please please please tell me there is no nudity
i think that will ruin ellen page's career
plus movies with naked girls playing 15 year olds is wrong
Animation is viagra for art
****spoilerish****
The movie is rated 14A in Canada which corresponds to the American R rating. There is brief nudity in a bar scene but it is not EP. There is also a very brief scene where EP is shown from the back wearing only underwear. This is quite a harrowing scene and not in the least bit sexy. This film was made on a very small budget so I'm going to hazard a guess that they didn't use a body double for EP. She would have probably wanted to do it herself anyway. I assume the scene was meticulously choreographed so that everyone was safe. Also on a low budget film they would not have any time to shoot coverage so they probably took as few takes (maybe even only one) to do this scene and moved on. So no worries, no EP on Celebrity Skin.
thank goodness
i think nude 15 year olds is wrong (even if its played by a 21 year old)
Animation is viagra for art
[deleted]
some movies just have unneccesary nudity - my hope is ellen page steers clear from that, and if she cant see significant need for it, then she will demand to avoid it or she will walk. cuz it's really not always needed. just cuz it's in the script, doesnt mean its necessary. some standard should be made into taking on nudity, just because she is a role model to younger actresses, and she should not give the message that it's okay to take every nudity role, including crappy ones. cuz with the crappy ones, they're often just using you so they can film you naked and perhaps have sex with you. and with actresses who can only get super low budget roles, this is even more of an issue, and actresses like ellen should give the message "no, this is not okay".
but for masterpieces that an actress sees necessity for it, AND the director has proven themselves in a previous work, then it's okay. Because often times the script is promising but the director doesnt know what the f#*( he's doing, and so it makes the nudity not worth it.
and i agree with the OP, i dont want 15-year-old nudity, even if in reality it is played by someone older.
"and i agree with the OP, i dont want 15-year-old nudity, even if in reality it is played by someone older."
Could someone explain this notion? I'm unclear as to what's wrong with an of-age actress playing a not-of-age character nude. It's clearly not exploitative, and it doesn't involve an underage actress.
They are called "uptight" or "anal" individuals. Nudity is not wrong. This is just another reason religion should be banned from public. Zealots infect the world with intolerance they justify by twisting the teachings of something that was meant to convey the opposite. Religious zealotry/bigotry is responsible for brainwashing many into believe our bodies are sin and our drive for sex is wrong and often cause wars (like Iraq). Christianity, Islam, Judaism and most of the other religions of the world are guilty of oppression, intolerance and horrible atrocities committed against humanity. This is just another example.
A 15 year old being nude is not "wrong". What's "wrong" is a pedophile hurting a 15 year old. Let's get some perspective. I am in no way advocating the explotation of children for sexual deviancy. However, I do advocate freedom of expression, especially artistically. I think people need to get a life and quit being so anal about human sexuality. Focus on making criminals pay for the crime and not everyone. Nudity is part of life. Shame of our bodies is not something we should teach. Stifling or demonizing our sexuality is what creates deviancy (ask your local Catholic Priest).
What gets me are the morons that bite their nails when unsure of the nudity content of a movie, when "protecting their children" from breasts and the evil of our bodies, yet they'll eat popcorn and giggle while someone is being beheaded or disemboweled in front of their precious offspring. Some people are just close-minded hypocrites.
-D-
the thing is...what you're calling for is pretty radical in some societies. if 15 year old nudity is okay for art, then it should be okay for real life. 15, 10, whatever age should be able to walk around naked and go to the store naked and whatever they want. so unless we're gonna allow both, we shouldnt allow one. our society is not in a state where it's a good idea to have naked 12 year old walking around. we already are afraid that pedophiles who dont have self-control will come after our children, do we really want to send them into that same world amongst pedophiles without clothes?
plus, like i said, hack directors call for nudity unnessarily - and do we really want our children being victims of that? it's bad enough for adults, but not kids.
What gets me are the morons that bite their nails when unsure of the nudity content of a movie, when "protecting their children" from breasts and the evil of our bodies, yet they'll eat popcorn and giggle while someone is being beheaded or disemboweled in front of their precious offspring
people like yourself like to make this case. and i get what you're trying to say, violence is worse than sex, but that is not the point. killing is obviously wrong. only already disturbed kids will think beheading people is okay. but sexual situations on tv, that is another issue, that is more complicated, and not as clearcut. kids are more likely to mimic the promiscuity shown in american pie or sex & the city than any of the murders in horror movies. that's why we are more protective over that. so yes, i'd like to know about the nudity beforhand. as long as the movie is not promoting bad sexual habits (sleeping with strangers, cheating, ) then i'm fine with it. and if im not too bothered to let the kid watch it, i might explain to them afterwards that this and that character was wrong in their behavior. but still, nudity/sex is more of an issue than violence, that should be obvious.
if 15 year old nudity is okay for art, then it should be okay for real life. 15, 10, whatever age should be able to walk around naked and go to the store naked and whatever they want. so unless we're gonna allow both, we shouldnt allow one. our society is not in a state where it's a good idea to have naked 12 year old walking around. we already are afraid that pedophiles who dont have self-control will come after our children, do we really want to send them into that same world amongst pedophiles without clothes?
This statement is ridiculous. There is a difference between both scenarios. One features a 15yr old on a closed set, most likely with his/her parents standing right on the sidelines, being naked for one or two scenes lasting less than a couple minutes. The second scenario suggests that, if we allow the former, we should allow 15yr olds to wander about unprotected amongst a variety of strangers for any amount of time.
Thinking like yours is dangerous and extreme. It's akin to saying drugs are bad and outlawing penicillin.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
i wouldn't want to see ellen page naked either just cause she kinda looks like a little kid so...i don't know how long it will take her to stop looking 12 years old but that would be uncomfortable for me.
and then the thought of watching an of age actress play a younger girl naked in a movie still does bug me cause it's like...we're pretending she's that young and it feels wrong. even if she isn't really that young. see?
and i'm not uptight, i love naked people (well, attractive ones), i just don't want perverted old men watching it and fantasizing about little girls...or boys...i dunno. something to that affect.
This is such a bunk issue. Ellen Page is an adult and, if she chooses to play teenagers, then that's her niche. Since she's an adult, she can play risque roles and it wouldn't exactly be taboo since there's no child to exploit.
Most of her films aren't rated for children so the fear that children will see it is moot. It's a catch-22: This film isn't for children so all the people crying "think of the children!!" aren't practicing what they preach. If they thought of the children, the children wouldn't be exposed to these types of movies. Just because Ellen Page portrays a teenager doesn't mean her films are meant to be viewed by children.
Besides, if it's not your cup of tea, don't watch it.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
Well I wouldn't mind seeing her naked. She's beautiful and has amazing eyes(I could drown in those). Yes she looks young but she's not. And in no way does she look like a child.
That said I'm not as shallow as to wanting her to star in some sleazy movie. She comes across to me as a smart young woman with a realy nice personality. I love her quirky roles in smart movies and she should stick to that.
Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved? - Bill Hicks
we're supposed to believe they are a kid in the movie. so, if this happens, if we do believe they are a kid, a kid playing a kid like dakota fanning, but then they're suddenly nude, it's kinda disturbing - especially for viewers who dont know how old the actress is. ellen page does look rather young. if we saw dakota fanning naked in her next movie we'd be kinda shocked - same thing for ellen page if we didnt know she was older, which some people do not.
shareBut that's the point!! It doesn't matter that she plays the role of a teenager and gets nude in an appropriate scene because she's not actually a teenager! There's no moral taboo and there's no exploitation of a child. It's her niche - a niche she gets paid very well to play.
There is a movie where Dakota Fanning is shown nude from the waist up and it's a nonsexual scene - I think she's changing in front of another child or else a parent is changing her out of wet clothes. As far as I know, there wasn't a huge deal being made about it since it had nothing to do with sex at all.
There's a fantastic version of Macbeth that has a scene where a mother washes her pre-pubscent son in a basin and he is full frontal nude.
In Price of Tides, one of the main scenes features siblings stripping down and jumping into a lake together.
I mean, yeah, these are kids and someone somewhere may use their images for inappropriate behavior. Should we censor the films because there are perverts in the world - no! I agree that nudity is oftentimes rather senseless and distracting from the plot, but, when it supports a major scene, there's no reason to cut it out just because it makes some people uncomfortable. If you don't like it, don't watch it. And you know what, some movies are deliberately about making you uncomfortable.
If I have a choice between seeing an adult actress playing a teenager in a nude scene and seeing a teenage actress in a nude scene, I'd rather have the adult if they can realistically pull it off.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
You're an idiot.
shareDude, how is 14A like an American R rating? Here's the description from Ontario:
"14A
Persons younger than 14 years must be accompanied by an Adult."
The American R rating is: "A film with this rating requires a viewer under the age of 17 (18 in some jurisdictions) to have a parent or other adult guardian accompanying the viewer. May contain very strong language or strong sexual emphasis, strong explicit nudity, strong violence and gore, or strong drug content."
The Canadian equivalent to the R rating is much closer to 18A, which has almost the same language as the R rating, replacing 17 with 18: "18A
Persons younger than 18 years must be accompanied by an Adult."
The Canadian 14A is much more like the PG-13 rating, but a bit stronger, since technically, the PG-13 is only a caution and does not restrict anyone or require an accompanying adult (although one might be suggested).