Did anyone else find it strange that Jill's character Stephanie was 16 but we saw her nude in the shower? I'm not complaining, just thought that was strange.
shareYeah, when I first saw the film, it caught me off-guard that they would do that given what the characters age was "supposed" to be.
But seeing O'Quinn naked in the shower in the beginning of the film caught me off-guard too, sooo...
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
[deleted]
It's the law and most of us abide by the law.
shareWhat laws were broken? Even in the United States, this is legal (obviously).
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ You can help change the world.
It was legal because she was really 23 when they filmed the movie. I don't believe it would have been legal to use a girl under 18.
shareSteph was a hottie and that's all that matters...
age ain't nothing but a number
Danielle Harris
I've got a big dog with me, and he bites!
D.H.F.F.
so ignorant
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ You can help change the world.
not really.....
shareyour reply completely convinced me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ Why does Canada need a queen?
Sweiland You took the words right out of my mouth! Can you tell me from which country you are?
To add to this discussion, about Americans being so uptight about sex and nudity, I've also noticed that everything seems to be either black or white. There never is room in between, never about the context. How many times have I heard an American declare something pornographic just because there was nudity?
An example, in Germany you can show completely naked bodies in a nonsexual way and the movie could still be without age restriction, if the rest of the movie is okay.
There is this one magazine for kids and young teenagers say 9 to 15 years not older called the Bravo. Every magazine featured two full pages of full frontal nudity by a boy and a girl and an interview talking about their sex lifes. They had to be between 16 and 20. I have to say I can't remember any one older than 18. Most of the girls and boys were 16 or 17. (They still had to have permission by the parents, of course.) And this magazine was available for everyone, whereas Playboy, which does not feature that much full frontal nudity (from what I hear, I never bought one) is for people aged 16 or older. Why? Because of the sexual context.
I've never, I mean NEVER heard anyone bat an eye on that.
I am from Canada. We are more liberal about our attitudes towards sex and nudity than Americans are but not quite as much as Europeans are. A magazine like Bravo could not be sold here! It would be considered child pornography!
share"There is this one magazine for kids and young teenagers say 9 to 15 years not older called the Bravo. Every magazine featured two full pages of full frontal nudity by a boy and a girl and an interview talking about their sex lifes. They had to be between 16 and 20. I have to say I can't remember any one older than 18. Most of the girls and boys were 16 or 17. (They still had to have permission by the parents, of course.) And this magazine was available for everyone, whereas Playboy, which does not feature that much full frontal nudity (from what I hear, I never bought one) is for people aged 16 or older. Why? Because of the sexual context.
I've never, I mean NEVER heard anyone bat an eye on that."
Which one (Bravo or Playboy) are you saying doesn't have sexual content?
You say the Bravo spread includes a fully nude pictoral & interviews about the nude model's sex lives.
Playboy, you mention, is for older people because of the sexual content?
I'm confused... don't both have sexual content?
I'm American. I think this type of discussion takes place on every forum for every movie released in America that contains nudity. I can't stop this phenomenon of chastising American's for being 'puritanical' based on the loud voices of a few, but let me clear it up for you: America is not 1 unified voice. Saying "Americans ______" makes about as much sense as saying "Europeans _____". A Spaniard, not surprisingly, might have little or nothing in common with an Austrian, just like a citizen in Los Angeles, California likely has very few commonalities with a native from Bowling Green, Kentucky. We have quite a broad range of personalities & interests across our landscape.
It was legal because she was really 23 when they filmed the movie.
I don't believe it would have been legal to use a girl under 18.
"I don´t believe it would have been legal to use a girl under 18".
Why on earth would it be ILlegal? It wasn`t even a sexual situation. Utterly bizarre to call the scene "creepy" the someone did here.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
"It's the law and most of us abide by the law. "
You missed the point dumbass. Nothing magical happens when you turn 18. Frigging moron.
I so agree with you, Americans are uptight and have some double standards (I mean, it´s ok for anyone to buy a gun, but d*mn those who sunbathes topless).
In Sweden there has been many movies with nude scenes with even younger actors, and it does not make the movie makers, or the audience in to pedophiles.
In the USA, you're not allowed to take a shower until you're eighteen.
shareI'm so glad Jill Schoelen bared her beautiful body for a gloriously gratuitous nude shower scene; she's got a very nice rack and a real sweet ass.
"We're all part Shatner/And part James Dean/Part Warren Oates/And Steven McQueen"
Well the fact that Jill Schoelen herself was a very attractive 23 woman made me forget the age of the girl she played in the film.
And to be honest Jill has a nice butt...so no I didn't mind lol.
Definitely was a strange and unnecessary scene. Glad I'm not the only one that found it a little off-putting.
shareHave to agree with you, kefka. I mean, I can't say I didn't like looking at her, but it completely took me out of the movie. Would've preferred the scene being cut.
"Red car ... good point!"
Very creepy scene that changed it from a psycho thriller into an exploitation film. I agree that establishing her character as sweet 16 and then trotting her out nude was kind of uncalled for and twisted. She could just as easily had been 18 in the script, so for whatever reason somebody in the writing or production team found it important to suggest jailbait nudity. I did not know she was in her 20s until after after looking the movie up to make sure we were supposed to be seeing/thinking what we were. It is definitely an eye opening sequence and my feelings are that the filmmakers were trying to have their cake & eat it too.
shareI think being that the film as a whole was restrained and subtle about just about everything, a completely gratuitous nude scene was pretty out of step with the piece as a whole. Judgments as to whether it's "right" or "wrong" aside, it really didn't belong in this movie, and IMO only detracted from it.
This really felt like one of those cases of "Because we can."
http://www.drunkduck.com/2_Bitter_4_Words/ ~
I agree in the sense that I thought seeing her breasts was a bit much. I mean they showed O'Quinn naked in the beginning (fully, if you check the mirror), yet that was more subtle and creepy than the shower scene at the end.
It seemed like the second shower scene with her needed just a bit of editing to stay in line with the rest of the film.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
The first half of the movie is subtle, from then on you got a much more exploitative movie. I hated those silly one-liners more than the shower scene.
On the other hand I thought the ending was supossed to be feministic (the two woman getting rid of the men, the message being that they don't need a male in the family, don't need a traditional family) so including the nude scene was a bit contradictory.
Anyway, beautiful scene.
“You're a very bad girl...”
(the only line I thought was 1000% cheesy and should have been left out - granted, it could have been left in the trailer, sure, but should have been taken out of the final cut of the film itself)
Just my $0.02.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
[deleted]
To the "Americans have a nudity hang up" person...
We don't. The FCC does. Though children shouldn't be looking at the stuff at too young an age, puts adults in akward spots. But it's nowhere near the primetime nudity featured in the UK.
Anyway...for YEEEEEEARS I thought that was a body double because in the frontal shot that does NOT look like Schoelen's face.
How bout the fact that the writer based Stephanie on his own stepdaughter and wrote a shower scene in it. That is a little weird isn't it?
shareYes, it's sheer madness, he should have left it at someone attempting to murder her...
STABS NOT SHOWERS!
When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbidden...am I alone here?
Yeah, Americans are weird when it comes to sex and nudity. Not all of us though. Funny how we accept violence, and gore with no problem, but the minute we see a nipple everyone goes nuts. Not me. A horror movie without a "Boob Alert" is missing something. Her characters age could of been 12, who cares, she's not really, so who cares! There should of been MORE nudity!
We make a stand now, or there will be no one left to go to the chopper.
I remember seeing it in the theaters back in '87 and being kind of shocked at the time. Carrie had some context, but this seemed a little like "Hey, we don't have a female new scene. Fire up the shower!" Even a buddy of mine was shocked when he saw it on tape. I'm no prude by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm glad to see others question it to this day.
shareI read the whole thread so far, in fascination with how some many viewers fell in the «booby trap» and apparently did not notice the whole point.
The film is not about a man's search for the perfect family; it's not about a man's search for the perfect experienced, mature wife (hence, a widow).
The film is about a man's search for the perfect sex partner as a nubile, virgin stepdaughter (hence, his search for another, and another widow with a teenager daughter).
Read the full synopsis here at imdb: «Feebly trying to reclaim his knife after being shot, Jerry is stabbed in the chest by Stephanie, who grabs the knife before he can. Uttering a weak "I love you," to Stephanie, Jerry falls down the stairs, seemingly dead.»
The confession of his crime (paedophile attempt) is made to his would-be victim. He is not begging forgiveness for his bloody murders, because - for the anglo-saxon sexually repressed society this film is all about - killing is OK, as long as both partners are fully dressed, or at least have their underwear on.
Thus, yes, the director had to chose an actress that was over 18, yet looked younger; and no, he could never cut the nude scenes of the male and the female, in two separate bathroom scenes, that should have made a click in our minds when watching the film.
And no, I do not condone paedophilia; and yes, the penal code (in America and elsewhere) is all upside down.
[deleted]
And no, I do not condone paedophilia;