sexy


i bet the scenes of janet munro getting out of the bath with just a towel around her shoulders to cover her, and laying naked under a sheet while edward judd sat on her bed must have raised a few eyebrows at the time this came out.

reply

According to the director's commentary on the DVD, the semi-nude scenes were enough to earn it an X rating in England at the time -- meaning no kids allowed. But they were alarming enough for American censors that the scenes were clipped out entirely. As Val Guest muses, a little puzzled, Americans don't seem to mind violence the way Europeans do, but they're more offended by nudity.

reply

good to see nothing has changed then in the last 40 years!

reply

Those scenes were definitely NOT clipped out of the American release -- at least not the print I saw in theaters when I was about 9. Even then, they had quite an effect. Not only that, but a couple of years later, when this film began running interminably on channel 9 in NYC, the entire bed, bath and beyond scene was run, absolutely uncut and uncensored -- on TV, in the mid-60s. It was very sexy, still is. (Channel 9 even left in the swearing -- as when Pete finishes Bill's toast to his son in the bar -- "son of a bitch". I remember my parents being shocked hearing that on TV around 1964!)

I thought it was funny in the DVD commentary how the interviewer kept waiting and asking if we were going to see any part of Janet Munro's breasts or nipples, and he seemed genuinely disappointed that we didn't. But there are two still photographs of her topless in the bathroom (she's wearing a pair of very brief shorts) taken on-set, included in the DVD's photo gallery. She was extremely pretty and, indeed, sexy.

Her early death, and the heavy drinking and other problems that preceded it, were such a shame and a loss. Besides being so good-looking, Janet was a very fine actress. Sexy, yes, but sad.

reply

Actually at 45:28 and 45:31 into the movie you'll see what your looking for. For 45:28 look at the mirror off to the side of her, and at 45:31 you get the "nip-slip" I believe is the term. She was a beautiful woman.

reply

Wait! Let me write down those times!

reply

When I saw the nude stills of Janet on the dvd version of this film I thought that it was more likely they were from the film itself rather than just taken while she was on the set - why would she be washing her hair on the set anyway?

My original thought was confirmed when I found another still taken from the same angle as the three on the dvd only this time she was standing up with a towel around her neck. There was also a caption included which said that she was reacting to a phonecall - in the film as released she was reacting to the doorbell. So I would suggest that this is possibly an alternate version of the similar scene that appears in the film and it may have been filmed and seen in some European versions of this movie. However it has not been seen since and now probably no longer exists.

This is an outstanding film and Janet is indeed very sexy and excellent in it. It was also an important film for her as it gave her a more serious part as her films up to that time were for Disney - SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON is also a very good film although Janet only appears after about an hour and she is superb in that as well. Other films to look out for are LIFE FOR RUTH and BITTER HARVEST (with again some surprising very brief nudity). A beautiful, charming, loveable and very fine actress that would be a good description of Janet Munro.

reply

The topless shots weren't from the film itself, in the sense that they were stills from footage actually shot for and included in the movie. Of course she wasn't washing her hair on the set; the shots were taken during the shooting of the bath scene (as all films have still photos taken during production). Clearly she was topless in the scene, with a towel draped around her shoulders, but that's as much as was visible in the movie. Obviously, the still photographer took a few posed shots between the actual filming of the scene, which included the half-nude photos of her in the DVD. There are many other posed shots of Janet in the disc's extras. There was no "European edition" of TDTECF with brief nude scenes...unfortunately.

Otherwise, all you say about Miss Munro is well-taken. Your description sums her qualities up perfectly. As I've said before, her life story is so sad. What a shame to see such talent and beauty thrown away by her terrible addiction to alcohol (not helped by her having been married to two hard-drinking actors whose own careers were wrecked by boozing).

reply

The shots were not taken during the shooting of the bath scene. That scene came later in the movie. They obviously come from earlier in the film because she is wearing the same small skirt as she does in the previous bathroom scene.

That earlier scene starts with an open bathroom door and then in the film you see her from behind and she puts a towel round her neck. The three shots in the dvd stills would come after the shot of the open door and then the extra still that I have seen which shows her with a towel round her neck with a reaction to a doorbell/phone. As for the possibility that there may have been a European version of this film or not it is impossible to say, at this time extra or alternate scenes were shot for some movies, Hammer was one company that did it,in any case the scene (which would only have lasted a few seconds anyway)is long since lost.

Also in the still gallery of this dvd there are some shots that Janet did for Harrison Marks but only seven are seen I have a further half dozen that are just as good if not better than those used. One of those stills appeared in print at the time of this films release.

I wouldn't say that her talent was thrown away by her addiction to alcohol. What actually happened was that in 1964 she decided to stop making films to bring up her children she also had two miscarriages and other medical problems at this time, this made it difficult for her to go back to making films but she did do some work on TV. I also have some stills of her taken in the late sixties in a garden and she was sexier and more alluring than ever.

By the way also worth checking out is the excellent site janetmunro.com.

reply

Well, liquor didn't help her. But thanks for the website, which I'll check out.

As to the topless stills included on the DVD, it's quite possible that they were taken at a different time during the film's shooting, although since movies aren't usually filmed in sequence it's just as possible that all the bath scenes were filmed more or less adjacent to one another, even though they come at different points in the finished film. It's basically irrelevant; whenever they were taken, they were plainly done during filming, as extra, on-set shots not meant to reflect anything actually seen in the movie. This is commonly done on film sets. The DVD includes other "cheesecake" shots of Janet also not depicted in the film, though she's wearing outfits seen in the movie.

Director Val Guest never said anything about there having been a so-called "European" or other version including any nudity, and there is no record or evidence at all of any other version of this film having been released anywhere. Since not even the creator of the film stated that there was any "alternate" version, it is inaccurate to state that "it is impossible to say" whether such a version was ever filmed; on the contrary, under the circumstances it's more than reasonably possible to say with confidence that no such version was ever made. And even if an alternate version had been made, there is no basis to conclude that such footage is "lost". Your supposition that this alleged footage is lost is based solely on the assumption that an alternate version was in fact filmed. If such a version had indeed be made, there is no basis for asserting that it is "lost"; maybe it is and maybe it isn't. On the other hand, if such a version had not been made -- as seems to be the case, as absolutely no evidence whatsoever exists that one was filmed -- then, obviously, this non-existent footage couldn't become "lost".

The actual evidence all points to the fact that there is only one original version of TDTECF. Barring some new evidence, anything else is unfounded assumption and speculation.

reply

If as you say that these shots were ''not meant to reflect anything actually seen in the movie'' then why would they have been taken at all, they could never have been used or seen at the time and they hardly show this actress in a flattering light. There is no reason why Janet would have been openly on a film set washing her hair if it had not been part of filming or rehearsing before filming - this kind of semi nudity was very rare for this period. Taking this into consideration also answers your assertion that ''no evidence exists that one(this scene)was filmed'' the evidence is in the stills themselves and the caption on the 4th still I have shows her reaction to a phone call, that would be the call that Edward Judd makes before he goes up to her room, it would make this scene if it was filmed an alternate to the one that appears in the final print.

The director Val Guest never did say anything about an alternate version of the film but then he was never asked (in the commentary anyway)and there is also a later scene (this one is just as interesting if not more so), mentioned in the dvd production notes, which apparently was filmed and then deleted and it is impossible to see how it would have fitted into the film and as far as I know there has never been any stills seen from it at all. Apart from the dvd notes it has never been mentioned before.

Even if the earlier semi nude scene had been in a print of the movie it would probably have been a film company decision and not the director's decision, he may not have even have known about it, or perhaps even remember filming it.If there had been a version of this film with an alternate semi nude scene in it then it would hardly have been seen very often and perhaps in very few countries, so of course one version of the film would become the most well known one.This would also apply to the tinted opening and ending of the movie which was rarely if ever seen since the original cinema release.

Of the other shots that appear in the dvd, the Harrison Marks photo's, from what I remember these were taken before filming started and this was also the case with the stills of her taken while wearing a dress from the film and posing on a mattress.

As for assumption and speculation well when rare material like this turn's up it invites such a reaction does it not, or there wouldn't be any discussion about it.

reply

Speculation is one thing, and as you say fodder for discussion. But there's a difference between speculation -- in this case, might there have been an "alternate" version of the film with nudity -- and assumption, which is what it seems you're doing -- seeing these couple of posed semi-nude stills, and extrapolating from this that there was such an alternate version. The existence of these stills is not "proof" of anything, much less that they represent scenes actually filmed for some hypothetical "alternate version" of the movie.

As I've said, there is no proof -- none -- that any such alternate scene or version was ever filmed. Val Guest never said anything about it that I am aware of, either on the DVD track or anywhere else, and since his co-commentator repeatedly asked him whether there were any nude shots of Janet in the film, he certainly had the perfect opportunity to have affirmed that there had been such footage filmed, had that been the case. Nor, quite frankly, is it remotely credible that such scenes could have been shot without his knowledge, since he was the film's producer as well as director. He certainly would have filmed such sequences himself, and even if somehow he hadn't, it is simply not credible that he would never even have known or heard of such scenes being shot. (Wouldn't the actors or crew have mentioned it to him?) Even speculation has to have some basis in fact, and there are absolutely no facts here.

Contrary to what you say, the taking of still photographs not representing an actual scene in the film was (and is) a very common practice. You're correct that such semi-nudity was exceedingly rare in 1961 -- all the more reason to realize that those two topless shots were not meant to reflect a scene actually filmed for the movie, but as cheesecake shots. I agree that Janet was most likely on the set "washing her hair" in relation to her scene with Edward Judd, but the fact that they had her pose for the topless stills does not at all mean that such a scene was actually filmed for the movie. On the contrary, especially when it came to taking photographs of beautiful women, the still photographer assigned to a film's crew would often stage posed shots having nothing to do with anything seen in the actual film. (In fact, it's not even correct to say that she had to be rehearsing the "hair-wash" scene when the photos were taken. It's likely, but not necessary; actors are often called back to pose for still photos, even after filming their scenes. This makes no real difference about anything, of course.)

I also disagree very strongly that these photos do not show Janet Munro in a flattering light. On the contrary, they demonstrate what a truly beautiful woman she was, and as semi-nude shots go, they are tasteful enough, certainly not smutty. But this, of course, is a matter of individual opinion, not fact.

Anyway, in sum, the existence of these stills proves nothing other than they were taken. To assert that they are "proof" that there was nude footage of Ms. Munro filmed for some alternate version of the movie is absurd. There is absolutely no actual proof of the existence of such an alternate version -- no such film has ever been seen, reported, commented upon, anything -- and it seems certain it would have been had it in fact existed. In any case, the presence of the semi-nude stills proves only that Janet posed for them at some point while making the film. Unless and until some actual evidence surfaces of a so-called alternate scene of the film showing her topless -- in the form of such footage itself, or at least the testimony of someone connected to the production who knows first hand of such footage -- all that can be asserted as fact is that she posed for these topless shots, and that they were taken on the set of The Day the Earth Caught Fire.

Oh, as to the original tinted sequence you mentioned: the reason this disappeared from view for over 40 years was that the releasing companies never bothered to strike prints with the tint for television showing, an expensive process. Many tinted or full-color sequences in otherwise black-and-white films were for decades not printed in color for TV prints as a way of saving money: Spellbound, The Women, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Them!, Portrait of Jennie, Rocketship X-M, Lost Continent, The Luck of the Irish, even low-budget cheapies like War of the Colossal Beast, all had tinted or color sequences that for decades were not reproduced in color, just to save on the expense of reprinting brief color sequences in predominantly b&w films. Same with TDTECF, which was also not seen in its widescreen format until the 2000 video release that completely restored its tinting as well. None of this has anything to do with some sort of "alternate version" showing the tint.

reply

I never said that there was an alternate version of this film or that these few seconds were filmed and included but I just suggested that this may have been the case.Your suggestion that they were some sort of posed ''cheesecake''(awful expression by the way)shots isn't logical. For a start they are not posed as in one or perhaps two of them it would be fairly hard to tell who she is - if you didn't know already - also with this kind of semi nudity being rare they could never be used anyway.It looks more like they are or could be performance shots.

If Janet was to pose for semi nude shots on the set it is unlikely that she would have chosen to do it while washing her hair even if it represented some scene in the film or not, I doubt that any woman would think that she looked at her best while doing that - although I would agree that they are tasteful, when I said that ''they hardly show her in a flattering light '' it certainly wasn't meant in any disparaging way it was just that she was more beautifully presented in the other stills included. In the Harrison Marks photos for instance she does look stunning and they should have included more of them, I have some that are much better than those included on the dvd.

As for the director not mentioning anything, well he never mentioned the apparently filmed and later deleted scene and he had the opportunity to do that on the dvd commentary as well. He could hardly be expected to remember every second or scene of a film that he made decades earlier. Of course he directed the entire film I never suggested otherwise.



reply

It did seem clear to me that you were arguing that the existence of the semi-nude shots indicated that footage showing Janet in that state was in fact filmed for the movie. If that's not what you were saying, then we have no disagreement. My point is essentially that as there is no evidence whatever of such footage having been filmed, we cannot say that it was "probably" or even "possibly" made, or been "lost".

But I don't see the logic in arguing that since semi-nudity was rare in those days, the posed still shots of Janet topless would never have been circulated, but instead would indicate they represented some scenes actually filmed for the movie. This is putting the cart before the horse. It was vastly more common to find nude or semi-nude still photographs in 1961 than to find it in the movies. The stills would have been far more likely to have been made, and reach an audience, both then and in the future, in an already accepted format (photographs, vs. film), rather than seeing such nudity in the movie itself, where as you indicate it was unheard-of in a mainstream motion picture.

And, sorry, not only is my suggestion that these shots were "cheesecake" (I agree with you, an awful expression, but the one in use at that time) logical, it is obvious: what other function have they? Even if they represented a scene in the movie, their only purpose is as a sexy image of a beautiful actress: "cheesecake" (or whatever term you'd care to use).

Janet may not have had much choice in the posing of the shots, and since they were centered on the aspect of the film where she's washing her hair, it's logical that the photographer would have wanted her to pose in some variation of that part of the movie. We can never know what her feelings about such posing were (posing half nude itself, or in the state of washing her hair), but in the context shown I see nothing adverse to Janet's image. In fact, I would assume -- just an assumption on my part, not proof -- that she was agreeable to posing for these shots, might have liked it in fact. At this time she was trying to shed the good-girl image associated with her Disney films, and a couple of discreet nude stills certainly wouldn't have hurt her career plans. The bedroom scene between her and Ed Judd is quite erotic even today, let alone in '61, and showed her about as unclothed as possible for that time. I think it's likely she found the topless shots exciting to do, certainly an acceptable thing to do, since no one could have forced her to pose for them. Again, this is just my opinion, but she was seeking out sexier roles at this point, and did appear semi-nude a couple of years later in Bitter Harvest, when film standards, particularly in Britain, were loosening up rapidly.

I agree that some of the shots she posed for and shown on the DVD aren't especially flattering to her. I think the topless ones are, though, and no difficulty telling who it is, even away from the context of the DVD.

And I just don't think Guest would have neglected to mention the filming of any nude sequence, or forgotten about it, even decades later. (In your last post you did indicate that such filming might have been done without him, which as I said in reply is really not credible.) Regardless, we come back to the same point: with absolutely no hint, let alone corroborative evidence, of the existence of any nude footage actually filmed for the movie, one cannot but conclude that no such footage was ever made. If evidence to the contrary surfaces, that would be great. I would love to see such a sequence, or even have it definitively confirmed that it was made. Unfortunately, as things stand, that's plainly not the case.

Anyway, we can both agree that Janet Munro was a beautiful woman and talented actress, and that The Day the Earth Caught Fire is an excellent film. By the way, thanks for passing on the Janet Munro website, although I was unable to access the photo gallery page and one or two others. I assume you have to have a membership or something to do so, though I saw nothing on the Home or other pages to indicate how you'd gain access to those "closed" pages.

reply

Anytime that I mentioned these stills in relation to the film I always used the words ''if it was filmed'' or something similar and apart from these stills of course there is no evidence that anything else was filmed, even if someone did confirm or provide more evidence that some other scenes did exist the chances are that they don't exist any longer. The other deleted scene mentioned would have made a good extra on the dvd release and it's probably not included for this reason.

The only way that these scenes could be seen in the context of the film would be as part of an Italian or perhaps French photo novel or other magazines from the period where they told the story of the film through stills, if it was ever covered in one of these magazines.

By the way you contradicted yourself in the 4th last paragraph by saying that Janet ''may not have had much choice'' and then saying that '' no one could have forced her'' to appear topless I would say that the latter was the truth she did want to do it and it was a very daring decision.

Your last paragraph I would agree with and on the website there only is the one photo gallery page but there is an excellent listing of all the TV and film appearances she made and you don't have to be a member to see all of this site. Also worth checking is ebay there are quite a few rare stills there.

reply

Well, first, in my 4th paragraph I did not say Janet "may not have had much choice" -- what I said, in full and in context, was that she "may not have had much choice in the posing of the shots" [italics and boldface added] -- meaning how they were staged, not the basic question of posing for such shots to begin with. She certainly couldn't have been forced to pose half-nude had she insisted on not doing so. There is no contradiction in my statements: you just have to read the entire sentence and see the complete context.

As for the rest, we've pretty much exhausted the issue and seem to be more or less on the same page about the matter, so we can probably draw this discourse to a close.

I did look at the non-member pages of the JM site. Even though I couldn't access the pictures gallery there was one great shot of her on one page, showing Janet in a very sexy white dress (probably white: it was a b&w photo), attending some formal function, perhaps a premiere or something. She certainly was beautiful, and luckily her films preserve her talent.

Hard to believe that, had she lived, she'd be 74 today. Or, perhaps, only 74 might be a better way to put it. Think of all the wonderful performances she could have given over these last three-plus decades.

See you.

reply

I just noticed that on this site in the section on this film there is a note in the alternate versions section where it states that the director of the film Val Guest says that there were two versions of this film one where Janet is topless and one ''for the Americans'' where she has a towel round her neck.So it would seem that there are - or was at one time - two versions after all.

reply

Well, if the information is accurate, this would constitute proof (as opposed to speculation) that such a scene was, indeed, filmed -- which, as I said somewhere above, would be great, especially if it could be found.

Still, there's a question. In reading the Alternate Version page I saw the other item that said that topless scenes were shot but cut for the UK release in order to get its X rating. I assume this refers to the same scene as Guest's statement about filming two different shots of JM -- one with towel, one without -- the so-called "for the Americans" version. If so, this would indicate that the DVD has the same print used not only "for the Americans" but for the Brits too -- since, according to this other item, all nudity had to be cut for the UK version as well.

This, in turn, calls into question whether the topless shots were in fact released anywhere in a final version of the film; for example, on the Continent (maybe France or Italy). Remember, most countries around the world still banned nudity as late as 1961 (some still do today); countries that permited it on film were very, very few at that time (even most European nations still banned it in '61). It's quite possible, given the limited market where nudity was permissible, that such scenes were filmed but, in the end, not actually distibuted anywhere in any version of the film. I'd like to find out whether the French, say, or Italian, or German, versions of the film contain any of these topless shots.

Also, Guest's statements appear to refer to there having been "topless shots" only of the scene with Jeanne coming out of her bath with (or without) that towel draped around her neck. (She is seen topless, but from behind, at the start of that scene.) This would seem to belie the notion that there was any filmed footage corresponding to the topless still photos Janet Munro posed for during the shoot (shown in the DVD's extras) -- that is, that she would have appeared openly topless in a full-body shot in an alternate film version, as she appeared in those two still photos. Guest's statement appears to indicate that the only difference between the two versions was the presence of the towel as she walks from her bath to answer her phone -- not that there was separate, additional footage of her bending over the sink topless, as seen in the photos. We may never know for certain. But this reinforces the point that still photos taken on a film set do not necessarily correspond exactly with any scene actually filmed for the movie.

Lastly, to take a point you raised several times earlier, where you said that many years had passed and Val Guest might not remember shooting topless footage. By the same token, perhaps he "remembered" filming such footage only in retrospect -- i.e., that they never filmed it at all, but his memory tells him they did (perhaps they wanted to but didn't; or he was thinking of the still photographs); or that they did, but it was excised not just "for the Americans" but altogether in order to meet general censorship requirements (as in the UK too), and hence never seen anywhere: that there were never, strictly speaking, "two versions", even if such footage had been filmed. I'm not saying that either of these possible scenarios is the case; I have no idea, nor might anyone else, but I suppose the issue can still be disputed. Perhaps Val's widow, or Edward Judd, might know for certain (seriously).

But it would be wonderful to see any topless footage of Janet Munro filmed for this movie, whether it was ever used or not.

reply

I had always thought that if a version of this film existed with any topless scenes in it then it may have been released in a continental European country.As an example there was an alternate version of the film HIGH SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL that included a very brief topless scene that I saw in a documentary. The documentary showed both versions of the scene.Also Hazel Court very briefly appeared topless in a Hammer film (it may have been THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH)I saw the stills and she later confirmed it in a interview but apparently the scene may no longer exist.Both of these were done for the European market.

So for an alternate version of this scene to exist would not be unprecedented but I would think unlikely although it would be great if any other footage turned up.

By the way according to some posts on a forum called britmovie Edward Judd died in 2004 although this site doesn't mention it so I don't know if this is true or not.

reply

If The Day the Earth Caught Fire had been filmed three or four years later I think some nudity would have gotten through onto the screen, though perhaps not quite yet in America. If Janet had been a few years younger, or lived longer, I'm sure she would have performed nude or semi-nude in films in the late 60s and 70s. (She would also have been a far better and more alluring star for Val Guest's 1970 When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth than Victoria Vetri -- even at age 36! But I suspect the film would have been beneath her.)

I had never heard that Edward Judd had died, and checked out his own site and message board here on IMDb. According to the posts I read there, there had apparently indeed been a report that he had died sometime in 2004 -- allegedly alcoholic and homeless. But the original poster subsequently amended his remarks, based on further information that these death reports were inaccurate. As far as I can glean from the various posts, he is definitely still alive, albeit apparently in frail health, in a nursing home either in London or the south of England. (He'd have turned 76 Oct. 4.) I called my girlfriend, who's English and living in the UK, and it turns out she used to work with Edward Judd's daughter at the BBC. She is almost certain he's still alive, and is going to check the BBC records. Were he in fact dead, I'm sure an obit would have turned up in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and elsewhere at the time.

(Update, 12/15/08: Edward Judd is still alive, living in an assisted living home -- in itself hard to believe for such a virile actor; and he's only 76! My girlfriend checked in England and there's no record in any archive of his having died, only as to his present, frail, condition. Put it down to the rumor mill.)

This wouldn't be the first time an actor would have been declared dead somewhere, and it all be some weird mistake. The character actor Whit Bissell was widely reported to have died in 1981, and for several years reference books listed that as his year of death, but it turned out he was very much alive and lived until 1996. The same with the expatriate American director Cy Endfield, whose date of death was for years listed as 1983 in almost all reference works, but who in fact lived until 1995. Most amazing of all were the multitude of references that insisted that no less a notable actor than John Mills had died in 1982. Not only was he still very much alive, he continued working for many years past that -- and he was hardly an obscure name (and had of course famous offspring who could readily attest to his coninued existence). They finally got it right after about a decade, and Mills died in 2005 at 97. So it isn't too surprising that such a bogus report about Ed Judd could get started, be circulated and gain credence, especially in this era of instant "news".

If I learn of anything further I'll let you know.

reply

Edward Judd is excellent in this film and it's a pity he never really got as good a part again.

As for what Janet Munro may have done if she had lived, well from 68 to 72 she mainly appeared in serious TV dramas and she probably would have done similar types of movies if she had been offered the parts.

reply

It's interesting that the movie's credits read "Introducing Edward Judd" despite the fact that he'd been appearing in films, albeit mostly in small roles, for years -- back into the 40s, I believe.

I agree completely with your assessment of his performance in this film. His talent and the film's success should have made him a bigger star but he never quite managed the more "serious" leading roles on offer in Britain in the 60s, and eventually got pigeon-holed in sci-fi films of variable quality, then later TV. He seems to have done all right, and reading his quotes cited on his IMDb page, it appears he was pretty level-headed about his career and modest about his talents. Probably a pretty good guy, all around.

I assume you saw my addendum added onto my last post, about his indeed still being alive, though frail and in a nursing home, in the UK. I remember seeing a portion of some British TV import in the early 90s, I guess, and suddenly realizing this balding old man was Edward Judd! Only about 60 then, and he may have been made up to make him look older, but it was still a shock.

I thought he and Janet made a good screen couple, too, and it's a pity they never worked together again.

reply

I thought he and Janet made a good screen couple...
The bath/bedroom scene was enjoyably racy for 1961. I thought she was very attractive. Sorry to hear that she had a fairly short, sad career.

reply

I haven't visited this thread since my last post five-and-a-half years ago and in re-reading it have to note that Edward Judd did indeed pass away just a couple of months after that December 2008 post. He died on February 24, 2009, age 76.

As to your observations about his and Janet's bedroom scene, and about Miss Munro herself, I heartily agree. That scene still generates a lot of heat. (No pun intended.)

Also, since 2008 I've acquired the UK DVD of this film and there is no alternate version or anything added to or missing from it as compared to the print used for the American DVD, or the film as seen in theaters the US (and the UK) in the 1960s.

reply

Gorgeous lady and worth picking up the excellent UK Blu-ray.The nudity was certainly unusual for the time but "The Angry Hills"(1959)goes even further with a leacherous Leslie Philips salivating over a topless dancer-ding-dong!

reply

And now liberals ape Val Guest in almost every message board on IMDB.

"Offended" isn't the word. Personally, I think most movies have too much of both, but neither violence nor nudity offends me.

reply

[deleted]

Watching the UK Blu-ray now and was surprised to see glimpses of bare breasts and nipples in such a film.

reply