When sacrificing virgins, I always make sure they are properly nude. A sacrificial victim wearing bra and panties just isn't the same. If Amanda Donohoe could get her kit off (and she's not even an intended sacrificial victim) then so could Catherine Oxenberg. Pah.
"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."
I think you can blame or credit Catherine Oxenberg for that. She was suppose to be stark naked in that scene, but she declined to do a nude scene for the film. Thus the bra and panties. Then she was asked: "To show how scared you are, can you wet your knickers?" Again she declined. Thus we get the scene that we get.
Catherine Oxenberg is not the only actor we should have seen more of in that film. According to the director, Chris Pitt who plays the boy scout in the film, when audtioning for the role of Kevin agreed to do a nude scene, when he was in the tub that involved full frontal nudity. But when it came to do the scene, he declined to do it, and kept his underpants on during that scene. What would have made this scene even more controversial would have been the young age of the actor involved.
As a young knee sock wearing prepubescent, I saw this movie with a handful of boys who were violently angry at the lack of Oxenberg nudity. Incensed, they moaned and groaned about it for days.
shareWhat, not enough Amanda Donohoe for you guys?
When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears...
[deleted]
I'm afraid it's been so long since I heard the story about Oxenberg refusing to do a nude scene, thus the bra and panties, that I can no longer remember, where or when I first heard it. Maybe somebody else remembers a source for the story.
As for the story about Pitt, I believe that one comes from watching the dvd. The dvd with Russell's commentary, and how put out he was that Pitt, when audtioning for the role of Kevin, agreed to do a nude scene, then when it came time to do the scene, refused to do it. I think Russell says he even offered Pitt money to do the scene, as agreed, but Pitt still refused to do it. Thus, Russell had to shoot around the fact that Pitt was wearing briefs--briefs with fluorescent flower designs on them--while he was in the tub. According to Russell he did get his revenge, on Pitt for spoiling the scene, as first envisioned, since he had Amanda Donohoe, when she stepped on Pitt's head with her thigh high, high heeled, black leather boots, to hold Pitt's head under the water in the tub, a little longer than necessary to get the shot of her drowning him.
Of course, that's Russell's side of the story. As far as I know, neither Pitt nor Donohoe for that matter has ever talked about what went on, if anything, during that scene.
The Pitt story sounds a bit unlikely, to be honest. No way would an actor would remain perfectly still like he was in that scene unless everything was going according to plan, let alone unexpectedly getting a headful of water.
Plus what would have been the odds of full-frontal male nudity making it past the censors? Why would Russell bother with something that wasn't going to happen.
Sounds more like Russell being Russell, ie. telling a quirky story to make himself seem like an old rogue. Haven't said that, I haven't listened to the director's commentary - I've got the German DVD which doesn't seem to have the commentaty track (though the voice actress for Donoghoe overacts like crazy, which adds to the kooky charm of the whole thing).
When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears...
Oh, I agree about Russell. He would change the facts in his story, if he thought it made for a better story, which is why I'd like to hear from someone else involved in that scene.
As for full frontal male nudity making it pass the censors, Russell's films "Women in Love," "Valentino," "Salome's Last Dance," and maybe "The Rainbow," (I can't remember for sure) as does "The Devils," though that didn't make it pass the censors, have scenes featuring full frontal male nudity.
But those all featured actors over 18, what would have been controversial about such a scene in "Lair of the White Worm" is that the actor would have been under 18.
Though, still . . . having actors under 18 with full frontal nudity is not impossible. While not English, but German, the 1973 film "Tenderness of the Wolves" appears to show an actor who appears to be under 18 in such a scene, and while I have not seen the film, I have seen stills from the film that show such a scene.
There is also a Danish film, whose title I have forgotten, which features actors under the age of 18 appearing in scenes of full frontal nudity. Again, I have seen stills from the film showing such scenes in a book on nudity in films.
And I am sure there are other such films out there, though I can't recall anymore at the moment.
On the flip side, it is Catherine's body and ultimately her choice, so if she wasn't comfortable with it who could blame her.
Very especially in a Ken Russell film.....
Just finishing the film again, I must amend my comments...
The 'virgin' white undies work flawlessly.....
Exactly my thoughts as well. To everyone who's ever complained that an actress getting nude wasn't "necessary" to the plot, in this case, the actress *not* being nude took me out of the story.
shareYeah. Snakebitch wouldn't want her snake-lord to choke on that silly stuff. It would have been removed prior to feeding, logically.
But hey, maybe it was edible underwear. :-)