What kind of sick people are you?!
-
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! -
potless — 20 years ago(August 31, 2005 03:56 AM)
Just one thing Nuwaghost do any of the other films you mention feature nude little girls of 11 and 12 years of age simulating sex acts?
They say "it's not denial" they are just selective about the reality they accept -
Bitter_Almonds — 20 years ago(August 31, 2005 02:32 PM)
Nope. You win.
My turn:
Have any of the actors in this movie ever expressed regret or said this movie exploited them in any way or think this movie is fodder for paedophiles in the same manner some of those other child actors and teens who didn't perform nude on-screen (with the exception of Traci Lords) have complained about their past work?
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
styxtshaw — 20 years ago(February 15, 2006 05:39 PM)
dear god all of you STFU. Movies and picutres can be interperated in both ways. The problem is for the people that don't take it in the artistic sense and take it as a turn-on ruin the word. Don't go after the people that don't understandgo after the freaks that abuse the system.
-
natey147 — 16 years ago(January 11, 2010 09:45 AM)
None of the sex scenes in Pretty Baby feature Brooke Shields (although at the beginning, she does walk in on her mother with a client), however she is naked at certain stages.
As for 'Spielen wir Liebe': This movie is not much different to 'The Blue Lagoon', also starring an underage Brooke Shields. She was fifteen when she made that. Although the child nudity and theme made me uncomfortable, it does not match up to this filth. 'Spielen wir Liebe' is, frankly, 'legal-in-some-countries' (mainly those weird European ones) child porn, masquerading as 'art' or 'a touching portrait of adolescence', as I read in one review defending it. I watched the uncut DVD Saturday night, straight after 'The Blue Lagoon', and have felt queasy ever since (I only watched The Blue Lagoon and Pretty Baby out of dedication, 'cause I'm a Brooke Shields fan). Maybe I should have researched 'Spielen wir Liebe' here first. I never would have bought the DVD if I had. I thought I'd seen it all. The director should be put in jail.
And don't defend it as 'art' or 'a love story' because it's not. It's child exploitation of the highest level, and is sickening. Even David Hamilton would puke.
I constantly speak out against censorship here in the UK, but this is one movie I'm glad is banned. I will never watch it again. And quite how 'The Blue Lagoon' and Pretty Baby' are released uncut here is mystifying.
I hate censorship, but when it comes to children, I'm willing to make an exception.
I'm still working on my signature -
Hu_Tze_Hai — 19 years ago(November 04, 2006 01:12 PM)
You are obviously missing the point being brought up here. simulated or not, the sex scenes were made to obviously arouse the viewers!
Why do you think people protest against violent movies too?? No one's justifying that simulated violence are ok in movies
We all have our take on what's art or not, you keep calling the movie artistic also doesn't make it one as well. As I'm pretty sure the makers of the movie would view this as artistic as wellso to each his own right? no point for a debate whether it's art or not. As it is art as well as not art.
Legality has nothing to do with the movie, since it was obviously shown. You've always asked if they've (the actors of the movie) and protested they're dislike of the movie. Well base on the actors ages, I don't think they have the proper understanding of what they were doing back then and as for now, who knows? They probably didn't come out because they don't want to admit, or they are already well compensated to keep their mouths shut, or they have nothing to complain about.
But as the one who started this topic, HE has something to complain about. He didn't perceive the film as something artistic. And I agree with him, the film was obviously made with the 'simulated' underage sex scenes first in mind before coming up with a plot, script or anything else they need to add to call it a film - not just any film but to call it an artistic film to defend themselves on why they made it. We can all agree it's not a very good film, it's actually a very bad one. And all the film you've name dropped (i.e. pulp ficton, clockwork orange) are made with the storyline in mind first rather than the obscene scenes of sex and violence in mind, which made them controversial yet artistic.
Just my 2 cents on the topic. You guys have different valid points, there's no use debating over it as it an old film and i haven't see any followings to it (hope not)so chill
-
jiffypack — 19 years ago(November 17, 2006 05:22 AM)
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 R*PING 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 misleading and incorrect. this is what I was reffering to in my other post, you are combining three scenes into one.
http://www.imdb.com/board/10076749/board/nest/22211659?d=58889977#58889977 -
Dismenot — 19 years ago(November 19, 2006 09:04 AM)
Even if you are right and I remember the movie incorrectly,(and I'm not saying you are) why would you want to make such a big deal of such a small point? It's still kiddie porn no matter how you slice it, rape scene or not.
An HSX Baron -
jiffypack — 19 years ago(November 19, 2006 01:14 PM)
I see it as important to correct misleading information on these boards, if something is incorrect, it needs to be corrected, no matter what the subject is.
KP? or not KP? As in our other discussion that is just a matter of opinion until proven in court in various countries. And if the director and/or anyone else involved is still alive they can probably be prosecuted for it today (dependant on local laws). Now THAT would be interesting. And it goes in favour of it not being KP because if it was, the authorities in the countries where this was filmed/released would be compelled to prosecute those involved. The director for example is only 66 and still active. The cameraman 63 and still active in Germany. The lack of prosecutions if nothing else shows it is certainly not clear cut.
There is usually no time limit on offences like this. -
Dismenot — 19 years ago(November 19, 2006 03:26 PM)
The lack of prosecutions if nothing else shows it is certainly not clear cut.
Not exactly, assuming it was legal to produce in the first place(it was) they cannot retroactively prosecute just because they changed the law.
An HSX Baron -
jiffypack — 19 years ago(November 20, 2006 01:51 AM)
You're claiming Italian & German law has changed since 1977 in this respect. Please back up your claim with references. Otherwise I'll have to assume you are again stating conjecture as though it were fact.
-
Dismenot — 19 years ago(November 20, 2006 09:00 AM)
Feel free to assume anything you wish, I feel no need to prove anything to you.
If you wish to verify information that you read on a movie board, I suggest you consider the merit of a well known saying.
Google is your friend.
An HSX Baron