MovieChat Forums > Down in the Valley (2005) Discussion > Wood Underage...?

Wood Underage...?

posted 17 years ago by Ninja_GaiDaniel
10 replies | jump to latest

So I just watched Down in the Valley last night (finally), and it struck me that it wasn't that long after Thirteen. I checked on here and it says ERW was born late 1987, and DiTV was released in May 2005. So she was 17 when she shot those scenes (possibly 16, but I doubt post-production would take that long)

I'm not a prude or anything, and obviously she didn't really have sex with Norton and etcetera. But it was a sex scene and she was topless in front of him. It rather surprises me that they got away with what they did, instead of using body doubles like in Lolita(1997) or simple implication(mostly) like in Thirteen.

Or am I crazy?

"There's no way I'm gonna let you rob this nation's children of even ONE glass of wholesome nutritious milk!"

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ninja_GaiDaniel 17 years ago

How, exactly?

She was born on September 7th 1987, so her 18th birthday was on 9-7-2005. The film was shown at Cannes on May 13th 2005. She was just over 17.5 when it was RELEASED, so she sure was not 18 when it was FILMED. Now, since it was relatively low budget and and there were almost no special effects, we can assume it had a short filming period and a short post-production time. I only mention this because it probably didn't take longer than 8 months to shoot and post, so she PROBABLY wasn't 16 when it was shot. Concievably though, if it WAS a long shoot time and/or post time, she could have been 16.

But she was at most 17. I'm not saying it's a hugely big deal, but my original point still stands.

"There's no way I'm gonna let you rob this nation's children of even ONE glass of wholesome nutritious milk!"

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ninja_GaiDaniel 17 years ago

Fair enough. OK, let's get Practical! =)

I wouldn't judge the film product any differently, as it's the same story with the same characters and the same enjoyment. I would, however, LOOK at it differently. I'd (unfortunately) question the judgment of the director, Norton, and Wood's parents. OK, 17 isn't as bad as 16, but 16 is fairly bad in my opinion. When you consider that a body double or an off-screen implication would have been almost as effective. Do I think it traumatized the girl? I don't know personally, but my guess would be no. But that isn't the point. Would I want charges to be brought up? No, that would seem stupid and wasteful for all involved. I'm willing to accept that obviously no sex took place, and her nudity in front of Norton was 'artistic'. But, the legality of it aside, I am somewhat fearful if we don't at least raise our eyebrows at the notion.

True, 16 is the age of consent in more states than people think, including Michigan and Wisconsin were I've lived. But, incidentally, that doesn't translate over state lines. If I'm not mistaken, Texas's age is 21 and Michigan's is 16. So if you want to watch a porno with a 16-year-old in Michigan, that same film would be illegal in Texas. And, huh... I guess my only point is that I'm surprised at the commercial aspect of the film's release. If I was the producer, I'd see it as a money issue.

"There's no way I'm gonna let you rob this nation's children of even ONE glass of wholesome nutritious milk!"

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] author004 17 years ago

Well, 18 is the cutoff between pornography on film and child pornography, so irregardless of the age of consent from one state to another (btw, according to imdb.com, the film was shot in California), there would be no actual sex between Evan and Edward. However, they can portray it as sex for purposes of plot.

As far as Evan beingnaked in the bathtub seen, with all due respect, that's incorrect. If you look closely at her shoulder during that scene you can see a white strap, presumably from a bra.

Is your point so weak that you must have the last word?

[–] kingpinko 17 years ago

SHE WAS 16 WHEN IT FILMED OR 16.5 TO BE EXACT BECAUSE IT FILMED IN MARCH-APRIL 2004 AND WAS DELAYED BEFORE IT WENT TO CANNES. SHE WASN'T TOPLESS IN THE SEX SCENE OR BATHTUB, SHE WAS WEARING A BIKINI IN THE SEX SCENE AND PASTIES IN THE TUB AND THERE WASN'T MUCH SEXUAL CONTACT.

[–] Ninja_GaiDaniel 17 years ago

I suppose I must've miss that strap, then. Funny, because I was looking for one. *shrug*

"Theres no way I'm gonna let you rob this nations children of even ONE glass of wholesome nutritious milk!"

[–] Nighteyes3 17 years ago

Just finished watching the movie and i was wondering the ame thing.
From the first scene that they kissed i stopped the movie to check here their age difference and until the end of the movies i was shocked that she's my age, itjust seemed so wrong.

"This is usually the part when people start screaming" ~ Sylar

[–] author004 17 years ago

Watch the scene again. I have to correct myself in the point where the strap is white; it's probably a tan or something, but there is one. It looks like a bra strap; definitely NOT pasties.

Is your point so weak that you must have the last word?