Perhaps I am missing something?

From the Telegraph (via HuffPo):
The latest Harry Potter film will feature a “very sexy” love scene in which actor Daniel Radcliffe appears nude alongside co-star Emma Watson.


Mr Yates said: “We’ll create something that feels very sexy and very intriguing to bring about a reaction in Rupert.

“Dan has appeared nude in the past. There are a couple of scenes in the new film in which he will undress, but we’re still thinking about how we present it.

“There is another scene in King’s Cross station, where Harry almost dies and sees Dumbledore. In that scene, he will also be naked.”

I am... confused. Harry Potter novels are, in fact, for children. Yes? I realize that they are enjoyed by fans young and old, but the target audience is kids, right? The novels are typically found with other children's literature in bookstores, correct?

With this in mind, would someone like to explain to me what a nude scene is doing in a movie targeted at children? I understand that the novels get progressively more dark as the series draws to its conclusion, and the movies are thus too scary for small children. However, it seems incredibly inappropriate to me to include "very sexy" nudity in a film that parents will be taking their kids to.

Seriously, whose brilliant idea is this? I feel like an aggrieved, matronly martinet as I write this, but is it really necessary to push that particular envelope in this particular film?

Will no-one think of the children??!? *swoons*


  1. I agree that a nude scene has no business being in a children's film. And nude scenes in general are just another reason why I prefer old Hollywood. For example, the falling blanket at the end of "It Happened One Night", the closing train doors in "Penny Serenade", and two burning cigarettes in an ashtray on a nightstand leave something to the imagination and are much sexier than letting it all hang out.


  2. I suspect that the sexy scene will leave a little to the imagination along the lines of Hitchcock. And the station scene, as I recall, isn't so much about nudity as it is about blurring the line between physical and spiritual existence. I'm not ready to say this means the movie will be R-rated, or that the children will be forever harmed if they see it. After all, the books and movies do contain some deeply dark and disturbing material. A few seconds of soft-focus writhing, or a shot of Mr. Radcliffe's rear isn't going to put it over the edge.

  3. Look, I have no beef with nudity per se. Radcliffe has already gone starkers on stage in "Equus." If this were a movie aimed at grown-ups, then I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered.

    But this is not a movie aimed at grown-ups. The Harry Potter series is for children, no matter how much appeal it has had across the age spectrum. And I think parents should be able to take children to the movies based on a beloved book series without there being nudity. I'm not arguing that children will be forever harmed, but neither do I think this particular envelope needs pushing.