best nude scene debut by an actress in 1998- here's my vote
Rick
John
Rick <forget...@zero.com> wrote in article
<6up1bo$8b5$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
> Reese Witherspoon in "Twilight"
>
>
>
Dave
John wrote:
> But she's so fucking UGLY!
yeah, maybe in Bizzaro World!!! wtf drug rotted your brain?
Dave
drain you of your sanity
face the thing that should not be
Hugh Jass
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:07:32 -0400, "Rick" <forget...@zero.com>
wrote:
>Reese Witherspoon in "Twilight"
>
>
Darkhero1
Denise Richards in Wild Things.
-Darkhero1
http://www.geocities.com/~darkhero1
Check out my sites dedicated to I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, Urban
Legend, Practical Magic, 54 and more...
TheB...@my-dejanews.com
> >Reese Witherspoon in "Twilight"
> >
> >
>
>
Wait a minute... the only Twilight I remember from this year was that Paul
Newman, James Garner, Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon, Stockard Channing movie -
certainly don't remember any Reese naked in it.
Not a bad movie, though. I like Paul Newman.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Rick
nobody else thinks that except you.
John wrote in message <01bdeb5a$ef41e8e0$0f5718d0@default>...
>But she's so fucking UGLY!
>
Rick
in that movie
TheB...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6urjcr$67n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>> >Reese Witherspoon in "Twilight"
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Don Porter
> Wait a minute... the only Twilight I remember from this year was that Paul
> Newman, James Garner, Gene Hackman, Susan Sarandon, Stockard Channing movie -
> certainly don't remember any Reese naked in it.
You must have come in late. Opening scene -- topless Reese. Then
Paul Newman gets shot, and they snicker about it for the rest of the
film..
--
| Don Porter dgpo...@erols.com |
| "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!" |
| -- Adam West as BATMAN |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Loki
>
>On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 18:07:32 -0400, "Rick" <forget...@zero.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Reese Witherspoon in "Twilight"
>>
Actually that's not true. Reese Witherspoon had a nude scene in her
very first non-TV film, Man In The Moon. Granted, she was only 14
(which is how I remember her, and why I remember that scene and movie,
as I was so shocked to see under-age nudity in a movie, let alone a
PG-13 "sensitive" film), but I'd say that still qualifies, eh?
Larry
Check out a gaming page like no other: Western Philosophy
- Reviews of every new domestic game, and many imports, within days of release
- 3 separate review perspectives on every game
- Various game-related essays
www.dreamscape.com/lokise
MasonBarge
Allie Sheedy in "High Art". I wish she'd done it while she still had her
looks.
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
Rick
numerous interviews I've read since then
Loki wrote in message <3613dc0d...@news.together.net>...
Justin Siegel
--
Justin Siegel | http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/6604
"This is pitiful. This is a disgrace to art." -- Wiggasaurous Rex
nick nazareth
Rick wrote in message <6urmt7$m84$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>If you think Reese Witherspoon is a dog you need a lobotomy. I guarantee
you
>nobody else thinks that except you.
I think that. At least in the movie Twilight she looked horrible. My first
reaction was 'put your clothes back on!'.
Rick
Justin Siegel wrote in message <3612FD...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
jayembee
lok...@dreamscape.com wrote:
> Actually that's not true. Reese Witherspoon had a nude scene
> in her very first non-TV film, Man In The Moon. Granted, she
> was only 14 (which is how I remember her, and why I remember
> that scene and movie, as I was so shocked to see under-age
> nudity in a movie, let alone a PG-13 "sensitive" film), but
> I'd say that still qualifies, eh?
Actually, that's not true. It was a body double, not Witherspoon.
Which is most likely why it was done as a long shot, so that it
wouldn't be obvious that it wasn't her.
If you want to see "under age nudity" in a PG-rated film, check
out Franco Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET. As a recent book (CHICKS
ON FILM) points out, it probably couldn't be made in today's
political climate exactly as it was made then.
(Nor, for that matter, could Louis Malle's PRETTY BABY.)
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"Save Ferris!"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Robert Antonelli
>
> If you want to see "under age nudity" in a PG-rated film, check
> out Franco Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET. As a recent book (CHICKS
> ON FILM) points out, it probably couldn't be made in today's
> political climate exactly as it was made then.
>
> (Nor, for that matter, could Louis Malle's PRETTY BABY.)
>
> --- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
I was in Jr. High when Zefferelli's R & J was released. The school
I attended offered a field trip to watch the film. Every quarter a
Shakepeare class was offered, sort of a cross between reading and drama,
and it was pretty popular. When the field trip was offered any student
was allowed to attend the screening, thus justifying hiring a school
bus.
Heh, what made the entire trip more worthwhile than simply getting
a free ditch from classes was the parental permission slip required
because the film presented "adult themes". The anticipation of the
brief nudity in the film prolly spawned more woodies and damp bunnies
than it actually delivered.
Actually most of us who attended the screening were more interested
in Zefferelli's interpretation of the play than a few titillating
glimpses of Olivia Hussey's breasts.
Robert Antonelli
MasonBarge
>
>If you want to see "under age nudity" in a PG-rated film, check
>out Franco Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET.
Well, ok, but don't blink. I don't think this would have much trouble
getting made today, but it would be rated "R".
Pretty Baby, now, is a different matter, since you actually get to see a
prepubescent po-po presented in a sexual setting. No, it wouldn't be made
today period. Just look at the controversy surrounding Lolita.
But the French have always had a more permissive attitude towards sexuality and
young girls.
Bob
> Pretty Baby, now, is a different matter, since you actually get to see a
> prepubescent po-po presented in a sexual setting. No, it wouldn't be made
> today period. Just look at the controversy surrounding Lolita.
>
> But the French have always had a more permissive attitude towards sexuality and
> young girls.
Pretty Baby was not a French film. Yes, the director/writer was French,
but it was an American film with an American cast.
Brooke Shields was about 12 when she made the film, which included her
virginity being auctioned off in a whorehouse, as well as scenes of her
posing nude for an adult (male) photographer, and being thrown out of
the room stark naked. I've always been astounded that they got away
with it in the first place - and wondered why Brooke didn't later hate
her mother for making her take part in the film.
jayembee
Bo...@loop.com wrote:
> Brooke Shields was about 12 when she made the film, which
> included her virginity being auctioned off in a whorehouse,
> as well as scenes of her posing nude for an adult (male)
> photographer, and being thrown out of the room stark naked.
> I've always been astounded that they got away with it in
> the first place - and wondered why Brooke didn't later hate
> her mother for making her take part in the film.
Well, back when she made THE BLUE LAGOON, she was asked in an
interview why she used a body double for the nude scenes when
she appeared completely starkers in PRETTY BABY. Her reply was
something to the effect of, "When I was 12, I didn't think I
had anything worth hiding."
It's also quite possible that she feels that as embarrassing
as it might've been (if she even felt embarrassed by it), it's
unlikely that she would ever have had as much of a film career
without that striking bit of notoriety. When all is said and
done, doing PRETTY BABY probably benefitted more than harmed
her.
It's also possible that she *did* hate her mother for it, at
least for a while, but worked it out.
jayembee
mason...@aol.com (MasonBarge) wrote:
>> If you want to see "under age nudity" in a PG-rated film,
>> check out Franco Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET.
> Well, ok, but don't blink. I don't think this would have much
> trouble getting made today, but it would be rated "R".
You can't be serious. If the actors in question were over 18,
I might agree with you (and it would more likely get a PG or
PG-13 rating rather than an R). In a political climate where
the major distributors wouldn't pick up Adrian Lyne's LOLITA
for fear of getting their asses nailed for child pornography,
there's no way a 15-year-old actress would appear with exposed
breasts in a sexual context.
As for the "don't blink" part, you're quite correct, but it's
certainly more substantial a nude shot, and not much less in
duration than the one in MAN IN THE MOON, which was the example
I was responding to.
> Pretty Baby [...]
> But the French have always had a more permissive attitude
> towards sexuality and young girls.
Be that as it may, it's irrelevant. Calling PRETTY BABY a French
film would be like calling AIR FORCE ONE a German film simply
because of the director's nationality.
Scott J. Promish
>>
>>If you want to see "under age nudity" in a PG-rated film, check
>>out Franco Zefferelli's ROMEO AND JULIET.
>
>Well, ok, but don't blink. I don't think this would have much trouble
>getting made today, but it would be rated "R".
>
>prepubescent po-po presented in a sexual setting. No, it wouldn't be made
>today period. Just look at the controversy surrounding Lolita.
Assuming I understand correctly the meaning of "po-po", no you don't. She's
clearly wearing some kind of cover-up in the scenes where she's shown from
the front.
MasonBarge
>Assuming I understand correctly the meaning of "po-po", no you don't. She's
>clearly wearing some kind of cover-up in the scenes where she's shown from
>the front.
No, you get about the same shot as you get of Olivia Hussey's tooters in "R&J",
that is, a glimpse. She's getting out of the tub. I can make a vidcap and
send it to you if you want proof.
MasonBarge
>Calling PRETTY BABY a French
Well, I won't be argumentative and point out that I didn't say it was a "French
film". To me, it was Malle's movie front to back and had his distinctive
touch.
Really, I want to beg the question and say it was French-flavored because of
the subject matter. In fact, I can't think of an "American" film that treats
sex of young teenage girls in anything but the most finger-wagging manner,
either as part of a really gritty street scenario with moralistic overtones, or
maybe a couple of kids "exploring". Even there, you don't see anything like
Grand Highway, i.e. real sex. It's a European thing.
Christopher Siciliano
MasonBarge wrote in message
<19981006192905...@ng-fb2.aol.com>...
>
>>Assuming I understand correctly the meaning of "po-po", no you don't.
She's
>>clearly wearing some kind of cover-up in the scenes where she's shown from
>>the front.
>
>No, you get about the same shot as you get of Olivia Hussey's tooters in
"R&J",
>that is, a glimpse. She's getting out of the tub. I can make a vidcap
and
>send it to you if you want proof.
Joe Megan
In fact, I can't think of an "American" film that treats
>sex of young teenage girls in anything but the most finger-wagging manner,
>either as part of a really gritty street scenario with moralistic overtones, or
>maybe a couple of kids "exploring".
Au Contrare....One of my favorite american films is that
sophisticated commentary on teenage suburban morals, "The
Cheerleaders".
American movie making at it's best, sans finger wagging.
raxx_...@my-dejanews.com
Dave <night...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> John wrote:
>
> > But she's so fucking UGLY!
>
>
I gots to agree...
Reese was much better looking a few years back, like in "Fear", but lately her
facial bone structure has gotten out of control...
I believe her future holds only bit parts playing trailer trash in
direct-to-video erotic thrillers.
Raxx Gratis
Alex Crouvier
>
> On 6 Oct 1998 23:38:16 GMT, mason...@aol.com (MasonBarge) wrote:
> In fact, I can't think of an "American" film that treats
> >sex of young teenage girls in anything but the most finger-wagging manner,
> >either as part of a really gritty street scenario with moralistic overtones, or
> >maybe a couple of kids "exploring".
>
> Au Contrare....
Ouch
jayembee
"Scott J. Promish" <sco...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Assuming I understand correctly the meaning of "po-po", no you
> don't. She's clearly wearing some kind of cover-up in the scenes
> where she's shown from the front.
Clearly?
Then perhaps you can explain why everyone associated with the
film (including Shields herself) don't attempt to deny that
she was completely starkers in that scene.
Scott J. Promish
>In article <6v8588$a...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
> "Scott J. Promish" <sco...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>> Assuming I understand correctly the meaning of "po-po", no you
>> don't. She's clearly wearing some kind of cover-up in the scenes
>> where she's shown from the front.
>
>Clearly?
>
>Then perhaps you can explain why everyone associated with the
>film (including Shields herself) don't attempt to deny that
>she was completely starkers in that scene.
I don't know. Maybe you should watch the film.
Bob
stocking.
Of course, at age 12, she didn't have much to show. But her mother might
have considered the fact that leering pedophiles out there would think
otherwise... Who wants their kid to be ogled in the buff by child
molesters? Apparently, her mom was more concerned about the paychecks.
jayembee
"Scott J. Promish" <sco...@concentric.net> wrote:
> jayembee wrote in message <6vhpm1$mpf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <6v8588$a...@chronicle.concentric.net>,
>> "Scott J. Promish" <sco...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>> Assuming I understand correctly the meaning of "po-po", no you
>>> don't. She's clearly wearing some kind of cover-up in the scenes
>>> where she's shown from the front.
>> Clearly?
>> Then perhaps you can explain why everyone associated with the
>> film (including Shields herself) don't attempt to deny that
>> she was completely starkers in that scene.
> I don't know.
In an earlier posting on this subject, I referred to a quote by
Brooke Shields in which she replies, when asked why she used a
body double in BLUE LAGOON when she appeared completely nude in
PRETTY BABY, "When I did PRETTY BABY, I didn't think I had anything
worth hiding." If she was wearing some sort of body stocking, one
would think she'd just say, "Well, I wasn't actually nude in PRETTY
BABY."
> Maybe you should watch the film.
I have, albeit 20 years ago when it was first released. I don't
recall there being any doubt in my mind then that she was nude.
In fact, in 20 years, your comment is the first I've ever seen
suggesting that she wasn't actually nude.
MasonBarge
> Who wants their kid to be ogled in the buff by child
>molesters? Apparently, her mom was more concerned about the paychecks.
>
adventure on camera. She lost a lawsuit last month that resulted in a gallery
display of nude photos in a Manhattan gallery or photog museum, can't remember
which.
Anyone in NY go to see this?
John F. Eldredge
>
>>Calling PRETTY BABY a French
>>film would be like calling AIR FORCE ONE a German film . . .
>
>Well, I won't be argumentative and point out that I didn't say it was a "French
>film". To me, it was Malle's movie front to back and had his distinctive
>touch.
>
>Really, I want to beg the question and say it was French-flavored because of
>the subject matter. In fact, I can't think of an "American" film that treats
>sex of young teenage girls in anything but the most finger-wagging manner,
>either as part of a really gritty street scenario with moralistic overtones, or
>maybe a couple of kids "exploring". Even there, you don't see anything like
>Grand Highway, i.e. real sex. It's a European thing.
Blue Lagoon? You didn't see them actually doing it, but they had full
frontal nudity of both characters. Given that Brooke Shields was 15
at the time, that movie would probably be illegal to make now.
--
John F. Eldredge -- eldr...@poboxes.com
PGP key available from http://www.netforward.com/poboxes/?eldredge/
--
"There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power;
not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace." - Woodrow Wilson
Pete K-
Eldredge) wrote:
>Blue Lagoon? You didn't see them actually doing it, but they had full
>frontal nudity of both characters. Given that Brooke Shields was 15
>at the time, that movie would probably be illegal to make now.
I don't think so. Maybe you're thinking of a movie with Phoebe Cates
called "Paradise".
Deborah G. Buckner
John F. Eldredge wrote in message <3632d46b....@news.earthlink.net>...
>Blue Lagoon? You didn't see them actually doing it, but they had full
>frontal nudity of both characters. Given that Brooke Shields was 15
>at the time, that movie would probably be illegal to make now.
I think I remember reading they used a body double for Shields, because of
her age.
Deb
MasonBarge
>>frontal nudity of both characters. Given that Brooke Shields was 15
>>at the time, that movie would probably be illegal to make now.
>
>
>I think I remember reading they used a body double for Shields, because of
>her age.
>
her mom) just didn't want to do a nudie after the shocking "Pretty Baby".
There wasn't much nudity in Blue Lagoon anyway and no sex (or maybe there was
and I missed it during one of my naps).
Under current Constitutional decisions, states can't ban (much less prosecute)
the showing of non-sexual nudity of persons of any age. While filmakers could
get away with a very nude 15-year-old romping around an unspoiled Paradise, it
would become kind of problematical if there were sex implied or expressed later
on in the film.
Anyway, David Hamilton is still perfectly legal and a filmaker could show a
15-year-old running around buck naked without facing a trial.
John F. Eldredge
>>>Blue Lagoon? You didn't see them actually doing it, but they had full
>>>frontal nudity of both characters. Given that Brooke Shields was 15
>>>at the time, that movie would probably be illegal to make now.
>>
>>
>>I think I remember reading they used a body double for Shields, because of
>>her age.
>>
>They did use a body double, but not because of her age. She (or more likely
>her mom) just didn't want to do a nudie after the shocking "Pretty Baby".
>There wasn't much nudity in Blue Lagoon anyway and no sex (or maybe there was
>and I missed it during one of my naps).
>
>Under current Constitutional decisions, states can't ban (much less prosecute)
>the showing of non-sexual nudity of persons of any age. While filmakers could
>get away with a very nude 15-year-old romping around an unspoiled Paradise, it
>would become kind of problematical if there were sex implied or expressed later
>on in the film.
>
>Anyway, David Hamilton is still perfectly legal and a filmaker could show a
>15-year-old running around buck naked without facing a trial.
They showed Chris Atkins thrusting, and lots of
stroking-each-other's-backs type shots. It presumably was legal at
the time, since they didn't show penetration.
Scott J. Promish
>Anyway, David Hamilton is still perfectly legal and a filmaker could show a
>15-year-old running around buck naked without facing a trial.
Legal in most places, yes, but wasn't there a situation recently where a
Barnes & Noble was being prosecuted (or at least protested) for carrying
Hamilton and Jock Sturges monographs? Actually, I know there was, but I
don't remember the details or outcome. I think the store won, thankfully.
jayembee
> Blue Lagoon? You didn't see them actually doing it, but they
> had full frontal nudity of both characters. Given that Brooke
> Shields was 15 at the time, that movie would probably be illegal
> to make now.
Shields used a body double for the nude scenes in THE BLUE LAGOON.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"If the Apocalypse comes...beep me."
jayembee
"Deborah G. Buckner" <sb...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> I think I remember reading they used a body double for Shields,
> because of her age.
No, not because of her age, but because *she* didn't want to do
the nude scenes.
G. A. Edgar
> for fear of getting their asses nailed for child pornography,
Actually, I think it was actually for fear of losing money.
Now that is has been released, nobody is getting nailed
for child pornography.
> In fact, I can't think of an "American" film that treats
> sex of young teenage girls in anything but the most finger-wagging manner,
See the current movie A SOLDIER'S DAUGHTER NEVER CRIES.
nopa...@yahoo.com
ed...@math.ohio-state.edu (G. A. Edgar) wrote:
> Actually, I think it was actually for fear of losing money.
> Now that is has been released, nobody is getting nailed
> for child pornography.
...thankfully. "Lolita" doesn't exactly make Humbert (or indeed, lust for
underage females) look good. It tackles a complex subject of eros with wit,
intelligence and complexity as opposed to one-dimensional morality. Clearly,
"The Tin Drum" is also not child pornography, in spite of some bluenosed
attempts to treat it as such.
"For a Lost Soldier" was shown in the USA without legal incident, and that
movie was potentially even more controversial as it portrayed a romatic
homosexual relationship between a 19-year-old man and a young boy.
Trying to characterize art as porn is always a risky and potentially
dishonest business, which is not to say that there are no complex attendant
social issues regarding controversial art. I think the legal worries about
the new "Lolita" probably DID stem in part from monetary anxieties, but the
legal aspect was legitimate, too. The recent Child Protection Act (I'm sure I
got the name wrong, but you know what I'm referring to) clearly stated that
*simulated* depictions of minors in sexual situations were illegal, but it's
good to know that adult common sense seems to be prevailing in the case of
Lolita. That's how it should be, ideally.
I haven't seen it, but a friend who did said "it's too boring to get uptight
about," which made me laugh.
- Dean
Regina Alexandra Robbins
> In article <3632d46b....@news.earthlink.net>,
> eldr...@poboxes.com (John F. Eldredge) wrote:
> > mason...@aol.com (MasonBarge) wrote:
>
> > Blue Lagoon? You didn't see them actually doing it, but they
> > had full frontal nudity of both characters. Given that Brooke
> > Shields was 15 at the time, that movie would probably be illegal
> > to make now.
>
> Shields used a body double for the nude scenes in THE BLUE LAGOON.
No!!! Say it ain't so! Another of my guilty movie pleasures ruined!
(You think I'm kidding...)
RAR.