Talk:The Hole (2001 film)

Sequel

I couldn't find any evidence of a sequel called "Back in the Hole". Can anyone else, or is this untrue? 74.13.16.222 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nudity

What about the underage nudity in this movie? Should their be some discussion about that?

What nudity? The dead body? I seriously that needs to be mentioned.

I havent watched this yet but I heard Keira goes slightly nude? Is it true?

Yes, Keira is topless briefly and she was underaged at the time

Underage in the US, friends. She was age-of-consent in Britain 63.88.67.230 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt she was age-of-consent. The film was released in April 2001, but Keira only turned 16 on 26th March 2001 - given the time taken to edit, produce, release, etc the film I believe it's pretty much a given she was only 15, and therefore underage, including in the UK, where the age of consent is 16. Davetibbs (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

She was 15 at the time, yes, but as noted below, nudity is legal with parental consent. Also, while the age of consent is 16 in the UK, it is illegal to have pornographic pictures of anyone under the age of 18, with the exception of your spouse, if you have one. Anyway - the nudity in the film is definitely not pornographic. Adacore (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In the UK one can do nudity, but not pornography, in a film with parental consent when underaged. Keira's mother specifically went on set and gave her consent for her daughter's nudity. So in theory Keira's nudity was perfectly legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.92.33 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

She's flashing her breasts - guarantee if John Q Citizen had pics of an underage woman flashing her breasts, it would be considered pornographic. Seems like filmmakers are being given a lot of leeway here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.255.242 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's iffy, but I think the reasoning is that the context was artistic rather than pornographic. That's why Brooke Shields naked in movies like Pretty Baby and The Blue Lagoon was considered acceptable despite the controversy. It's also why you can have naked babies in nappy/diaper commercials but closeups of their genitalia on your computer would rightly get you prosecuted. 90.213.30.208 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@90.213.30.208 The scenes involving Brooke Shields occurred when she was 12 and 15 respectively. If those scenes were filmed today they would be illegal but those scenes mentioned were filmed before US laws changed in the late 80s. Which begs the question why isn't Knightley showing her bare breasts at 15 not illegal. Parental consent or not. If you allow someone to take a topless photo of your underage daughter both of you are going to jail. Blueyes9803 (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is external evidence of any controversy in the press or elsewhere about a 15-year-old actress flashing her breasts for less than a couple of seconds on screen, then surely this discussion is irrelevant to the film article? gramorak 12:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC) gramorak (talk)

Page cleanup

This page is hard to read, the plot section is overly long and difficult to understand, and in summary, it simply does not read like an encyclopedia. Someone who knows the movie needs to rewrite that section, and perhaps add other sections.Jon314 23:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have tried to tidy it up and make the meaning clearer, but it's still too long. By the way, this section is tagged as having nor references, buut surely the reference is the film itself? gramorak gramorak 14:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)