I'm surpised that this film didn't catch any heat considering that Nastassja was only 15 or 16 years old when her full frontal nudity scene was filmed. We are told she was born in 1959, Nastassja later says she lied about her age to get accepted for film roles and that she was really born in 1961. Either way, she was definately jailbait when this film was shot.
shareBrook Shield was briefly nude in pretty baby when she was about eleven or twelve in 1978. No doubt you couldn't get away with something like that today but in the 70s things like this were possible although I'm sure still controversial.
The only time I saw this movie was in the early eighties on HBO and that scene always stuck with me although at the time I assumed Natasha was over 18. Then I recently saw her current age and though that didn't add up. I still have trouble believing that she successfully lied about her age. Not that it's impossible but considering her famous Dad (Klaus) how could anyone not know her real age.
[deleted]
[deleted]
" No doubt you couldn't get away with something like that today but in the 70s things like this were possible although I'm sure still controversial. "
Obviously your trolling or a REALLY naïve individual. The seventy's were Victorian in comparison to today. They actually had morals back then. Movies that were rated R back then would be pg13 today. Midnight cowboy with Dustin Hoffman was rated x! You would never would have seen south park on regular tv in the seventy's . And much to your chagrin, Brooke Shields and Natasha kinski, both had stand ins for there nude scenes as did Linda Blair in the exorcist...etc. etc. etc.
Now, here we have a post that is fairly common on web forums in generally, but on IMDB especially. You started by acusing another person of being a troll, and then you proceeded to make a claim that is so outrageous as to warrent outright laughter. Brooke Shields was nude in "Pretty Baby", and Natasia Kinski (sorry, I can't spell her name any better than you) appeared nude in this movie, fully, and frontal. Most likely you have not ever seen either movie, but if you have, then there must be something seriously wrong with you, for you to think that these nude scenes were filmed with doubles.
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.)
shareIs that a joke? The 21st century has a seen a full-on return to Puritanism as far as heterosex goes. Young women have been taught any advances from a boy they're not attracted to is the same thing as rape. The 70s were way more relaxed than the modern age.
Well, they supposedly have laws against this TODAY, which personally I am all for, but your big-budget Hollywood films like "American Beauty" seem to still be able to get around them, even while the rabid lobsters over in the BBFC in Britain are going back and editing 30-year-old Jess Franco films for underaged nudity (apparently to protect now middle-aged women who have never claimed to have been exploited). And if you want to "protect children" TODAY from sexual predators (not to mention hypothermia) wouldn't you be a lot better served by going after the fashion industry that has young teenage girls dressed in low-riding short-shorts with visible thongs and half a shirt with "Slut" or "Porn Star" emblazoned on it? (call me crazy. . .)
Personally, I think of Kinski in this movie like I think of my then-underaged girlfriend back in the 80's (OK, maybe she didn't look like THAT)--a fond memory that is not exactly a turn-off, but not something that's going to make me run slobbering down to the nearest high school either. I don't need a lobotomy to erase those memories from my mind, and I don't need them to "lobotomize" movies like this for my benefit. If you are one of those people though, who feels such a thing will make you lose all control and do bad things, please don't watch this movie!
Keep quiet though before the BBFC and their privatized American equivalents decide to impose more unnecessary censorship to "protect society" from us 70's horror film buffs.
Actually there is no law (in the United States at least) that prohibits on screen nudity of minors. At one time there was a law (the Comstock Act) that prohibited the type of scenes that were in this movie (full frontal nudity), and it was still technically in effect when this movie was imported into the United States. However, it was not enforced by then and I believe the surviving remnants of the Comstock Act were formally repealed in the mid to late 1990s.
There are some people who would still like to see anti-pornography laws enacted so they have made a "final defense" around the last sort of pornography that still raises objections among most people; which is child pornography. However, these somewhat over zealous individuals rant and rave so much that most individuals are under the impression that nudity of 17 year old (and younger) girls is illegal. This is most definitely not the case. Nudity is allowed, though the showing of the girl in a sexual act is not. That is why the film of a 15 year old Traci Lords had to be pulled from video shelfs in the United States- she was in a porno film having sex. Ms. Kinski does not have sex (at least openly) with anybody in this movie; therefore her nudity is acceptable.
As to morality; in the 1950s this movie would not have been allowed due to the Hays Moral Code nor would Ms. Kinski's full frontal nudity (regardless of her age). Would this have been moral? Good question. Please remember that in the 1950s Ms. Kinski would not have been allowed, in the United States, to take the husband that she did eventually marry because he was a black man. Also, their kids would have been labeled as "Negro" and not allowed to go into the "Whites Only" section of movie theaters, bus stations, most stores, etc. So much for the "morality" of the 1950s and the Hays Moral Code. I, for one, certainly hope that those days do NOT come back.
[deleted]
Note that was some states, the USA a a whole grew to not like that, and finally forced those type laws out of those States in the 1960's. Dragging it into this argument is a red herring, and tells you nothing about how and how much to protect public morals. Probably, we could benefit from some voluntary version of the Hays code.
Right now, there is an equivalent to that; not rating a movie 'NC-17', meaning if you do not apply for a rating, you can do what you like, it is just that underage cannot see it. This replacement for the old 'X' rating is actually the equivalent of the 1930's practice of putting such films in the 'roadshow' catagory, only this resolves the legal problems.
Incidentally, when NC-17 came in, the joke was that it meant "It's Art, so relaXX".
"I'm surpised that this film didn't catch any heat considering that Nastassja was only 15 or 16 years"
Well if she was 16 she would have been able to pose naked in magasines and newspaper...etc...so that doesn't matter.
It's only this century (2000s) that you now have to be 18 years old...which is odd as the age of consent is still 16...so you cannot pose nude but can be *beeped* to high heaven...odd world at the moment.
But I am surprised that this film hasn't been destroyed by rabid "paedo-hunters" (I completely support laws against paedophilia by the way, however some seem to act like Mathew Hopkins in their methods. Also fancying teens is not paedophilia (whether right or wrong) but 'ephebophilia' as they are sexually mature yet under tha age of consent according to the law) or for that matter destroyed by some right-wing nutjob because we all know murderers are forced into killing by older horror films (and video games).
*Rant mode off*
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
[deleted]
"Yes, as an adult who grew up in the delicious 70's, I say our intellect has diminished in this 'modern' age."
Damn right! We so obsessed with paedophilia that we even imagine cases of legal ephebophilia as paedophilia. Anyway, what people these days fail to realize is that you can have unsexual nudity including child nudity.
"Jai Guru Deva, Om"
Different countries have diiferent standards as to what is 'acceptable' and what isn't. In the US, the age of consent is generally taken as 18, in the UK it is 16, in Germany it is 14 and in the Vatican City-State it is - believe it or not - only 12! In the UK, any nude (which would mean buns, boobs or bush) film of an underage girl would be illegal, whatever the context. In other countries, as long as the context is 'non-sexual' (swimming, bathing or rising from bed) it is perfectly fine. I guess it's a case of - quite literally - 'When in Rome...'
share--- "In the UK, any nude (which would mean buns, boobs or bush) film of an underage girl would be illegal, whatever the context." ---
Off the top of my head...
Baby Love
My Life As A Dog
Death of a Schoolboy
Toto the Hero
To the Devil a Daughter
Return To the Blue Lagoon
Prespero's Books
And last but definetly not least the British Film Institutes's wonderfully odd/shocking "The Joy of Sex Education" anthology of British sex education films from 1917 to 1973.
All feature under age female nudity of the age 12 to 15 (in the case of "The Joy of Sex Education" it's prolonged male/female full frontal 8 to 18) and are legally available in the UK (well, if I'm honest "Baby Love", "Prespero's Books" and "Death of a Schoolboy" appear to be out of print).
"I think you're a load of old crap too, Mr Mulligan."
This is absolutely remarkable!
I am aware that some of these films DID contain underage nudity, but it was my understanding that the law had been tightened up (or at least, re-interpreted considerably) over the last 25 years. I assume that because these films have been around for a long time they - like Brooke Shields in 'Pretty Baby' - have somehow slipped in under the radar.
In any case, I am quite positive that such scenes would not be allowed today. I well recall the media hysteria following the release of the 1990's 'Lolita'. It seemed likely that Jeremy Irons would be burned at the stake for a while - and that film absolutely contained no underage nudity at all! It was also substantially inferior to the 1960's version, but that is another matter entirely.
[deleted]
I'm sorry you weren't able to get out before you hit fourteen. But I don't have to ask where you got the mirror. It really worked on Torchy. I don't know - maybe Uncle Jack should have listened to Enik.
Greatest Hope: LOTR
Worst Fear: LOTL
[deleted]
"In the UK, any nude (which would mean buns, boobs or bush) film of an underage girl would be illegal, whatever the context."
Well then how do you explain Keira Knightly's 15 year old nude breasts in 2001's After the Hole? It's a UK film. She also walks into a men's shower in that film where many of the guys are naked. And then has a conversation with a nude guy that definitely has some slight sexual overtones to it. Though she is not naked in that scene.
In the USA, 18 is not the end all age. An underage person can legally do nudity in a film with a parents written consent. Thora Birch was 17 in American Beauty for instance. This is allowed because of the term 'art'. In the USA, the very idea of what is and what isn't pornography is not a well determined or well defined thing legally. For instance there are some nudist sites on the internet that show naked kids of all ages. At least that's what I have been told. I'm really not interested in going to see if it is a fact or not. However I do believe that it is true, I did not hear this from an unreliable source. These underage nudist pictures on the net are obviously not allowed to be sexual in any way, or they would definitely be illegal.
Underage nudity is legal in the USA if the context is non-sexual, I'm quite sure of that. And I believe that a teenager 16 and up with written parental consent, can do nudity in an artistic film or play in the USA even if the context is slightly sexual. The scene in American Beauty for instance is not overly sexual, there is no human to human contact. However that scene certainly isn't non-sexual either. When a young woman purposely takes off her shirt to show a guy her boobs in a slow manner, that is at least alluding to something sexual. It's not as if it is important to the film in any way, except to show that she is sexually attracted to him, or at least to him watching her. Nonetheless, there certainly is a slightly sexual tone to the scene. I was under the impression that the laws were even a little lighter in the UK. After all, Kubrick went to England specifically to film Lolita there because the censorship laws were not as strict as the USA's. However that was a long time ago, perhaps things have changed.
My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!
Slightly sexual? The scene in American Beauty was that they were going to fuck but then Kevin Spacy's character gets cold feet
shareYes, raybeckm, definAtely!!! LOL!!!
shareThat was NOT her in the nude scene, can you say body double. I watched this today and read this thread then rewatched the scene in question. If this was her she had some old lady feet and instantly grew some really bad fake nails too. Those feet in that scene were ugly corn ridden lady feet not teen girl feet. Hate to burst that bubble..
shareThat was definitely her in the nude scene. The camera stayed on her the whole time she disrobed. As for the lame old lady feet remark, you must be mentally challenged in some way is all i can think of.
share[deleted]
I think she was 15. The same age as keira was when she went topless in The Hole, which i just watched recently. They had remarkably similar boobs and bodies at 15.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Don't get caught up in her age. I know more then a few people who work in the business and actress always shave 5 years off their age. The idea that there are a more then a few dates of her birth running around verifies she is probably one of those actress's
share[deleted]
I never thought she was under aged. I always thought that was a way to get more people to watch her movies, because she did a lot of nudity. IMO it is a way to appeal to certain part of the public who would never look at one of her movies. Let me be more clearer. Teenage boys and pedophiles.
The same talk went around with Brooke Shields in that horrible movie the Blue Lagoon and previously Pretty Baby. And let's not forget the Calvin Klein commercial about nothing gets in between her and her Calvin's. Implying she wear no underwear. All when she was this done beginning when she was 12. Her career went down hill when she became of age. Jody Foster they did the same thing in Taxi Driver and that weird movie with Martin Sheen. I really was sick and tired of the mainstream advertisers appealing to pedophiles. I want to to add Kinski, Forster and me are all in the same age group so I knew there was something wrong with when I was a teenager. If Kinski made movies about being a truck driver no one would mention her age. Only when there is some nudity or sexual situation would they mention the star was underage. But unlike Shields and Foster Kinski was not underage. But but was they represented the same sick idea.
[deleted]
I think they still do it but in a underhanded way. Ever see the actress's and models that are out there now. They look like little girls that are grown women. They are very skinny, with very little curves. I was looking at the Emmy's last night and it was very obvious there. The women are so small some look sickly. But see it is ok because they are legal age. Yes there are some adult looking actress's and some that are even overweight but for the most part they appeal to the same section of population that was attracted to 12 and 15 year olds who were very sexual. But I am not being fooled one bit.
I agree about Brooke Shields her mother was very aggressive and seemed like she would of done anything to make sure her daughter was a star. Jody Forster on the other hand mother was the opposite. She saw what was going on and got her out of movies and sent her to a school. I have to say Fosters career is second to none. Perhaps Brookes mother should of followed Jodies mothers lead.
I want to add I use hang out in disco's all of the time. It was lega to drink at 18 back then. You would of been surprised how some of these under aged girls would get free reign of some of the disco's and how many old men, and I am not talking 30 year old men I am talking about 60 year old men who hung out and cruised these discos for young girls and boys. Some of them famous. Some walked up to me and I would tell them my fathers a cop and I am too old for them, so just go home. But I was not the norm. Most of these guys and girls if the guy looked like he had money or was famous would disappear with them.
You are very correct to keep your eyes out on your son. I have one of my friends sons living with me. He had been pretty sheltered but of course he does not think so. lol. He is very good looking and the girls love him. Well once I saw this older man trying to hang out with him, acting like he was trying to help. I asked him where he met this guy at, at work. I asked did he work with him, no he was a customer. I hit the roof and explained to him to keep a eye out for this guy because he might be trying to put a move on him. He was shocked. But in the end he understood. Now I have plenty of gay friends but none of them have tried to hang out with this kid. Something was up for sure.
There is an episode of Game of Thrones that shows a very underage girl completely nude for a number of seconds. She is an extra and isn't the main focus of the shot or anything, but I'm just making the point that such things do occur occasionally today.
shareDo you recall which one that was or any information?
shareKinski's official government records show she was underage, sorry.
shareHowever, 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.
sharethe movie was shot in Sept-Oct. 1975 in Germany and in the UK as a German-British co-production. Nastassja was 14+ at the time. Age of consent is 14 in Germany and she is a German citizen. So, even if the movie had sex scenes, that wouldn't be illegal from a German perspective. However, age of consent was 16 in the UK at the time, so, to be on the safe side, she lied that she was 16.
sharethe movie was shot in Sept-Oct. 1975 in Germany and in the UK as a German-British co-production. Nastassja was 14+ at the time.That is correct. It did surprise me when I found out, as I had always thought she was closer to 18 as she's supposed to be in the film.🐭 share
I think the term 'child pornography' is actually incorrect - it's child abuse that has been filmed/photographed etc. Pornography is synonymous with erotica. Calling so called 'child porn' child abuse is far more accurate and cuts to the heart of the matter, doing away with unnecessary arguments about any dubious merits it might have as 'art' or freedom of expression.
Sexualizing children (0-15yo) is a crime in many countries - deliberately making images of children for sexual/erotic gratification is a form of child abuse. For this reason I regard the work of David Hamilton as, at best, border-line paedophilic. He has his defenders on here at IMDB but check some of the other comments these apologists make and you can see many of them do have a grubby interest in underage girls.
Back to TO THE DEVIL... if Natassja Kinski was really legally under-age when she made this movie puts the film makers and viewers in an ethical hot spot. The film ought to be cut accordingly to stay legal. However, I rather doubt she was underage because I think the BBFC would have done something about it long ago.
"Remember, you have to make it home to get paid" (The Dogs of War)