Dakota Fanning is excited about being ‘newly allowed’ to do nude scenes

Dakota Fanning

Here are some photos of Dakota Fanning touching down in Park City, Utah last week for the Sundance premiere of her new movie, Very Good Girls, which also stars Elizabeth Olsen. As we’ve seen over the years, Dakota grew up very gracefully, had a relatively normal high school experience (she was even crowned Homecoming queen), and is currently attending NYU without incident. She really seems to have her head on straight, and as hard as it is for me to see Dakota growing up and looking sexy in magazine spreads, I guess it’s time for me to realize that Little Dakota is now Grown-Up Dakota. Still, it seems slightly skeevy to me that she’s taken her clothes off for a movie at the very first opportunity (it’s now legal for her to do so at age 18-19). Here are the details:

Dakota Fanning

Dakota Fanning might be one of the Very Good Girls in her 2013 coming-of-age drama, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t get the chance to show off her bad self in the flick. The actress bares more than just her soul in the film, going nude for the first time on camera.

“Yeah, well, I’ve never done that before and I’m very newly allowed to do that,” she explained to MTV News at the Sundance Film Festival, where she was out promoting the movie. “I was newly 18, so yeah, it was, it’s kind of a sensitive thing, but it’s a part of life.”

Fanning grows up big time in the film, which follows her and her pal, played by Elizabeth Olsen, as they embark on their journey through adolescence, on a quest to lose their virginity, and all the repercussions that come along with it. It also means that Fanning had to capture that life-changing moment in the film. “No one’s ever comfortable [doing love scenes],” she explained, before Olsen had some advice on getting through them.

“No, you just have to go for it. Sorry, I didn’t do a sex scene in this movie so I should shut up,” she quipped.

The actor who got to mix it up with Fanning in the scene, Boyd Holbrook, notes that it’s the realism of the scene that will have fans connecting to what Fanning is going through in that instant. “As in life it’s not always so perfect and glossy and seamless,” he said. “It’s quite awkward sometimes especially with that. This film’s about its going into life, first sexual experience, so it’s all about the environment and not taking it too serious.”

[From MTV]

Does this make anyone else slightly uncomfortable? I think many of us have watched Dakota grow up on the big screen, so it almost feels like she’s a little sister. But I guess this had to happen eventually — I just wish she’d waited a few years. At the moment, it seems like Dakota was counting down the days until she turned 18 so she could get her kit off. I know, I know. That makes me sound so old.

Dakota Fanning

Dakota Fanning

Dakota Fanning

Photos courtesy of WENN

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

107 Responses to “Dakota Fanning is excited about being ‘newly allowed’ to do nude scenes”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. carrie says:

    she’s the 1% who are happy to do nude scenes because 99% actors and actress dislike nude scenes

    • Sheeeeeesh says:

      She was always trying to grow up too fast. Remember when she had no problem doing a rape scene when she was far younger?

      • Bianca says:

        She was always one of the child actresses that I hoped would make the seamless transition into adult roles well, but now I’m starting to doubt it.
        Also, she seems to have put on a bit of weight lately, it would be easier for her to be taken more seriously if she looks as if she is taking care of herself and eating and exercising healthily, just like every other adult actress has to.

      • MorticiansDoItDeader says:

        She looks great to me. Most people look softer and more feminine after puberty. Would you prefer she starve herself like most actresses?

      • Raven says:

        Apparently, she’s also going to college and young women in college can put on a bit of weight. It’s a little too early to start judging her at this point. Hopefully, now that she’s done the nude scene, she’ll have the judgment in the future to say no to the directors who are going to find excuses to get her to take her clothes off.

  2. Nashville Girl says:

    At least she’s doing a nude scene on film and not a sex tape. I think she’s just trying to spread her wings a little.

    • RocketMerry says:

      Yeah, but if I were her team I would strongly advise her to do “grown-up” stuff in ways that differ from sexual/nude scenes. Because:

      a) much like Selena Gomez, no amount of make up is going to make her look old enough to get away with this. She won’t be looking the appropriate age for at least 5 or so more years. It does not ONLY matter if you are 18 to do a sex scene: you must ALSO look the part.

      b) appearing eager to look grown-up and sexy, by absurd, makes you seem much immature, childish and unaware.

      c) it’s the most travelled route and it is boring, slippery and uninspiring.

      There’s more than one way to play an adult in films, Dakota!!!!
      I’m really not impressed by these last interviews of hers.

      • flor says:

        You made GREAT points.

        I think the problem is that all the movies that include sex scenes make them look SO dramatic. Like, “I want to lose my virginity because I have cancer and I’m gonna die”. WTF?
        A young adult IS discovering sex, there is nothing wrong with that but do it in a fun way. Sadly, we don’t have that kind of writing in Hollywood. I think there relies the problem.

      • Emma says:

        +1 I couldn’t have said it better!

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I don’t get why people get so upset about nude scenes, particularly if they’re integral to the plotline.

        People have sex, guys-this is a reality. Even girls like Dakota, who don’t look older than their age STILL have sex.

        Personally, I value a dedication to realism in movies. That’s actually my favorite style. Sex happens in real life all the time and it’s not dirty and it’s not something to be scared of. Not only that but I’m surprised at how people’s first thought turns to porn. There is a seriously sad amount of social conditioning in this world where people automatically think that a sex scene is pornographic.

        Sex can be a beautiful thing. If you are scared or offended by sex in a movie then perhaps don’t watch the film because chances are that if it’s a “coming of age” film then sex will be featured.

        I don’t have a problem with it at all-it doesn’t titillate me, it doesn’t offend me, it’s simply one facet of a story being told to me through moving images.

      • RocketMerry says:

        @Original Kitten
        Yeah, I understand your point and I don’t have a problem with sex scenes, but my main point is that to interpret a “coming of age young woman”, you MUST look like a “coming of age young woman”, not like a 13 y.o.

        It’s the same problem that was discussed with the parfum ad. She just should wait until she looks like a young woman, to play up te sex aspect.
        Otherwise she’ll end up putting the audience at the movies in the uncomfortable position of keeping reminding themselves: “She IS 18, she IS 18, she IS 18…”

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Hi Rocketmerry :)
        Agree that she has the cherub-like face of a child. It IS unfortunate because it dictates the way the public perceives her.

        Maybe she should wait until she looks older but honestly, I think her face looks rounder and more child-like the older that she gets..which is strange.

      • Isa says:

        I agree her face looks chubbier and baby-ish as she gets older. Remember uptown girls? She looked like a little old lady! Lol.
        But I really see nothing wrong with her doing nude scenes. People have sex all the time. Even young, baby faced people.

      • dan says:

        but selena is not doing nude scenes or acting slutty

      • RocketMerry says:

        @dan
        “Spring breakers”. Check that trailer out, but only if you’re over 18.

      • Cassie says:

        So, because Courtney Stodden looked like she was way past 18 it was OK for her to sex it up?

      • RocketMerry says:

        Sigh. @Cassie, that was not my point. If you read back the original comment, I said BEING 18+ is not the ONLY requirement: one must ALSO look 18+. Otherwise the images become disturbing.

    • Bijlee says:

      Mad men has ruined the spread her wings line fr me.

  3. mkyarwood says:

    This is pretty age accurate. Plus, she has some sexuality discovery to do.

  4. T.Fanty says:

    She’s 18. If that, and the Marc Jacobs ad is as wild as she gets, I think she’ll be okay.

    • Jean says:

      Her part in The Runaways really surprised me as to how adult she played in that role. Lots of Hollywood actors get through their career without nudity, or rather full nudity and seem to make it just fine. If I was an actress, I think I would want to have some mystery left about me, to not let it all hang out there for all to see.

  5. pretty says:

    she has a very masculine face. she looks A LOOOOOT older than her real age and she looks like Madonna.

  6. hannah says:

    Where does she say she was excited? She seems very reasonable and mature about the whole thing?

    • L says:

      Yea, I don’t see where she’s says she’s excited about it either. “Yeah, well, I’ve never done that before and I’m very newly allowed to do that,”…“I was newly 18, so yeah, it was, it’s kind of a sensitive thing, but it’s a part of life.”
      She talks about the senstivity of the moment, but how nudity is a part of life and a part of the plot of the film.

      If it makes sense for the movie and isn’t gratuitous nudity, I don’t see the issue. A movie about 18 year old girls on a trip of self discovery? Makes sense to me.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      I didn’t get “I’m excited to get nekkid!!!” from anything she said here.
      She just sounded professional to me.

      Sometimes I think that when an actress is pretty low-key/non-scandalous, that people feel like they have to create scandal.

      I like her.

  7. Britt says:

    Those top photos of her are extremely unflattering, those boots, jeans, sunglasses blergh!!

  8. emmie_a says:

    She’s one if the last people I’d want to see naked.

  9. flor says:

    There is nothing shocking about her doing a sex scene. After all, she did that rape movie when she was like 10. She’s been trying to be seen as a “baby Meryl” ever since she appeared in I Am Sam but it’s funny because I remember back then everyone was saying how she was going to win an Oscar before she was 20 and she is probably the only young actress without an Oscar nomination.

    • hannah says:

      “Probably the only young actress without an Oscar nomination”? What are you talking about?

      • flor says:

        What part did you not get? She was the one poised to become the new Meryl Streep and for years she has been put aside to favor other young actresses that end up getting great reviews and work with the best directors out there. After working with Spielberg and co. Dakota was supposed to be the one with the early career nominations.
        Chloe Moretz was picked by Scorsese and she has the Carrie remake now.
        Hailee Steinfeld worked with the Coen brothers and is an Oscar nominated actress. Plus, doing Shakespeare at freaking age 14!
        Saorise, Oscar nominated. Best young actress working today.
        Elle Fanning has worked with the Coppolas (both of them), JJ Abrams and Spielberg.
        And if you want to go a bit older than Dakota, JLaw is slaying, Rooney only works with the best directors, even Shailene Woodley is doing better work than Dakota and Shailene is a Golden Globe nominee.

        Something happened to Dakota professionally. She kept doing good work but something happened because it either is not seen by a lot of people for her to get even more relevant or, maybe, the fact that her little sister is a prettier, nicer, bubblier version of her and even a better actress has overshadowed her.
        Perhaps she was only seen as the “go-to” kid for movie roles but there was certain magic on her performances when she was a little kid that she completely lost.
        She had that certain “je ne sais”, she took you on a roller coaster ride and you had to suck it up. You don’t see that on her anymore.

    • i'm french don't kill me says:

      i never understood why her parents were okay with her acting in a rape scene so young

    • T.C. says:

      ” or, maybe, the fact that her little sister is a prettier, nicer, bubblier version of her and even a better actress has overshadowed her.” WTH? Elle is a kid and Dakota is a young adult. It’s not like they ate choosing Elle over her for the same role so I don’t know what you are getting at. Dakota’s career is fine. Elle is not better than her. Both are good. Both have the rest of their lives to get Oscar nominations. I think the get naked as soon as I turn legal is pretty sketch but that’s her decision not mine. Nudity isn’t a sign of maturity in my book that comes from the acting in complex roles.

      • flor says:

        I think you are missing my point. Dakota was a STAR. She is not one anymore. Elle has a movie out now and some award sites were saying that if the Academy nominated people for their performances alone, she had to be nominated with a possible win. Dakota was the one supposed to be receiving that kind of attention.
        Besides, when Dakota broke out it was unusual for young actresses to land great roles and now it is the expected. If she wants to remain part of the game she has to amp up her strategy because all the actresses are outshining her.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        What??? It is “expected” that “young actresses will get great roles”?

        You’re kidding right?

        Good roles are few and far between and contrary to your above insinuation, Oscars don’t get handed out like Halloween candy.

        I think your overwhelming hatred of Dakota Fanning is making you a bit confused.

      • flor says:

        Oh, please. Now I hate Dakota for stating my opinion? You are so defensive it’s embarrassing. All I am saying is that Dakota used to be the girl everyone was rooting for to get the kind of career that JLaw is having now, her sister has worked less and has been praised more and it’s the go-to fashion girl at the moment. All the famous non-Disney young actresses her age have been nominated for big awards yet she is there, stuck in “losing her virginity on camera”. All I am saying is that, for some reason, something happened there that made her lose popularity or, maybe, Hollywood began looking for other Dakota Fannings because the real one was too busy and they ended up finding a lot of little Dakota Fannings that are capable of bringing the same kind of realism or even more.

        No, I don’t hate her. And yes, when the current front runner for this years’s Oscars IS a young actress with a second BEST ACTRESS nomination, you ARE expected to land a great role if you want to be part of the game. You NEED that role for people to recognise your talent and to move onto greater things. That is what young actresses are trying to do and what Dakota herself is doing by choosing to do strip her clothes off on camera.

      • T.C. says:

        Dakota Fanning is still a star with a bigger resume than her baby sister. Elle’s recent film got mixed reviews and is barely getting a release so no she wasn’t going to get an academy nomination. She barely had any buzz for that film. You make it seem like Elle’s star is overshadowing Dakota when that isn’t the case. I don’t even understand why people are pitting these two sisters against each other. Elle is still a kid, you have no idea how she will do as an adult actress.

        Dakota is very much in the game, going to college, taking on challenging roles. She is only 18 years old with decades left to make her mark in film past what she has already done. It doesn’t matter that some pundits jumped the gun to call her a mini Meryl Streep when she was still just a child. That’s their problem not hers.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Not defensive, Flor, I just used deductive reasoning-if you reply to EVERY post on this board with something negative about Dakota, I think a logical inference would be to say that you don’t like her.

        She’s 19 years old, despite your insistence to the contrary, her career isn’t over. I don’t think she’s “stripping” to try to get an Oscar. In fact, by your own admission sex is a prevalent aspect of movies, so why isn’t every actress that gets naked getting an Oscar nod?

        It seems like a waste of time to put so much effort into describing her “dead career”. Her career isn’t over because you declare it to be.

      • flor says:

        @TC That is true but my main point is that Dakota used to be the only one: much like Meryl, the exception, the only young actress “that has, is and will” yet now we seem to have thousand of young actresses that “have, are and will” and Dakota’s became another one.
        She is Hollywood royalty, of course, because everyone knows her and loves her but she was expected to do more and she didn’t.

      • Flor says:

        @Kitten this would be accurate only if I said that she had no career which I didn’t. She has become another young actress, she is boring now. She wasn’t. You cannot deny that.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @flor-I just think that she’s still young and has time. Maybe she’ll fade into the sunset or maybe she’ll find a role that puts her back in the running. That is all I’m saying-this *could* just be a downturn in her career, not necessarily the end.

      • karmasabiatch! says:

        @ flor- I usually don’t get involved in CB dogfights but- you def seem to take a defensive posture with the other posters in this thread.
        It’s just a gossip blog, dude. Hang out, chillax, not everything has to be like you’re a member of an inter-collegiate debate team, lol.
        Idc if you’re not a Dakota fan, but I definitely wouldn’t say that she’s “peaked”. According to IMDB, she’s got 4 projects for 2013. I think she’ll be ok!

      • LAK says:

        @flor – i don’t understand where your point was lost in translation because it is true. Dakota was predicted great things. The way she was talked up, one would think she would be oscar’ed by now AND have a thriving fantastic career that left the competition in the shade. right from the gate.

        And she backed up that promise with the projects she chose AND her acting chops.

        It’s kind of puzzling how or where all that great promise spluttered out so she became just a face in the crowd.

        I can understand that college may have slowed her down, but she’s not choosing great projects to tide her over. And i truly think that, like Natalie Portman, she would have survived the step away from her career whilst she concentrated on college.

        she is a very talented actress, but her career right now is puzzling.

  10. LAK says:

    I don’t understand why nudity is a right of passage or necessary for movies.

    We shouldn’t be ashamed of our bodies, but at the same time, if I want to see nudity, I’ll rent/buy a porno.

    Nudity is unnecessary to tell a story in a straight up film except to titilate (sp). And I am not just talking about films with sexual/romantic themes. I include films like MELANCHOLIA which I love but again, unnecessary nudity.

    The most erotically charged films are the ones where it is all left to the imagination. And if you’ve ever seen a red sari scene, you’ll know what I am talking about.

    The most revered ALL TIME sex symbols aren’t to be found in playboy or even showing off their bodies. Marilyn, despite the one time playboy spread (which was opportunism at it’s best) is more suggestive than full frontal.

    Why oh why are naked people running all over my screen without my specific wishes or consent?

    • flor says:

      +3. Sadly, it seems like starlets think that nudity is the way they are going to be taken seriously (KStew anyone?). If they do it, then producers will notice and offer them roles because they are game and serious about the ~craft~.

    • jinni says:

      I feel the same way. Alot of the nudity seems to just be thrown in the movie with out really being necessary to the plot; especially female nudity.

      One of my favorite sex scenes is at the end of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” where Newman simply tells Elizabeth to lock the door and than throws his pillow on the bed next to Taylor’s and the movie ends (here’s the scene:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu0YmE41fg8 ) . You know what’s going to happen, but they never show anything and it’s still hot.

      I feel that sometimes nudity/obvious sex scenes are used because the people behind the film don’t want to take the time to show attraction between the character in subtler ways. That takes more effort and great chemistry between the actors to believable pull off subtle sexual chemistry, while a straight-up sex scene without much effort makes the audience believe that the main characters are attracted to each other quickly.

      • LAK says:

        I work in media so i know that sex scenes are short hand. I am constantly having these arguments with directors and writers but it seems that is what the audience wants and so it is now the norm.

        Can you imagine if CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF was remade? Maggie would be naked, and they would have a sex scene or two on screen.

        Even when the film is violent, the graphic scenes that are considered necessary show a lack of imagination on the part of the film maker.

        The most terrifying rape scene i have ever seen is in a film called BANDIT QUEEN and it’s not on screen.

      • jinni says:

        LAK: Well, please keep up the good fight to have directors and writers create more nuanced romantic relationships in entertainment. I know that as a viewer I would much rather see a slow or well developed build up to a romantic relationship between characters that shows sexual chemistry in more interesting ways than just have them go the same old easy route of throwing around “I love you’s” and head off into a sex scene.

  11. Fran says:

    Then we should say the same about Drew and Anne Paquin!

  12. Riana says:

    Like you said she has her head on straight and she grew up well.

    I think nudity in American Cinema has had such a disturbed portrayal, I could see why someone would be eager to contribute to something that frankly needs A LOT of work. There is such reprehension and fear, as if our bodies are something that shouldn’t be seen unless it’s a porno for people to only see privately.

    Would it be easy to watch? Who knows. I’ve stopped feeling like Dakota was a little kid years ago, but I do respect she’s growing up and like most adults she wants to tackle stuff she’s not been able to do as an actress. The best part of this is it is a thought-out decision and she’s not simply flashing to say “Hey world, I’m grown ups now”

  13. bns says:

    Her face is still so childlike though, like Haley Joel Osmet. I really don’t think she’ll transition into adult roles very well.

  14. ramona says:

    Hey, one of the first things Radcliffe did outside of the Potter flicks was play a mentally disturbed kid who strips off, simulates masturbation and sex onstage and blinds horses whilst running around naked. I think getting nude is just another way for child actors to announce, “Hey – I’m not a kid anymore! Adult! Adult over here, please acknowledge!!”

  15. Hoya_chick says:

    That’s a terrible outfit. Top to bottom. Are those boots pink? Uh, no. Just no. She’s in one of those NYU programs that counts being on movie sets and film festivals as class credit no matter what you are allegedly ‘studying’ and majoring in. Ha. She is rarely if ever there.

    The nudity thing is what it is. It’s so sexist. You’d never hear a guy her age say that. Most nudity in film is gratuitous and almost always the girl taking off her clothes while the guy is either fully clothed or covered in all the strategic places. Being naked doesn’t make you a better actress, make you bold or provocative. It just means you are naked in a movie. lol. I very rarely say wow that nude seen was really needed, it moved the story along and the movie would not be good without it. And I’m no prude. I love being naked and have no problem with nudity when it makes sense.

  16. Christina says:

    I do not see what the big deal is. Yes, she looks younger than 18, so it is a little weird, but she’s of age. People get naked in real life, whether it be to change clothes, to shower, to have sex etc etc. It is a normal , natural part of life. She seems like she knows what she is doing and has a good head on her shoulders. There is a simple solution to anyone objecting to her doing a nude scene : Don’t go see the movie!

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Exactly. Pretty much posted the same thing above.

    • LAK says:

      it’s not as simple as ‘don’t go see the movie’. It’s the fact that every single movie has nudity and or sex scenes as shorthand for character development or liberation.

      How is it that we survived nearly 90yrs of movies making, that isn’t porn, that is seriously sexual/erotic, and no nipple, nudity etc in sight?

      Using example someone gave upthread, do you feel disappointed that there are no sex scenes or nudity in CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF even though majority of the film takes place in the bedroom? You are left in no doubt about the sexual tension and or private lives of these characters, and no nipple [male AND female] in sight!!!

      It’s called ACTING. If i want to be authentic, i watch a documentary. Which Porn is as close to documentary as it’s going to get.

      I don’t want to watch ACTING that turns into documentary for the pretend reason that it is more authentic because it is not.

      It is titilation for people who pretend not to watch straight up porn.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        LAK-you can have your opinion, like Christina has hers.

        There aren’t ONLY two different types of movies-documentary and non-documentary, there are many different styles and a lot of room for creativity in between.

        If you want to watch movies like a Cat on a Hot Tin Roof then have at it. But just an FYI-sex has been in movies since 1927′s Flesh and The Devil, a silent movie starring Greta Garbo. Sex in movies pre-dates Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

        Whether YOU perceive it to be an integral part of a movie or not is irrelevant. A movie is an artist’s vision, and what they view as an imperative doesn’t have to match what YOU view as an integral/non-integral part of the film.

        To argue that sex is superfluous or unnecessary is to say that one person’s artistic vision is somehow negated because it doesn’t comply with your expectations. It’s really just wishing for censorship, which is not something I can get behind.

        Sex scenes do not automatically equal pr0n. Sex does NOT have to be dirty, nor does it have to be salacious. Showing intercourse in varied situations, through the lenses of different directors and in varied contexts just shows how complicated and nuanced sex can be. It’s an important aspect of life, it CREATES life and to say that it should never be depicted on-screen is to say that it is somehow wrong.

      • LAK says:

        @originalkitten – it is not censorship, nor am I saying that it’s a new thing.

        The only argument to include a sex scene and or nudity is always to titilate no matter how it’s dressed up.

        I don’t have any truck for censorship so that’s a pretty poor argument to put forward. Greta Garbo didn’t pretend she was serving the greater good neither did any of the pre-modern era film makers.

        You want to see nudity as art, go to an art show. Plenty of film makers who do that and don’t dress it up as anything else.

        Porn isn’t a bad thing and I don’t make that argument. Porn is documentary. Documentary of human sexual act, dressed up as entertainment. Just as one watches nature programmes of animals going at it in the serengeti, so to porn.

        I ask you this, since you wish to namedrop old films, did you feel that THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE was enhanced by the sex scenes in the recent remake? (Taking out the acting and production values)

        @christine’s reponse to my objection doesn’t compute when every new film and or starlet (male and female) feels that nudity of some sort or sex scenes enhance them or their careers.

        Whilst you are being deliberately obtuse when you don’t see that should CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF be made today, Maggie we can expect that the main characters will be fully nude and sex scenes will be inserted rather than showcase their relationship the way the film currently shows it. And that’s my problem.

        The only story that can justify nudity is the Adam and Eve story. Infact, I would say absolute essential in the telling.

      • Riana says:

        I usually quite like and agree with your opinions LAK but this:

        “The only story that can justify nudity is the Adam and Eve story. Infact, I would say absolute essential in the telling.”

        Seems absolutely illogical to me, I consider cinema to be a visual form of story-telling just like a book. You are saying while there may be some overexposure that the entire reality of nudity shouldn’t exist because…I don’t know but it seems like nudity on it’s own makes you very uncomfortable and should never be shown unless it’s unavoidable.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        LAk-”The only argument to include a sex scene and or nudity is always to titilate no matter how it’s dressed up.”

        You have a bad habit of stating your personal opinion like it is absolute fact and I take issue with this.

        “Greta Garbo didn’t pretend she was serving the greater good neither did any of the pre-modern era film makers”

        No, she didn’t and why would she? It doesn’t change the fact that it was a critically-acclaimed film that included (*gasp*) sex.

        It would be more honest of you to just come forward and say that you’re uncomfortable with sex instead of getting self-righteous about it.

        I dislike seeing people die in movies, but I don’t think that artists shouldn’t be able to show death because I recognize it as an important aspect of a person’s life, it is the FINAL aspect of a person’s life. Sex is what CREATES a person’s life so I view that in the same regard.

        Sex is not always “SEXY”. Rape is NOT sexy and sometimes to tell a story, you have to be truthful and show something like rape in it’s full horror for people to recognize the impact of such an event. This is my problem with everything you’re saying-your truth is not necessarily another person’s truth. What you find offensive can actually be life-changing for others. Seeing a rape scene could be traumatic or it could help a rape survivor realize that there’s life after that kind of trauma. But you would rather just not see the rape because that’s sex and sex in movies is always superfluous to you.

        Regardless of your discomfort, sex is and will always be a part of ART, film-making included. I’m happy that people like you and others who make sex a personal issue don’t get to decide what is right/wrong for people like myself, who have no problem with viewing one person’s interpretation of such a natural act.

        I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one.

      • Isa says:

        I agree OK and Cristina. It’s a movie about two girls losing their virginity. When I lost mine I got naked. I do think there’s a lot of gratuitous nudity in film these days. Especially in “comedies.” But whatever. It’s a naked person.
        IMO pr0n is completely different.

      • Leen says:

        You guys, sex is and will always exist in art and other mediums including film. Even the ancient Egyptians drew sexual acts on their papyruses.

      • LAK says:

        @Riana – I am not expressing myself well around this issue.

        Nudity doesn’t make me uncomfortable nor does sex.

        My objection stems from the way stories are told, nudity is frequently inserted for no reason whatsoever.

        The usual argument for it’s inclusion is that it enhances the story or it moves the story along.

        The example i gave is a scenerio where seeing Adam and Eve naked wouldn’t be a problem and is to be expected given their story.

        Many of the stories told do not have a reason for the nudity, but they add it anyway. So one can’t move for the unexpected nakedness all over the screen whatever the rating after PG/U.

        There are so many films throughout film history that tell a good yarn without resorting to nudity as a plot device, but now it has become so pervasive that young actors feel this a legitimate way for them to move their careers along.

      • LAK says:

        @Originalkitten – You think i am uncomfortable with sex????!!! And i am self righteous about it??!!Those are pretty judgemental absolute statements to make.

        And to base an entire rant on personal issues that have nothing to do with me is complete projection on your part because you don’t know me.

      • Raven says:

        Very good post and good choice of film as well. Before gratuitous nudity, films were generally much more artful. Watching a smoldering Greta Garbo, for example, in those bedroom scenes in Queen Christina, allows you to use your imagination, rather than be spoon fed the obvious. One relatively current good example for me, though, is Layer Cake. The scene in the hotel where we are expecting the nudity doesn’t turn out that way. Yet, even essentially clothed except for Daniel Craig’s bare chest, was a much better shorthand for me than two naked bodies writhing. When combined with the bar scene where he is caressing Sienna Miller with his eyes, there is much more anticipation.

      • LAK says:

        Raven – 100% agree with you. LAYERCAKE is a fabulous example.

  17. mel says:

    I love her..but lord…the sun is not your enemy…she looks half dead…or needs a better makeup routine.

  18. FassDaActor says:

    You almost gave me a heart attack with that headline. I a NOT ready to see her in a nude or sex scene. She still has that baby face. I don’t have a problem with nudity. But like someone here said, it shouldn’t be a rights of passage or just thrown in for no apparent reason.

  19. Isa says:

    That outfit makes her look waaay bigger than she really is. Not flattering.

  20. Ginger says:

    I don’t have a problem with nudity at all but I can see how this might be uncomfortable because Dakota is still a very young adult. I felt the same way when Drew Barrymore posed for Playboy back in the day. I was around 12 or 13 when ET came out so I always had that image of her as a young child in my head, someone who was a bit
    younger than I am. So when she started acting out and taking her clothes off all the time, I was thinking WHOA!! It’s silly but true!

  21. Ginger says:

    This may be slightly off topic but here is the “problem” I have with nudity in films or cable shows…the majority of these and you can look at the statistics feature nude females vs. nude males. And typically when the male is nude, you only see his derriere. This is deemed unoffensive I can only assume because we all have a behind. I can’t stand the double standard that it’s perfectly okay according to the MPAA that a female is completely nude but considered NC17 material if a male is full frontal. There are some interesting articles out there on the internet if you want to read them. Just a couple here:

    http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/10/12/male-nudity-mpaa/

    http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/the-sessions-nudity-double-standards

  22. Hmmm says:

    Now, that’s something for a young woman to aspire to, out of all the possibilities in the world.

    Getting naked is not going to legitimise you as a grown up.

  23. Holden says:

    Is her face looking a little fuller, or is it just me?

  24. DIANE says:

    Oh, whoopdeedoo. Can’t wait. I still haven’t recovered from her annoying overacting and incessant screaming in War of the Worlds. As a matter of fact, that performance made me avoid all of her subsequent films. She’s just another not very pretty girl with minimal acting talent and an overblown sense of importance. I’m betting she’ll have lip implants by the end of the year.

  25. Juicy Lucy says:

    Someone needs to tell Dakota that doing nude scenes gets old and most serious actresses who have done nudity in the past now have a no nudity clause in their contracts-Charlize Theron and Kate Winslet come to mind. IMO, there is nothing sexy about Dakota and she seens to lack a personality. Elle, on the other hand, comes across as more vivacious and likeable.

  26. Jen34 says:

    I feel sad for her and am sorry she chose to go that route.

  27. Mario says:

    Please Do Not Get Naked, you look like a hillbilly princess and no one needs to see that naked.

  28. xoxokaligrl says:

    Eh…

    Why is it every actress insists on doing new scenes to show everyone how serious of an actress they are. I am tired of seeing every celebrities bitties.

  29. mimi says:

    Because being exploited by the film industry and being objectified for commercial reasons is so exciting and new.

    The poor girl thinks that that will bring her some respect, meaty roles and critical acclaim.

    Please tell her to ask Kirsten Stewart how getting naked and doing a racy film helped her career

  30. KellyinSeattle says:

    I don’t think she’s sexy enough to pull off a sex seen; I always see her like a little girl, unlike Drew or Jodie Foster or other child stars turned adult stars.

    • Bijlee says:

      I don’t feel comfortable with sex scenes simply because I often think they are highly gratuitous and serve absolutely no purpose in the overall story. Taking massive dumps are natural things to, but no one ever seems to show that in a story. Lol sorry that’s me trying to be funny. I digress. But the idea you have to be sexy to do a sex scene is disturbing and homes in on that issue of why I find them gratuitous in the first place. You don’t have to be sexy, non sexy people have sex all the time. If you’re gonna do a sex scene it better serve the story. And don’t try to make it beautiful or exciting or sexy if that’s not a proper way to serve the story. But honestly there are other things that Hollywood will not show in their movies that make so much more sense and are natural just like sex. Like female body hair…I’m talking legs underarms etc. and just so many other things. It fascinates me that while nudity for a sex scene is fine but nudity during childbirth would be weird. Or breastfeeding, etc. I don’t know I’m a bit bothered by that. People always jump on sex is natural it’s real it should be shown and it bothers me.

      I watched a movie called my mother and I it’s a German film and there was one scene where she had hair on her legs…I was shocked. Is that the appropriate reaction to that? duh she had hair, it was set during the middle of the freaking war. I have a feeling something like that would not fly here. But let’s include the sex scene because everyone does that. This conversation just bothers me a bit. Most sex scenes are completely gratuitous.

      • muppet_barbershop says:

        I always find the presence of a natural/normal amount of unshaved body hair so refreshing, actually. And by the same token, modern nude scenes sometimes disconcert me with their complete lack of hair. I’m convinced that our culture’s fondness for no body hair on women in film is a symptom of our repugnant, bizarre obsession with youth.

        I just recently saw one of Bergman’s first films (Sawdust and Tinsel… I forget its real name, in Swedish) and the gorgeous female lead briefly showed her underarm hair on one side, while being swoony. It was suprising in a very good way. I suppose by today’s standards, this makes me a fetishist :P

  31. april says:

    I’m sorry but I used to think of her as a nice, smart young girl. Now I just think what a “ho.” She’s just turning 18 for God’s sake. Get some better goals in life. Now you are just in the desperate pathetic range of nude females.

    I’m not against nudity but she’s too young.

  32. muppet_barbershop says:

    Yes, they had to use a double for her in a not-very-graphic makeout scene in The Runaways. That movie’s DVD has a great commentary track. Dakota, who was 15 at the time of filming, was jokingly cranky about the restriction :)

  33. Joseph Cool says:

    Somebody needs to tell her to put some makeup on she looks like a ghost in those pics. As for going topless as soon as legally possible it comes off as a look at me kinda thing. She comes off as immature for wanting to do a nude scene so desperately especially witrh those tiny little baby boobs. Honestly , She’s a skank