What kind of sick people are you?!
-
Bitter_Almonds — 21 years ago(January 12, 2005 10:23 PM)
I asked what Eva Ionesco would think nowadays, not what Irina would say. Also, the idea that in a movie like
American Pie
teen sex is glorified shows a two-faced society morbidly obsessed with such a thing, yet decries it at the same time in other instances. Lastly, Britnay, Christina, and Mandy all began their Pop Idol careers when they were underage and their publicists were pushing their innocent-yet-naughty image to sell more albums. In other words, there's way too much inconsistency to see certain films as bad and other elements that sexualize minors as good.
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
potless — 21 years ago(January 13, 2005 01:22 PM)
Correct me if I am wrong the main characters in American Pie were aged from 20 years upwards when the series of films began, they portrayed teenagers of 18 years plus that is a slightly different situation to a girl aged eleven when filming began portraying a girl of twelve engaging in illegal activity with a male many years older than her
-
Bitter_Almonds — 21 years ago(January 13, 2005 03:05 PM)
So, in other words, the portrayal of teen sex is alright with you as long as the actors are of legal age. Anyway, you are wrong. Nowhere in the
American Pie
movies does it say how old the characters are supposed to be. I never stated that the actors of
American Pie
were underage. I said that the theme of having sex during the teenage years is something to laugh about, but under any other circumstance, out come the crosses and the holy water. Correct me if I am wrong, but has Eva Ionesco expressed any sort of regret for ever being involved in this film? As far as "illegal activity" goes, that is blurred when it comes to these kinds of films. Unless you're the one actually prosecuting people for seeing this movie, you don't know what you're talking about. There are sections of the law which exclude things done where the main purpose is art. This is why photography books are legal, nudist videos are legal, and nude bodies filmed in context with the story are also legal. If there was a law that said none of that could be shown, then we can all be jailed for having films like
Lolita
,
Beau Pere
,
Laura
,
The Tin Drum
, etc. Where would it stop with such a broad definition? Why not go further and include violence committed against child actors portraying hoodlums like in
Pixote
,
Los Olvidados
,
Salaam Bombay!
, and
City Of God
? After all, violence against children should be considered as bad as sex, right? Bollocks, I say. This is just censorship committed by a bunch of perverted, hypocritical blue-nosed puritans.
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
karlvasily — 21 years ago(January 13, 2005 09:13 PM)
I haven't even seen the movie yet but I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, and this worries me a lot, I think this is the trajectory our country is heading in. I just wish I could be sure that the movie is legal because one thing I'm not willing to do is break the law, even if I don't personally think it's right. The amazing thing reading these posts is that some people apparently really believe that violence is more justifiablewhat an odd society we live in.
-
Bitter_Almonds — 21 years ago(January 16, 2005 07:00 PM)
Well, to tell you the truth, this isn't a very good movie. It was plain bad. It's only redeeming value to collectors is the controversy it gathered. As far as legality goes, it's more a question as to whether you'd feel embarrassed if your friends and neighbours found out you had this movie "community standards" vary greatly from place to place. If the police or a judge were looking at this, they might confuse it for the real deal, but a good lawyer could set it straight.
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
potless — 21 years ago(January 21, 2005 04:27 PM)
So as long as victims of pedophila don't express regret the action is against them is alright is it? Yes let's dress it up and pretend it's art, that's ok, sex involving 11 year old girls is alright as long as we call it art.
-
Bitter_Almonds — 21 years ago(January 21, 2005 11:59 PM)
Since you've already concluded the models in these movies are "victims of pedophilia" there'd be no point in discussing this much further. As long as we call anything "art," we can take many freedoms with it. The censors think ultraviolent films like
City Of God
are okay, but movies which explore early sexuality are not. Get your priorities in art straight and then come back and tell us that simulating shooting a kid in the face with a pistol is very good and commendable filmmaking.
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
potless — 21 years ago(January 22, 2005 08:04 AM)
So in your world you can film anything as long as you pretend it is art, your attempts to draw parallels between two different subjects are fatuous and unsubstantiated. If you want to pursue a fight against the censors then do so but don't feign moral indignation at violence in film as a reason to quantify using children in film to titilate men with certain tendencies.
They say "it's not denial" they are just selective about the reality they accept -
Bitter_Almonds — 21 years ago(January 22, 2005 11:19 PM)
You're dodging my question - again. I've already answered yours, so I do not know what else you want me to write. First things last: 1) I do not "feign" anything and 2) I don't know what you mean by "in your world" and I don't particularly care to get an answer for that since you're just some presumptuous fellow; presuming here, presuming there, without any factual statements to back it up. You presume people "pretend" and "attempt." What? Are you some sort of mind-reader? I draw parallels between subjects that are of real concern with people here: Sex and violence, sex and violence towards children, and more to the point,
simulated
sex and violence as depicted in works of fiction. Do you need me to repeat it one more time? Were you not able to comprehend it the first or second time? You require substantiation when people state their opinion of what they know? How about you? I already told you, unless you're in charge of prosecuting and enacting laws against works of fiction and art, you don't know what you're talking about. In other words, you're just some bullsh!tter stating opinion like it's fact. In your world maybe that carries weight, but over the internet it means nothing. If you're not going to answer my previous inquiry, then that's it for you, guy. You can keep rambling on.
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
potless — 21 years ago(January 23, 2005 04:48 PM)
What question is this big guy? Lets go over what has passed before because you obviously have difficulty in gaining a firm mental grasp of what this is about. First you try to compare a comedy film about college students where the lead actors were 22 years of age to a film where a nude late aged teenager 17 or 18 has or simulates sexual intercourse with one naked eleven year old girl playing a twelve year old and another naked twelve year old girl. There is no comparison between these two films there are no parallels here. Then you questioned whether having sex (real or simulated) with 12 year olds is illegal, sorry to burst your bubble but in some states I think you will find that that is a class 2 felony punishable by a prison sentence of seventeen years. Then we have the theory that anything is acceptable if we call it art. Who really is spouting beep here? You can wriggle anyway you want but there is no more defence for this film than any other porn film involving children
They say "it's not denial" they are just selective about the reality they accept -
karlvasily — 21 years ago(January 23, 2005 07:42 PM)
Look up the definition of porn and you'll find that this film doesn't qualify in any regards. That said, while I wasn't offended per se by the movie, I will admit it's pretty horrible and a waste of time.
-
potless — 21 years ago(January 24, 2005 11:42 AM)
I agree with your analysis of the film. as for a definition of porn I quite like the definition given in the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary
" Pornography: books, magazines, films, etc. with no artistic value which describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting but would be considered unpleasant or offensive by many people:" I have to say this film does qualify in that definition.
They say "it's not denial" they are just selective about the reality they accept -
karl-mauk — 21 years ago(March 13, 2005 07:32 AM)
I beg to differ with your conclusion: This film does not fit the definition you quoted since it not only does have artistic value, it is definitely a work of art. You cannot argue about that. The judgment of what is art and what is not is not up to an individual person to make for all of us. There are probably still people around who think that surrealist paintings have no artistic value. Even if a work of art is found offensive by some doesn't change its status as a work of art. Art is often offensive and should be. I found mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" extremely unpleasant to watch and offensive. However, I do not deny it artistic value.
-
Bitter_Almonds — 20 years ago(May 28, 2005 12:55 PM)
You're answering your own questions as you go along and apparently it is you who decides what is art. This is fine. Marcel Duchamp and Andy Warhol believed in something similar: that art is the compilation of the individual ideas and thoughts it receives (i.e. you can hate it, you can be repulsed, you can lambast it, you are the judge and jury for it). This doesn't mean it isn't art because it is; just as the collection of printed word is called a "book," art encompasses from the simple found-objects and crayon drawings of kids to the DaVinci and Michelangelo stuff, everything in between and to the sides as well. As soon as a person has made the conscious effort to give an abstract artifact meaning, it becomes art no matter what others say. Hell. Everyone in unison could say this crappy movie is not art, but it doesn't make it so. Anyway, lemme ask you something, have you ever been to a nudist beach? If you have, then it is okay to watch people's nude bodies. That pretty much answers your statement that "it is not okay to watch naked 12 year olds." Lots of artists use the nude body as a theme for their artwork. It's not something black and white as saying, "You're 60, I can paint you nude for a calendar. You're 30, I can photograph you nude for a magazine. You're a newborn, I can videotape you for my family album. You're 12 you are completely unacceptable, disgusting: photographing, painting, filming you = child p0rn. Ew. Go away. Come back in 6 years." You know how silly that is? Do people secure in their image and perceptions of others have to defend themselves from busy-body perverts who see pornography everywhere they set their eyes on? To me, a red flag is raised with anyone who has a problem with seeing nude bodies of any kind, yet have no qualms with extreme violence and other subjects which should be as taboo and as perverse. This was a bad movie not because of child nudity and simulated sex, but because it had a weak plot, bad camera work, a cheap score many things that make a film bad. The nudity is the least of it. But to equate child nudity with pornography, thereby making the theme of budding sexuality off limits, we wouldn't have great works of art like Nicolas Roeg's
Walkabout
, Gauguin's paintings from Tahiti, Nabokov's
Lolita
, etc.
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
Bitter_Almonds — 20 years ago(May 29, 2005 08:17 PM)
Objectively, I have to call it "art" because to do otherwise we'd be splitting hairs as to what specifically constitutes a work of art: is it the complexity of it? And, how is this complexity determined? Is it determined by medium and subject? Is it moral or immoral, and according to who's morality and of what time period? You'd have to give a very specific, yet universal, definition in order to state something is not art. The example you gave is a real repulsive piece. It's art and I can tell you from the description you gave I'd hate it as much as you do. Subjectively, I cannot tell whether this movie was a bona fide attempt or if it was done strictly for the purpose of exploitation and aimed at an audience attracted to such things, but human sexuality does not begin exactly at 18 and there are books, films, paintings, and sculptures which also delve into such matters, and do it effectively and well. I couldn't put a stop to those works for the sake of one bad movie. The theme is immoral, but since everything is simulated it is the re-enacting of something immoral just as violence towards others is also immoral - and we see re-enacments of that all the time without a problem.
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
Dismenot — 20 years ago(August 16, 2005 08:26 PM)
But to equate child nudity with pornography, thereby making the theme of budding sexuality off limits, we wouldn't have great works of art like Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout, Gauguin's paintings from Tahiti, Nabokov's Lolita, etc.
Sorry for just quoting one of you, but I see a lot of words like "simulated sex" and such in a lot of these post's, as if to "Soften the blow", and nobody seems to be using the
Correct
word at all, so I will.
I have seen the movie, I'm just one of those people that does NOT believe in censorship, and the best way to get me to read a book, or watch a movie etc. Is to tell me that "I cant".
However, the first time the boy "takes" Lara Wendel, it is NOT a scene of teenagers having simulated "sex", or of "budding sexuality", it IS a scene of a 17 year old boy RPING a 12 year old girl! Who, after he has been on top of her for awhile, stops fighting and gets a "look of contentment" on her face, ie: She start's to "Like it".
This is frowned upon by most filmakers nowadays, even when the actress in question is a grown woman, as it will rightly (and has in the past) bring womens rights organizations down on their head's for suggesting rpe is "OK" because she'll end up liking it anyways.
The premise of such organizations is that it goad's rpist's.
I think it's rather obvious that the same scene with a little girl would do the same for a Pedo.
The above is not unsupported allegations, many a rpist has testified that he saw this or that movie, etc. Before commiting the crime, this is fact.
So the movie can be perceived as, in a sense, fuel for pedo's. and very irresponsible film making.
I'll clear up some questions before they get asked:
No I do not have a problem with nudity of any age, to say one does is to advocate the abolition of every nudist beach and resort in the world.
No, that does not mean I "enjoy" seeing nakkid kids, I do not.
No, I'm not a nudist, but they have a right to exist if they want to.
No, I do not think they should make movie's with nakkid kid's in them, but be realistic, we dont need to Ban things like National Geographic either. LOL but
No, I do not think this movie should have been made, I'll tell you why at the end of this
opinion
.
However:
No, I do not think it should be against the law to watch or own it, I dont believe in book burning either, ain't that what the
Nazi's
did???
No, I did not like the movie, it was garbage personnified, if I had to rate it with IMDB stars, it would barely get a one, and that only for a single quality, it can be used in college to show aspiring filmakers what NOT to do.
Bad script, bad acting, really bad score, and bad camera work add up to a waste of time.
No, I do not think this movie is "ART" in any way whatsoever, the question keeps getting asked, "Who decides what art is?" Well Sorry, but there is no "ArtGod" so the answer again, is obvious, "We" do. And in
My
opinion a movie depicting massive cruelty, murder and r*pe among Children, is not art, it is
CONTROVERSIAL.
Controversy is not necessarily art, but many people seem to confuse the two.
Why I dont think movie's like this should be made:
Because children cannot defend themselves against the corporate wolves in the film industry that flash $$$ at greedy parents. Children were badly exploited in the past, and that is why we (USA and others) have laws against making such films now.
The industry cannot police itself, so we do it for them. And we should.
THAT is why movies like this should not be made anymore. Personal opinions are irrelevant because the potential end cost has been, and is, just too high.
One child exploited, is one child too many.
My 2 cents
An HSX Baron -
Bitter_Almonds — 20 years ago(August 18, 2005 12:07 PM)
They're not having sex, though, so it's simulated - without the expressed idea that it is supposed to cause arousal of its audience. Simple as that. Just like a violent scene in a movie is an act of simulated violence and stuff like
Pulp Fiction
and
Man Bites Dog
are revered by their audiences while Bumfight videos are frowned upon.
The movie is art bad art. I agree, there is no art god that says what is and isn't, so what's not to make it just a plain bad movie? This is without bringing up the idea of controversy. Most people agree that controversy does not art make. This is why they're two completely separate words undefined by each other. So what? It happens to be bad art and, coincidentally, controversial.
There are numerous movies with depictions of rape and are very popular movies too.
Ms .45
,
Pulp Fiction
,
Deliverance
,
I Spit On Your Grave
,
Last House On The Left
,
A Clockwork Orange
,
Irreversible
, and many more, so you lost me on what point you're trying to make with that that rape cannot be a subject matter in art?
As for exploited children, what exploited children? Have either of the actresses ever expressed regret or say anything negative about their early careers as, say, Dana Plato, Gary Coleman, Macaulay Culkin, Traci Lords, and other child and teen actors have? If so, then you gotta point. Children (not just the children actors) have great potential to be exploited in any situation by their parents.
Do The Mussolini! Headkick!