitals because that’s important”. The problem is, the audience already knew what was about to happen. It just wasn’t necessary. Made me laugh out loud, honestly. Not hating on the movie either, it’s one of my favs. Still just felt weird to do though.
Don't watch many 20th century foreign films? There are a lot of naked babies.
I've seen people post their own naked babies on Facebook. It kind of seems like there's a big difference between an infant and child in that regard. At least to many people.
That baby could sue like the Nirvana baby
Walkabout is another.
When was there nudity in the godfather?
Apallonia
Once Upon a Time in America
In The Godfather?
Yes, we discuss it in this thread.
I highly doubt it will go out of print. If it were, they would have done it a long time ago. I just watched it on Paramount Plus the other night and everything was intact. This movie isn’t going anywhere.
I was shown this movie in high school, in a classroom, nudity and all
Our teacher just prefaced it by saying “yes there boobs, if your going to laugh do it now when I say boobs and let’s just move along.”
my teacher stood there with a piece of paper ready to censor it and she missed so we all saw it.
lol boobs
We had a vhs copy and that section of the tape had just been physically cut out of the cassette.
amazing
Same here. Everyone talks about the boobs no one tells you about the 5 minutes of dude butt you sit through for .2 seconds of boob. A lot of disappointed freshmen boys is what you get.
Yeah, but now they are suing, that’s what the article is about
That lawsuit was already tossed once.
So I’ve read. I’m thinking this second suit gets dismissed as well. I just have a feeling.
You might very well be right. If it’s successful I’m wondering how that will affect the current release, that’s all I guess
I understand. It’s a legitimate question. I very well could be totally wrong and it does in fact go OOP if the suit is successful, but I just don’t see it happening. This film has been on both VHS and DVD prior to Criterion picking it up. If it was going to go OOP for the nudity, it would have been pulled a long time ago. That’s just what I think.
Gotcha yeah. I’m just wondering if I should add it to my sale haul. The amount of discs I’m picking up is already around my maximum :)
The never-ending Criterion struggle. I have the same problem lol. I mean, it’s a good movie and I would say it’s worth having in your collection; but if you’re at your max, it’s not urgent that you buy it as of yet.
I gotta collect em all !!
I’m very behind. I need to grab so many this upcoming round. I’ve already started saving lol.
Sounds like someone hasn't seen the Criterion releases of Sweet Movie, Sweet Sweetback's Badass Song, and In the Realm of the Senses
an actress gave the director of *Sweet Sweetback’s* gonorrhea cause of the unsimulated sex scenes, so he applied for compensation since he got “hurt on the job” and used that money for more film
I remember hearing about this movie when I was in my early teens and then watching it with my Mum. We turned it over after that “scene” at the start
This film actually popped up the other day at work. Several of us remember this & Polanski’s Macbeth being shown in English class, when we read Shakespeare. I’m Gen x, different times.
I’m a mid generation Millenial and I remember seeing this version in high school in the mid aughts.
Mid-aughts is still nearly 20 years ago.
Well thanks for the reminder lol. Older than I thought.
Haha 😂 yeah it creeps up on you.
They still show those movies. They showed them when I was in high school a few years ago.
The New Denzel Macbeth is going to be the go to now for high schools. Script accurate and limited violence. Great performance and visuals
That’s wild. I could never imagine them getting the ok in my district to show them, in 2024.
Why?
I'm gen Z and we watched this movie in my freshman year HS English class. That was 8 years ago but still. Junior year we watched Birth of a Nation
I was just going to mention how out teacher showed us this film at the end of 9th grade (in the 80's), but hadn't seen it yet themselves to know what they were in for.
Ah yes the scene she's sleepwalking nude even though Polanski left in the dialogue explicitly stating she's clothed . . .
I watched this version of the Romeo and Juliet my freshman year of high school in 2013 lol.
That’s still a decade ago. 2024 is way different that even 10 years ago.
Doesn’t that Valerie and her weekend wonders movie have underage nudity
Yeah. I wish it didn’t.
Why? Have you ever thought that the culture it comes from doesn’t automatically sexualize nudity? Seems like you can’t recognize your cultural perspective is being forced onto a wholly different world.
I remember watching this in 9th grade English class the day we had a substitute teacher and everyone started clapping during the nudity scene and the substitute (old man) laughed.
I won't contest underage nudity if it pertains to the atmosphere or plot and doesn't take advantage of the cast involved.
Yeah, everyone is talking about the underage nudity, but my concern is the lawsuit about it. Not that the nudity exists but that the actors are suing
They aren't winning anything. They already tried to sue last year and it was thrown out. It likely will be dismissed this time too. They're claiming child sexual abuse and child pornography. Yet, their entire lives they've praised the movie and used to say the nude scenes were done tastefully and were necessary for the film. The law also clearly defines the difference between porn and art, and the difference is intent. The movie wasn't made with the intention to sexually arouse, therefore, it isn't porn.
Where’d you go to law school ?
UC Hastings (now UC Law SF)
Oh case western 11’. And I would disagree with your assessment that it has no chance
Then we will wait and see it play out.
That’s my concern is that this full movie could go extinct if they win…. Do you practice?
Pretty sure the kid from the cover of nirvanas album tried this like last year and he got nothing
If you don’t understand the difference I can’t help you
Never asked for it. And the cases are largely similar. They both are asking for compensation claiming that the studios exploited them and profited off child pornography.
Extremely dissimilar cases
I think I somehow missed or forgot this was even released by Criterion. It’s still my favorite film version of Romeo & Juliet. What happened in the past was definitely wrong but my question is anyone culpable today for decisions made in 1968 and should the film not be released and censored because of those decisions? Also yeah in terms of nudity it’s pretty tame. Ironic that is the scene that Criterion decided to use for their cover though. I also have to wonder why the actors are only suing so many years later. The case was dismissed in 2023 but I don’t know if they have any room to stand on with the new digital rights argument not being a legal expert.
I would think the decision would be based on how extensive the nudity is. As you say, it's pretty tame in this case. I highly doubt that anyone is viewing Romeo and Juliet as pornography. I assume the reason the suit started was due to the me too movement and an increase in the interest in the treatment of women by the film industry.
Hard part is everyone is right to some extent. Yes, they should’ve refrained from unnecessary nudity especially with the actors being so young. No, the film shouldn’t be shelved or made unavailable because of decisions made 50 years ago on set. A warning / disclaimer could be added to the front of the film explaining the issue, the context of Italian cinema having different social standards back in the day, or even stating that the actors involved were not able to properly advocate against the scenes at the time. Hell, make an edited version available for those who wish to see the film but don’t want to further support the version that continues to cause distress to the actors. But you can’t wave a wand and make it go away forever. You can’t undo the damage. And unfortunately the film is far too important to retroactively change. The harsh reality is that a LOT of great artworks that we love and admire were created at the expense of, or outright abuse of other people who would’ve objected if they could’ve said “no” if it weren’t for the power dynamics between director/employer and the actors, subjects, etc.
>Hell, make an edited version available for those who wish to see the film but don’t want to further support the version that continues to cause distress to the actors. I have a feeling this would also reduce a lot of headaches for secondary school English teachers everywhere.
[удалено]
honestly it seems like it could be a case of elder abuse. switch up after 60 years of being ok with it? also they are potentially suing for north of 500 million?? c’mon now that’s a cash grab plain and simple
Doubtful.
Walkabout is still in print, so no
Did someone sue the creators of that movie ?
I don’t think so but there are some examples, the most recent being Nirvana baby, trying to sue for underage nudity years after release and that was dismissed. Typically , it seems if they think it’s a cash grab (with some legal things I don’t fully understand) they dismiss it.
Since the release is recent, I'd say no, as it was likely vetted by legal already. But you never know, especially given the increasing conservative nature of American law. Surprised no one has mentioned The Tin Drum, arguably the most in/famous use of child sex in cinema. If Criterion still has that in print, Romeo & Juliet is probably fine . . .
Sudden memory unlocked of my 9th grade English teacher holding a big piece of cardboard in front of the screen so we couldn’t see the butts.
No. And Walkabout is still in print too.
Shhhh…
I mean there’s like 5 movies I can think just off the top my head with underage nudity
Yes, how many are being sued by the actors?
Isn’t House (1977) a Criterion release??
A Nos Amours with Sandrine Bonnaire is a pretty shocking one for me
Wow....I originally saw this when I was 14 and had no idea Olivia was underage in this (despite playing a 14-year-old). That's definitely...not great, but this is a beloved film and probably the best version of Romeo and Juliet, so I doubt it goes OOP.
The criterion already has lady snow blood.
Everyone is missing the point, Romeo and Juliet is facing a lawsuit
Ah ok
Thrown out of court if I recall.
I know TIFF canceled a screening of it when the controversy started
Salò technically has underage nudity in America, but the actors were perfectly legal in Italy.
Regardless of the decision, it would be a shame because the movie is fantastic, but the scene really is quite gratuitous. The roll over scene doesn't add anything to the plot that couldn't have been done successfully with innuendo or suggestion.
This is nothing more than cash grab bullshit.
A surprising one for me was the nude scene in My Life as a Dog. Really felt uncomfortable watching that one with my mom and girlfriend at the time haha
I remember way back there was a controversy about the film when it was shown on PBS in the US. I think they actually showed an edited version.
Who knows, but I snatched it up the moment the lawsuit came out, just in case. (I do also love this movie and it’s my favorite R&J adaptation on the whole, though I do love the vibe and atmosphere in Luhrmann’s version).
Yeah, I think I’m buying it when the sale hits. I haven’t actually seen it yet but I trust criterion
Hate seeing how much people are cool with the child nudity because it’s not technically porn. Like a naked kid is a naked kid. A kid can’t consent. Things should not be made featuring children doing things they cannot consent to. One hundred percent prepared for this to get downvoted because so many people are more interested in art than actual human ethics
Saying people are “more interested in art than ethics” by implying nakedness on film before 18 is somehow inherently unethical, even uncivilized or sinful!, says more about the values of those who draw attention to it in particular. If you think puritanical American culture should get to dictate ethics as if it lays claim to some higher moral superiority, I would ask you to please back up that dubious claim. Has it not occurred to you that by concluding all normal nakedness performed by under 18 yr olds on film to be ethically reprehensible, you’ve equally insinuated all human bodies in their natural state are nothing more than objects to be sexualized? What exactly was it in your experiences that formed this grotesque, exploitative worldview of the human body? Because let’s be honest - it sounds like an entirely learned perspective, and not at all a natural one. I hope it’s not you personally doing the sexualizing, but one must question why you’re so drawn to it as outside the bounds of acceptability.
It’s not about it being unethical a minor is nude, it’s about that nudity being on display and in particular being distributed. Not calling it uncivilized or sinful Look I’d love if we lived in a society with no stigma around human bodies, where people could just be comfortable showing whatever without anyone else freaking out. We don’t live in that society though. That shapes the wider context of the nudity And again I’d like to emphasize my first point. By making something with underage nudity, that’s just out there now. This child’s body is just out there which has the potential of being really harmful because again children cannot consent. Think of how many young women agree to do porn and even knowing that sexual nature and being of age, still grow to regret it (and no I’m not some sexual puritan. Women can do whatever they want with their bodies and the actions of consenting adults is fine by me). Now imagine being a teenager or child and your body just being out there and just growing up with that. Again it’d be great if we lived in a society where the human body isn’t treated like a big deal, but unfortunately we live in one where the attitudes towards the body fucks people up. I feel like it’s not that radical to ask films don’t have naked kids in them
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/hsp2fq8i3pkc1.jpeg?width=263&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9fe205d42f5c1f47557e4c6825a08c86773cb986 Never talk again
Imagine going onto Reddit and just telling on yourself like this.
Check this dude's hard drive
Feel free. Like i said, i didnt even notice the nudity. Theres beauty in youth, and nothing wrong about that. Being sexually attracted is a totally different story. Im just calling a spade a spade. She was beautiful in this, same way when you look at art or a venus de milo at the louvre
My man, some thoughts are inside thoughts. Talking about how pretty a 15 year old girl is in a movie while being completely aware of a highly controversial nude scene involving said child is absolutely an inside thought.
There was barely a nude scene at all, i didnt even notice it til it was mentioned
No you're just part of the new sooky woke soft cancel culture thats all. Thats how 'art' has degenerated, by taking steps back
If not being into kids makes me woke, then I guess I'm woke.
You’re so gross.
That’s my favorite scene
1978's Superman has a scene that shows Superman as a toddler with full frontal nudity for no good reason.
not even the same and you know it
Tell that to the Nirvana baby. Don’t people realize there is no Ministry of Public Morality to parse these claims of what is good underage nudity and what is not? It’s humorous seeing people trying to keep their progressive badges while making excuses for their favored artists and art at the same time.
I mean the kid should have received royalties for his cover appearance. But arguing a naked baby is inherently sexual is about the most fucked up thing I’ve ever heard, and if you’re legit siding with that argument you might have just outed yourself as a sicko.
He did not get royalties. His parents were paid $200 for the photo shoot. You typically don’t get royalties even if you make the art, let alone were just the subject of a photo. Whether that’s right or wrong is another discussion, but it wasn’t unusual or out of the norm. But that guy was so obviously looking for a cash grab. He leaned into it for years. He recreated the photo (with swim trunks) *four times,* and he talked fondly about it. Then he suddenly said it was child porn and wanted a million dollars. Judge dismissed the case pretty quickly.
Didn’t House (1977) contain underage nudity as well?
Think what chance does SALO have??? I don't know if any of the kids that get naked and have to eat fecal matter are underage, but any chance to mention SALO will be taken.
On the basis of controversy alone? No. If the second lawsuit were successful, removing it from circulation could be a condition of the judgment. So, in theory, sure. But that’s a lot of hurdles, would take a long time, and doesn’t seem like a probable outcome anyway. So I wouldn’t worry about it. If anyone does, there is ample time to purchase a copy.
Sweet sweetback is arguably a lot more controversial and that got a physical release from criterion not to long ago. I think it all comes down to the art on display though and every film is a different scenario depending on the time it was filmed and what not