Is it true?


Is it true that this movie has child nudity in it. If it is, isn't that against the law?

reply

The short answers are yes and no. There are substantial (if not always intelligent) discussions of your questions on this board in the threads entitled "naked" and "Question."

"Nothing personal. Your name just happened to come up."

reply

Y'know, I've just returned from a mundane trip to the local "Fred Meyer" supermarket, where I happened to see Greystoke: Legend of Tarzan on a rack of cheap, budget DVD movies.

That movie includes full frontal nude scenes of a child of about 11 or 12, and it was right there between the fruit stand and the pharmacy, for crying out loud!

As long as they don't feature erotic activity or lasciviously suggestive poses, nude scenes involving children are NOT illegal in the US!

reply

Well, if you go to Wikipedia, and type in child acting they have something on it, and there are certain requirements. One of them is that children aren't allowed to be naked or partially naked.

reply

Hmmm, I typed in "Child Acting" and several variations on wikipedia and couldn't find anything about the subject. Could you possibly post the link so I could read the article? It sounds like, if anything, it's a rule between the studios and SAG, but it would have to have been a recent amendment in the union contract because there are so many movies in the past that have contained child nudity.

Either way, that would still mean that it only applied to actors in the US who are a part of the Screen Actors Guild. Non-union actors and foreign films would still be free-game. If you could post that link though that would be great. =]

reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_actor

"You got the lanes going east, the lanes going west, and the lanes going straight to hell."-L.I.E.

reply

Ahh, gotcha, I just noticed how the section starts off with:

In some countries child actors in the performing arts (television, film or stage) are prohibited from doing certain things.[citation needed] In these countries, a child actor may not:

Risk his or her physical well-being (no dangerous stunts)
Be exposed to morally compromising situations
Be nude or partially nude
Engage in overt sexual acts
Be victims of any kind

It says that currently, the only studio in the US to follow these guidelines is Disney as of 2004. Unfortunately the page doesn't state what other "countries" follow these guidelines. This might explain why in the US and in Europe, many of these "rules" seem to be optional.

Thanks for the info. =]

reply

[deleted]

Here in the UK, if anyone has a photographic image of a naked child in a film on their computer, they can be arrested and charged with having Level One child pornography (on a scale of one to five levels, Level Five being the most sexually explicit). And yet the accused could have the same image on a DVD that has been passed for public viewing by the British Board of Film Classification and that is freely on sale to the public in a DVD store and the image is not illegal, nor is possession of it. That is totally crazy!

Example: Possess a DVD of "You Are Not Alone" containing the nude shower scene with the two young boys and it's legal. Have the same images on your computer hard drive and they'll throw the book at you if you are caught.

reply

Here in the UK, if anyone has a photographic image of a naked child in a film on their computer, they can be arrested and charged with having Level One child pornography [...]. That is totally crazy!

That might be crazy if it were true. Very probably you either have misunderstood something or are distorting the legal facts. Could you mention some sources (not Wikipedia) where one can cross-examine your claims?

Not all photograpy is pornography, you know.

reply

Remember, this movie was also made in Denmark in 1978, so codes, regulations, and laws would be quite different. I remember child nudity in other movies back in the 1970's and early 1980's in American film - but many regulations, codes, and laws have changed in the US. I don't know how they have changed in Europe, but I would not be surprised if they hadn't since then.

reply

I seen a film from 2012/2013 with child nudity in it.

So no it is not illegal.

reply

I know you posted this 6 years ago but they haven't really changed. Having lived in Europe for sometime (I don't know about all parts) but most children under the age of 12 or 13 ill say go to public beaches nude, Nudity is a A LOT more lax there, if it is not sexual.

reply

I haven't read all the responses so this may have already been answered but just in case, child nudity isn't illegal. Many nudist films feature underage people and many popular films have nude children in them. What is illegal in the US and some other countries is child pornography and films that depict children in sexual situations. Even as riske' as YANA is, it does not cross that barrier.

Certain films depict scenes that are not allowed in the US. Two examples that come to mind are the film "1900" which features a masturbation scene that is not available in the US version. That scene is definitely illegal here. And the film "Prettyboy" which had a full nudity shot taken out of the DVD version, probably because there is a man on the bed next to the boy. Strangely, that scene is not porn and not illegal and the older VHS version was sold uncut in the states.

Even stranger "For A Lost Soldier" is also available in uncut form and, while it does not have nudity, there are scenes that depict implied sex acts with a minor. So it's a probably matter of discretion that, while having a definite barrier one cannot cross, is likely handled slightly differently depending on the film.

reply

[deleted]

Thanks for the info. But I don't see how the masturbation scene does not break the law. Not that I am defending the law, but they have a glaring contradiction there.

reply

Thanks for the info. But I don't see how the masturbation scene does not break the law. Not that I am defending the law, but they have a glaring contradiction there.


I know this is an old thread; but I just watched it, and wanted to share my two cents on this subject.

It's doesn't break any laws because we weren't shown Kim stimulating himself. All was covered by that sheet. Had they not covered him and we saw him thrusting his pelvis into his bed, completely naked then it would have been against the law. As long as they had that sheet over him it couldn't legally be considered child pornography.

Shake those hands, shake those hands.
Give me the thing I understand!!!

reply

Ahh. Ok, that makes sense. Sort of like the mast scene in Dano did in L.I.E. Thanks for the reply. (I forgot about this thread lol)

reply