MovieChat Forums > meathead > Replies
meathead's Replies
Ah, my bad. I thought IMDB made a mistake, but I just searched for pics of the actor and sure enough, you're right - Gabrielle Tinti's definitely the guy who played the good guy, not the rapist. So her hubby wasn't lying on top of an under-aged girl... but apparently Haris Tryfonas was. I'll edit my comments above to reflect this. Anyway, we still have a movie with extensive under-aged nudity and a nude rape scene, and Gemser and her co-stars were surely aware of this - did they think it was all right?!?
Child nudity does not equal child porn - context matters.
You're forgetting that prosecuting somebody for owning a copy of Pretty Baby would perforce draw everyone involved with the movie (director, producers, distributors, and sellers of the DVD) because if the film is child porn that necessarily implicates them (and begs the question of why they, too, are not being prosecuted), so that you can pretty much bet your behind that the big corporations associated with the film would rigorously defend the buyer in court, and would have the money to hire a "dream team" that would wipe the mat with the prosecution team. Prosecutors know this - which is why you never see anybody prosecuted for owning a film containing child nudity if the film was made by or is sold by a huge corporation.
Soooo.... where are the prosecutions of the director, cast, Brooke's mother, the producers, distributors, theatre-owners, and sellers of the DVD, hmm?
Yes, you can, in both those scenes. People have created slo-mo and freeze-frames of the tub scene, and you unequvocably see her pubic cleft. In the couch scene it is harder to spot but still there, and not a shadow (if it were, amazing how that shadow just happens to make a line that looks just like her pubic cleft...)
Except in this case any prosecution would effectively implicate the producers, distributors and sellers, which includes huge corporations that would be obliged to defend their reputations and would have to come to the defense of the person being prosecuted - and they could afford lawyers that would rip the prosecutors a new one. There's no way in hell those companies would lose the case.
You see her chest a lot, you see her buns at least once (when she is thrown out of a room and tries to get back in), and you see her full-frontal twice, once during a bath scene when she stands up to grab a towel, and again lying sideways on a couch being photographed by Belloq.
Violence? He said underaged nudity in Schinlder's List.
The movie has been sold on DVD on sites like Amazon and in big-name stores - I saw it once in the bargain DVD bin at Wal-Mart. None of these business have been targeted for stings by police nor have any of the buyers been arrested for possession of it.
Had you been paying close enough attention, you would have seen her bare pubes when she rose up out of the water and stood up right before she grabbed the towel. It was there, deny all you like. Clips of this scene clearly showing her pubic area are on the web as well as still photos. Her pubic cleft is plainly visible. You also ignore the scene where she is lying lengthwise on a couch being photographed by the artist, with her pubic cleft visible once again.
The Supreme Court ruled some time back that simple nudity and nothing more is not child pornography. For instance, nudist videos featuring nude children playing at the beach or the like are not illegal. It's true that some police and prosecutors either don't know about or ignore this ruling, but it's the law of the land, nevertheless.
Shields was totally nude in two scenes, her bathtub scene and her couch scene. She was not nude in the other films, except for a brief look at her buns in Just You and Me, Kid.
Yes, but they don't show every foreign movie made there, so that proves nothing. The fact that the many foreign films with scenes of nude children rarely appear on IFC doesn't mean they don't exist.
LOL, this movie was in the bargain bin at Walmart.
See "To the Devil, a Daughter" and "Bolero", and no, not if the movie was from a major studio.
The shot is quick, but in the modern age if you had a copy of the film that showed that you could free-frame it and view it as long as you wished. Brooke does indeed wear a flesh-colored patch in some of the scenes, but not in the tub scene. If you can see her pubic cleft - and you can - the patch isn't present. You have widescreen and fullscreen reversed; when correctly done, the widescreen version shows all of the original image unlike the fullscreen version, which is cropped to fit the tv screen, removing rather than adding elements. The DVD version is actually cropped but made to look as if it's widescreen - this cuts off part of the picture in all of the scenes, not just the nude ones.
If you're watching the DVD, it's cut so that the crucial bits aren't seen. But in the original film, they're there.
Wrong, or are you turned on by the sight of an infant girl's privates if you accidentally see them while the mother is changing her diaper? Either you must answer "yes" in which case you are a sicko, or answer "no", thereby admitting that not all female nudity is sexual. Just as you can look at an infant girl's nakedness and not be the slightest aroused, most men can look at a prepubescent girl's naked body and feel no desire. Most men who saw such would feel embarrassment/discomfort, not arousal. And most men can tell the difference between a small female body and a normal-sized one just fine, thank you very much - think you are the one having a problem.
... 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.)