Nudity


Was there really any need for the nudity in this film? It didn't add anything to the plot at all.
Even though he is a crook would Mosquito really be comfortable standing naked in front of a child?

reply

There was no need at all, except for the early 1970s attitude in the film industry that if you wanted people to go and see your film, you'd have to take your kit off. The late 1960s and early 1970s were full of such scenes in films. However, we only saw a rear view of the naked Mark Lester. The reflection in the mirror of his lower front half was obscured by the dressing table. Nevertheless, he was ill advised by someone to make the film and to appear nude in it at 13. It was certainly a far cry from his earlier successes such as Oliver! and Run Wild Run Free.

reply

[deleted]

Very strange scene.

reply

Oh please - the film was trying to invoke a intimate father/son type relationship, a child watching a man he looks up to shave. The problem isn't with the scene, the problem is in the way we've been taught to analyze an innocent scene like this and turn it into something dirty, when it is not.

reply

Europeans don't have the same hang-ups about nudity that most Americans seem to have. I've been to Europe and I've seen many topless women at the beach, as well as young naked children. Even their teenage magazines have full body nudity, which is something you would never see in an American magazine that is geared towards adolescents.

Regarding the nudity in this film, though, I would only object if they were showing a child involved in a sex act. That, of course, would be criminal. Instead, they just showed a naked child (from the back) standing in front of a mirror. This type of non sexual nudity is far from uncommon in European films.

reply