Calling girls underage...
 

OK so this movie Bully got me thinking about something. Not a bad flick by the way, but that's not the question. The actresses getting naked in the movie are supposed to be 17 and in high school. They are actually a little older, but it just got me thinking, it's legal to tell your audience that the girls are underage?

I don't think the feds would like it very much if, say, in a Little April sample movie, her friend said "I can't believe you're 17 already, April" and then we see her naked. Yet they do this in Hollywood flicks, right?

All the nude shots here are from Bully.

Forget the movie "bully". Look up the movie "Pretty baby" and figure out what the feds would do. Though "rambling rose" also is up there.

Look up the movie "13" That really pushed boundries.

or even lolita. i think its ok cause it has a story to it / art and its not just obscenity

You willing to roll the dice?

Look at the one site "txt stories" all about c p shit.. Busted raided...ect

lolita got banned here in oz , the classification board said it was a pedophile movie , due to the actress playing a part of a teen

in 13 the girls were actually not much older the 13 and doing the shit.. not older actresses playing younger...

SIDENOTE: Any parents of teen girls NEED to see that movie but not let the teen girl see it... Its really kinda scary and VERY true to life.

"kids" was fucked to but atleast it taught you something

That movie made me feel weird as shit.

i didn't appreciate the skateboard scene but i just saw city of god yesterday and nothing compares lol

Yesh 13 freaked me out when I saw it. I didnt know that they were alowed to make movies like that.

I can't remember anything in Lolita that was "obscene". Saw it again on TV recently and thought it was damned excellent - strong cast with Mason, Winters and Lyon.

Only my :2 cents: - but just thought it was damned funny watching the antics and interaction between the three main characters. It's really Oscar material and hardly "pedo" material as we would think of it - but probably risky at the time of production. Hell.. they'd probably jail Stanley Kubrick and call him a pedo if he wanted to make it today :1orglaugh

Ya "13" without a doubt was almost a legal kiddy porn movie. Watching it made me very uncomfortable having two girls that will be that age before I know it. Have a 5 year old, and a 1 year old. My wife is Japanese, and I already have shotguns and baseball bats at the door in anticipation of the boys that will be knocking on the door soon. :Oh crap

iirc 13 didnt even have any nudity :2 cents:

Mixed eh? Better learn how to use explosives lol

The third character was definately pedo material. The actor

isnt Pretty Baby the movie with Brooke Shield in it? when she was like 12yo??

Well Lolita didnt have any actual nudity, I dont think...

But wasnt Thora Birch 17 when she showed her tatas in American Beauty?

Legally, I think the difference is the purpose of the movie production and of course if its actual or simulated.

And then its moral and censorship. We still live in a world where Hannibal Lecter is a cool dude, but we are not allowed to be shocked by real stories.... because we are so stupid we can't tell difference :upsidedow

Definitely an interesting question. I had never thought about this shit before. Damn, I'm so high I don't even have an opinion.

Not sure the meaning you intended mkx. Sure, Sue Lyon was only 13 when she got the title role, whether that makes her pedo material is no different from any underage person. The movie was not a "sex movie" or something conceived for the gratification of pedos.

I'd be more concerned about pedo activity in real life than a comedy movie based on one, - and also prefer to see the subject matter out in the open than hidden till some victim of a pedo speaks.

Dirty Dane has a valid point in Hannibal Lecter being cool. James Mason as the pedo was sure not portrayed as "cool" but more of ridicule. The Lecters and Humbert Humbert's of this world are, sadly, real. Their victims know that only too well - least if they are still alive in the Lecter instance.

whats wrong with lolita? it's story based not based on actual sex scenes...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned "The Blue Lagooon". :2 cents:

Last San Diego gathering the lawyer guy answered a question similar to this. Basically what I got from it was that the studio can prove that nothing ACTUAL involving underage people took place. ie: they put a board across the guy's lap when a girl sits on his knee, it's just blocked out of the scene. They are telling a story, not acting out every part of the story.

In porn, actual sexual situations take place regularly. It would be the burden of the photographer and everyone involved to record and prove that nothing actually sexual took place with underage actors.

No outright nudity no, but there were scenes with them stripping down to bra's if I recall, and they tried to seduce the 20 year old neighbor next door and started grinding on him etc. Uncomfortable. lol