Looks real but you cant see much.

only Nicole's super small tits after all these years was worth watching in this movie!!

Nude or not, this scene was meaningless.
What? After her kids disappeared she spent the night out and came back the next day walking naked on main street!
That's not exactly what I would do in her situation. OK, I'm not her and I'm a grown man, but still.
Even in the logic of the movie it just doesn't make any sense. And why did she do that? Well we don't know at all.
Just seems like an extra scene that's OK to add to a movie without substance nor purpose, maybe just to make it look like the mother was mentally disturbed?

Check out Billy Bathgate.

The nude scene is a metaphor for the naked truth. Kidman goes on dreamquest where she deals with her husband transgressions and her demons. Not a pretty picture.

I do know that the actual shoot had Nicole in her underwear walking down the street. Here's a news article about it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2601165/Nicole-Kidman-stripped-underwear-role-gritty-outback-thriller.html
.
I'm unsure as to if she went naked in front of the camera without an audience and they imposed that on top of the version filmed in the street. To me it did look like bad CGI.

She sports a huge ginger merkin

Well said!!!
It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

you people creep me out..I hope you never leave your mother's basement

I want you all to know (esp: the OP) that all us pretentious movie nerds (like myself) aren't always "super uptight" about having to answer the question of the nudity. When I saw this film, as I do with every film on top of reviewing it, I also put away the possibly nude shots of both men and women in that file in the vault that takes up the majority of a brain. As an obsessed bi-sexual movie goer, lover, and full time critic and full time lover of the human body. I always try to remember where the nude shots occur myself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Rand
4 8 15 16 23 42
Maximillian Cohen:
When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six I did.

Or simply fx/cgi. It looked fake on Bluray. Today you don't even need body doubles as long you aren't close.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1315854
But it was a good display of her state of mind.
The movie itself was a turd. Too much waiting for answers, instead of providing answers.

So she had no stature until this film, as she appears to be naked in every other movie before this? And does this mean she was really desperate for a role early in her career when she took it all off?
Although, a body double could a smart move. I am not sure if she would be a sight to behold in her birthday suit at about 50 yrs?

It can be double too. I honestly does not care as long as she delivers great performance. And she does though. It was all about her. she seems well prepared for every scenw makibg her character look even more stranger. I actually can see her to get nomination for her role at some point.

The nudity itself if very brief, full frontal and in long shot, so in effect you don't really see anything. Could even be a body double to be honest.

Nude scene was important to show the state of mind of Kathryn (Nicole Kidman). The scene was shown briefly, but right on the street where everyone was staring at her. I can't give the full detail of the scene, however, I did not care much
paying attention at certain part of Nicole's body. I am kind of into movie person. Sorry if I could not give you better answer. I am going to review this film. It will be up online very soon. Nicole was truly amazing. What a performance. It is very important to stay focused the entire film, otherwise, you r going to dislike it. Not because its bad film, which is not it is because you won't get the point of the film if you're distracted all the time.

It may have been a body double with her head attached using CGI, or CGI altogether. Her body, especially her breasts, didn't look like her own, as in, they didn't look like hers when she has shown them in other films.
If it was her or a body-double, they didn't look like they were wearing a merkin, the public hair was way to sparse and the slight outline of the vulva can be seen. But the whole body something struck me as just looking weird, like it might have been all CGI from the neck on down.
But on the other hand, as others have posted, she's never been exactly shy about nudity, even full-frontal, when it's done in a non-gratuitous way in the proper context of the particular scene in the film.

She's never been shy-see 'Windrider', 'Billy Bathgate', 'Eyes Wide Shut', 'Cold Mountain' etc etc-only reason she wouldn't be getting her kit off now would be age/plastic surgery means she's not as good as she once wasagain, she wasn't shy in the past.
"What is an Oprah?"-Teal'c.

Well said. Thank you!

I'm heading out to buy the DVD at Target right now. It came out today in Adelaide. Not sure about the nude scene, but common sense would dictate that a body double was used. I very much doubt if an actress of her stature would be showing all her wares for the whole wide world to gawk at. She used a body double when doing a bed scene with Hugh Jackman in 'Australia'. She's a married woman and married to a famous guy too, meaning she's hardly likely to embarrass him or their kids as well. That's just my take on it.

Thanks alekperovaulker for your information. Since you saw the movie and we didn't, could you please describe the nude scene? How much do you see, how clear, does she have a full bush or shaved, etc.
Thanks!

I watched Strangerland. Its pretty good film, but not for everyone. Nicole Kidman delivered quite impressivw performance. And I dknt get it, why so many people talk about nude scene big deal. She an actress, and she already got used to show her body when it requires.

Anyone?
Thanks in advance.

Bump. Would like to know her pubic hair situation as well.