MovieChat Forums > Pretty Baby (1978) Discussion > Why the nudity bothers me...

Why the nudity bothers me...

posted 9 years ago by gra05
28 replies | jump to latest

I guess what I am having a hard time getting my head around is how the people (mostly men) who support this film on the internet, saying the nudity is okay, are also the same people getting excited over the fact that "it shows her pubic area". In other words, the same people saying this film is artistic and okay are also the ones exaggerating the nudity.

I have seen the film and I don't understand where a lot of you are getting the idea that there is full frontal nudity in this. I am against child nudity of any form in a movie, mainly because the child's decision is being made for them and when they become adults they will look back in embarrassment. Having said that, I won't lose sleep over the fact that in the 70s there were a few films that showed chest and rear nudity of boys and girls in an innocent manner, as long as it is brief. But showing a child's genitals is never excusable and that is why I am so disturbed by the amount of men on the internet claiming that "this movie isn't porn" while at the same time insisting that this movie shows her genitals and celebrating that fact.

Showing genitals in American film whether sexual or not, unless it is shown briefly on a toddler or infant in an innocent manner, has always been considered porn. The only reason rated R films have been relaxed about adult female full frontal nudity is because the genitals are covered by pubic hair. So why are the same people who are playing around with the pause button when watching this movie, insisting that you can see her vagina when the rest of us don't notice it, ....why are you the same people who are claiming the nudity is innocent?

Please explain yourselves. I am very disturbed right now. I even found a discussion online once where a bunch of men were lamenting the fact that not enough bare, shaved , vaginas are shown in mainstream American films, and then they listed a few rare films, including Pretty Baby. I was very disturbed by that.

So when you perverts claim that this movie shows full frontal nudity , please explain to the rest of us what the H*ll you are talking about. Are you talking about how you just see her lower belly underneath her belly button? What are you talking about? How much time are you spending pressing the pause button? And most importantly, if you insist in a giddy manner that this film shows her genitals then how in the world can you say this isn't porn?????? The fact that this movie has terrible acting tells me that you like it so much for one reason only. If it were a boy instead of a girl would you men still be so accepting of this garbage?????

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

You just know that if some guy down the street made an amateur home video exactly like this, he would end up getting absolutely slam-dunked in court. But somehow influential Hollywood studios are able to get away with this in the name of "art." How hypocritical.

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

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".

[–] HelpMeRhonda (1157) 5 years ago

I've never seen this movie, but I do know that Shields posed nude at TEN YEARS OLD, for a Playboy publication called "Sugar n Spice". This leads me to believe that there were some real sickos, including Hugh Hefner, who were child sex traffickers finding loopholes all in the name of art. This movie may be a product of that. The purpose wasn't art, but instead child porno, from what I can determine.

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

... because of course child porn producers go to great lengths to hire recognized adult actors and actresses to appear in their films alongside the kids, and of course always only show one kid naked when several others also appear in the film. They also spend a lot of time and money on shots containing no child nudity. Yep, standard practice. (You're right about the Playboy thing, though.)

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

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.

[–] liscarkat (17173) a year ago

Grow the F up. Nobody got hurt. Brooke Shields is fine. Seeing the human body, of any age, is not wrong. To think it is is just made-up bullshit. Seeing a nipple or a mons venus is no more evil than seeing an elbow. I'll remind you--grow the F up.