Young Topless Girl in Impressions de France Film?

[CommandoDisney]

I would like to see new life and new interest revived in the pavilion. The film is grossly out of date, and needs to be updated for the same reasons that other attractions receive update refurbishments. I have not expressed a personal opinion on the presence of the nude child, but have merely acknowledged that differing opinions exist, and related issues are constantly the subject of much debate, in both moral and legal arenas.

Tk

i agree, i think the film needs to be updated as well. dont get me wrong, it was nice when i saw it several years ago, but the canada one was nice too and that got updated and that seems to be a positive thing. now they need to update the norway movie....

but also, im not offended by a nude child. you can argue that its a culture difference or whatever, i dont care. however, as much as its not a big deal if the child is naked, its also not a big deal that the child stays clothed either. especially if you are a kid actually in the park, that really if anything should just be a safety thing. if you have to wear shoes everywhere, you really should probably wear pants to go along with those as well...

 

[Vernonpush]

Is this the scene with the "blue Speedo"? :lookaroun :lol:

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Lewd behaviour??? No wonder shrinks are so popular.

 

[marni1971]

This is getting good!

BTW; do we know if the girl is actually indeed minus-clothing? I don`t see her on my versions.

 

[KingStefan]

...I disagree..and if you look at that scene a little closer you will see that there are a few women lying face down with no tops on..I think it is the French Riviera scene...and that is what happens when you go there...

I lived in France for a few years. I know they probably wouldn't show this in a film in Epcot, but it is not uncommon at beaches all over France (not just the Riviera) for women to sun bathe topless and face up! And not just at nude beaches - all over. They also do this during nice weather in the parks in and around Paris!

Also, people come to the beach clothed, and discreetly strip down naked and put their bathing suits on. And it's perfectly normal for younger children to go naked on the beach.

When I was in Italy many years ago at an Air Base there, some GI friends of mine decided to go to the beach. So they did what we would do in the US - they donned bathing suits and sandals, grabbed a towel and threw some things in a beach bag, and headed for the local bus. They almost wouldn't let them on the bus, because they weren't dressed properly. But they argued their way on, and got lots of evil stares from other patrons.

When they arrived at the beach, many of the other people who were on the bus with them (wearing street clothes) got off the same place. Walked to the beach with them, stripped naked, and put on speedo-type suits (or bikinis for the girls). Now they got evil stares from people on the beach, because they couldn't understand why they were wearing athletic shorts at the beach (all the other men had speedos - they didn't even recognize the boxer-short-type things my friends were wearing as bathing suits!). It was so funny to hear them tell the story of their adventures later! :lol:

 

[The Mom]

There comes a point at which such conduct may expose the individual to criminal liability, and in many jurisdictions may be considered criminally lewd and lascivious and in violation of one or more local ordinances. So, "indecency" is much more than just "simple etiquette." When and where we draw the line, and at at what age, is not always clear. We have seen countless stories on the news of child behavior that, while seemingly completely innocent, subjected the child to some sort of punishment. There are plenty of local laws that should be issues of etiquette and not legislation, but most of us are not legislators, and most of us would be surprised upon discovering the amount of material on the books that restricts our daily behavior.

Tk

Just to play Devil's Advocate:

If a film about the US was shown in several countries, there would be an outrage over the "indecency" of US women walking around uncovered, in a location with men who are not father, brother, or son, and working, driving, etc. But would a film that censored all of this be a true depiction of positive American culture? And would the fact that another culture considers it indecent make it so? Of course, there are not so pleasant aspects to ALL cultures, but we don't tend to incorporate them into films that are supposed to present us in the best possible light. But there is always going to be something about another culture that can offend us, or about our culture that will offend others, if we look for it. I suspect that it never even occured to the filmmakers that anyone would find something so commonplace offensive, when shown in context.

BTW, both of my children were "nature" babies, and I certainly had no objections to them running around the house/yard that way. Had topeless/nude beaches been the norm around here, they certainly would not have worn swimsuits. This summer, we will be going to an area were topless bathing is the norm, but I certainly won't participate, and I suspect that my son may be more embarrassed than excited...but who knows? :lol:

So, I guess that answers Pumba's question. In my case, I'd rather keep a gun than go topless. :lol:

 

[brkgnews]

If a film about the US was shown in several countries, there would be an outrage over the "indecency" of US women walking around uncovered, in a location with men who are not father, brother, or son, and working, driving, etc.

How dare you bring logic into a perfectly good argument? :ROFLOL:

[/totally lost his bet on how long before this thread would degenerate so far that it had to be locked]

 

[Wilt Dasney]

There comes a point at which such conduct may expose the individual to criminal liability, and in many jurisdictions may be considered criminally lewd and lascivious and in violation of one or more local ordinances. So, "indecency" is much more than just "simple etiquette." When and where we draw the line, and at at what age, is not always clear. We have seen countless stories on the news of child behavior that, while seemingly completely innocent, subjected the child to some sort of punishment. There are plenty of local laws that should be issues of etiquette and not legislation, but most of us are not legislators, and most of us would be surprised upon discovering the amount of material on the books that restricts our daily behavior.

Tk

All true, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I offer two rebuttals:

* Your argument (if I've traced the line correctly) seems to be that because legislation exists against an activity in this country, that it therefore rises to the level of a significant cultural distinction on par with slavery and polygamy. I would say that "culture" isn't as easy to pin down as what's simply legal or illegal, since the prevailing attitudes in the country might run contrary to what has been codified into law. Basically, if enough people feel that public nudity is an issue of etiquette and nothing more, then the mere existence of a law prohibiting it doesn't automatically elevate it to a significant cultural issue on the level of slavery.

* Secondly, you wrote So, "indecency" is much more than just "simple etiquette." with the implication being that I made the two synonymous in my original post. I was in fact drawing a distinction between them (since as you say, indecency possesses a legal connotation that etiquette does not) but with the larger point that neither of them rises to the MORAL level that your examples of slavery and polygamy would be considered to, by many.

 

[maggiegrace1]

All true, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I offer two rebuttals:

* Your argument (if I've traced the line correctly) seems to be that because legislation exists against an activity in this country, that it therefore rises to the level of a significant cultural distinction on par with slavery and polygamy. I would say that "culture" isn't as easy to pin down as what's simply legal or illegal, since the prevailing attitudes in the country might run contrary to what has been codified into law. Basically, if enough people feel that public nudity is an issue of etiquette and nothing more, then the mere existence of a law prohibiting it doesn't automatically elevate it to a significant cultural issue on the level of slavery.

* Secondly, you wrote So, "indecency" is much more than just "simple etiquette." with the implication being that I made the two synonymous in my original post. I was in fact drawing a distinction between them (since as you say, indecency possesses a legal connotation that etiquette does not) but with the larger point that neither of them rises to the MORAL level that your examples of slavery and polygamy would be considered to, by many.

This post and the one you quoted makes my head hurt....:hammer:

:lookaroun

 

[sillyspook13]

I've seen that film literally dozens of times, and never noticed a nude child. It's a GREAT film, with a wonderful musical score, well worth watching again and again.

Same here. I've seen the film dozens of times and never seen a nude child. I did however notice the fisherman who scratches his butt...:lol:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

This post and the one you quoted makes my head hurt....:hammer:

:lookaroun

Sorry...I'll boil down my thoughts on the subject to one smilie:

:shrug:





:lol:

(Those last 2 don't count...or this one) :lookaroun

 

[maggiegrace1]

Sorry...I'll boil down my thoughts on the subject to one smilie:

:shrug:





:lol:

(Those last 2 don't count...or this one) :lookaroun

:sohappy:
Thank you!:lol:

 

[Timekeeper]

My comments are always intended to be "friendly," so I hope they read as such.

* Your argument (if I've traced the line correctly) seems to be that because legislation exists against an activity in this country, that it therefore rises to the level of a significant cultural distinction on par with slavery and polygamy.

Actually, that's not quite the notion that I meant to convey. The comments pertaining to slavery and polygamy were in a separate post from the comments on legislation. In the polygamy post, I was responding to the argument that "it's ok for Disney to publish it because it's their (foreign) culture" by naming some extreme examples of behavior that is ok in other cultures, but not ok for a Disney attraction. The point being that "ok for them" is not a per se determinating litmus test of Disney-attraction-appropriateness.

Legislation is clearly not the sole factor upon which our cultural differences should be measured. It is, however, at least one objective factor. We (states) do not allow individuals of a particular age group to have "relations" with other individuals in a different (younger) age group. Good arguments can be made for and against legislation, and the issue is treated differently in other cultures, in other parts of the world. But regardless of what side of the argument one supports, we have laws to which we can look and, objectively, determine whether it is right or wrong (or, more appropriately, legal or illegal.)

* Secondly, you wrote So, "indecency" is much more than just "simple etiquette." with the implication being that I made the two synonymous in my original post. I was in fact drawing a distinction between them (since as you say, indecency possesses a legal connotation that etiquette does not) but with the larger point that neither of them rises to the MORAL level that your examples of slavery and polygamy would be considered to, by many.

I do agree with you, that is, the "moral level" concerned with indecency is not as extreme as the examples I gave. I would suggest, though, that indecency (and its many regulations) do in fact impute plenty of moral issues. Moral basically means "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior," and that is what legislation (attempts to) accomplish by regulating our behavior, and imposing moral parameters on us, notwithstanding our own individual opinions.

Is one "wrong" any "worse" than another? In our penal system, the answer is usually "yes," hence varying degrees of culpability and punishment. Moral wrongs are not punished solely for being morally wrong. In Florida, an employer can terminate an (at-will) employee for a morally wrong reason, and the employee would be left helpless, without recourse against the employer. At the end of the day, it's not our subjective moral values that we use in holding each other responsible for individual behavior, but rather, the objective framework by which we are governed. (Granted, in the 'real world,' the two are almost always entwined.) A girlfriend who cheats on her boyfriend may be viewed to have committed a moral wrong, but until there's something on the books prohibiting that, there's not much we can do about it.



Tk

 

[MichWolv]

I have noticed the topless girl, and the topless women lying on their stomachs. I would guess the folks shooting the movie did have to do some casting and editing to make sure all the topless women were lying on their fronts.

As for the little girl, I just figured, OK its a little girl. If I saw a 4 year girl in the US with no top on, I'd...continue doing exactly what I was doing before I saw her. It may be unusual in the US, but it certainly doesn't seem offensive. After all, we're talking a time in her life before she has started to develop, so why should there be any difference whether it's a topless boy or a topless girl? :shrug:

As for the movie itself, I love it and try to see it every time. My wife loves it and tries to see it every time as well. The difference is that the combination of the air conditioning, comfortable seats, beautiful relaxing music, etc., puts her to sleep every time. Not becuase she doesn't like the movie, but because she finds it sooooooo relaxing!

 

[Expo_Seeker40]

Ok I found the topless girl in martin's video from mousefiles.com at 13:22 and it is the center screen. As soon as the waiter moves from our right to our left and walks past the people at 13:22 the girl...who is the second farthest away from us in the center screen, looks up at her father who is sitting next to her at 13:26. She's a little kid, probably younger than 5, and topless. No big deal to me, see topless little kids running around like crazy at water parks and stuff.

Though Impressions de France is outdated in certain parts, I find it to be a very peaceful, relaxing, and quite beautiful film.

By the way, in examining the frames I did not find any grassy knoll gunmen at this time. :lookaroun

 

[Timekeeper]

The Empress's New Clothes

Hypothetical question: if I were to post an image of a topless female child, whether a screenshot from the Impressions film or similar image, on this message board, would the moderator(s) allow it to stay?

 

[Hakunamatata]

Hypothetical question: if I were to post an image of a topless female child, whether a screenshot from the Impressions film or similar image, on this message board, would the moderator(s) allow it to stay?

I think there is a big difference between the image being a blip in a video where some might say "did I just see that" and have to really think about it to become mildly offended and a photo on a message board where you can sit there and stare at it.....

Oh, and remember the Copper Tone adds with the little girls bare bottom? I dont see what you are talking about being any worse than that?

 

[Timekeeper]

I think there is a big difference between the image being a blip in a video ... and a photo on a message board where you can sit there and stare at it.....

I am not aware of any jurisdiction in which the duration of the display of a (regulation-violating) image may be used as a defense by the person charged with committing the act. "Your honor, I only exposed myself for a brief moment" is not likely to succeed. If you were on the jury, would you buy that defense?

Oh, and remember the Copper Tone adds with the little girls bare bottom? I dont see what you are talking about being any worse than that?

Simple; the girl in the Coppertone ads was only an illustration. The ads did not depict a "real" photograph of a girl, unlike the film on which this thread topic is based.

Also, "At the turn of the 21st century, Coppertone revised drawings of the Coppertone Girl so that they would be less revealing in an era of heightened sensitivity regarding pedophilia. Some recent versions show only the girl's lower back, as opposed to her buttocks or wearing a T-shirt, a hat, and holding a bottle of Coppertone while the puppy is shown pulling on her shirt." [Wikipedia]

So, you see, even Coppertone recognized the need to modify its famous marketing image.

I posed the hypothetical question above because, even though the popular opinion in this thread seems to be "it's ok" and "whats the big deal," there remains to be concerns over publishing such material. :shrug:

Tk

 

[The Mom]

Hypothetical question: if I were to post an image of a topless female child, whether a screenshot from the Impressions film or similar image, on this message board, would the moderator(s) allow it to stay?

It would depend upon the context. I have a photo of my daughter and myself, where I am holding her, and she is naked. Because of my arm position, "nothing" is exposed, but it's still obvious that she has no clothing. She is around 2-3 years old.

I would have no problem with anyone posting a similar photo. I would have no problem with the stereotypical "baby on a rug" photo. I would have no problem with a photo of a laughing, naked child under school age running through a sprinkler.

If someone were to post a photo of a naked child in a provocative pose, it would be removed. It would be our decision as moderators to decide what is/isn't provocative. But no, a photo that has a topless, or even naked preschool aged child in it, would not automatically be removed.

 

[sknydave]

Right, because there is no difference between a production film about France which pans across a girl sunbathing for 2 seconds and a photo that may have been taken by a weirdo pedophile.