Harry Potter ditches the glasses and all his clothes

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at ...> wrote:
>
> On 3 Aug 2006 at 13:42, artsylynda at ... wrote:
> 
> > Dan is 17 now, legally an adult in every way, ...

> Shaun:
> 
> I have spoken to an acquaintance who is a British lawyer
> ... and this is what he had to say about this.
> 
> At 17, Daniel Radcliffe is still legally a minor. While 
> a 17 year old has many legal rights, including some rights
> that can be considered adult rights, in a strict sense he 
> is still a child, and there are still things he is not 
> allowed to do. This would include participating in any 
> indecent production, ... - a 17 year old cannot 
> participate in the production of pornography, ...
> 
> But it is important to note that under British law, the 
> mere act of a minor appearing nude does not constitute 
> pornography. ... nudity is not inherently indecent.
> 
>...
> 
> This is not intended as legal advice, merely a basic
> opinion.
> 
> Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
> Shaun Hately 

bboyminn:

Thanks for getting back to us, your always a great help.

Of course, we are dealing with tricky business here. I can think of a
few movies that have child nudity in them, though relatively brief.
Though it has been many years since I've seen it, the orginal 1963
version of 'Lord of the Flies', I believe had brief scenes of some
boys nude; running on the beach or whatever. Also, and again, it has
been many years since I have seen this movie, 'Blue Lagoon' with
Christoper Atkin and Brooke Shields, I believe the younger actors who
played the characters Richard and Emmiline we seen running naked on
the beach. Yes, the older Brooke and Christoper were certainly nude,
but I'm convinced the younger actors were as well. Also, Devo Sawa and
his young friend appeared, very out of focus and from a distance, nude
 in the 1995 movie 'Now and Then'.

Further, though I don't have access to Indy films where I'm living
now, I believe I've seen many indy/foreign movies where children of
various ages appeared briefly in the nude. 

So, my point is there is a context in which the censors will accept
child nudity. Usually it's the absents of frontal nudity, and/or very
brief appearances, or in the case of 'Now and Then', appearances from
sufficient distances as to mask the 'details'.

Now to the stage, I believe this is a unique situation. Again, I think
Europe in general is more open and far less bothered by the existance
of nudity in an artistic concept. I mean, the have nude statues and
portraits all over the place. 

Further, as I pointed out in another post in this thread, Dan could
appear in a flesh-color brief which is what he did in the Prefect's
Bath scene in 'Goblet of Fire'. Though, the movie itself never truly
shows him nude, he still said, he wore a flesh colored brief. Given
the proper lighting, I think this could be done reasonably well on the
Stage. 

As someone else pointed out, there are two critical scenes; one in
which he is riding a horse and another in which he is 'making love' to
a girl in the stable. Both could be done in a way that sufficiently
stays true to the scene without Dan having to be truly nude. Also,
well place stage props could strategically mask the 'details'.

Really would love to see that play, not for the nudity, but to see Dan
portraying that broad range of emotions.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn