Help!
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Film and Television Discussion
karlvasily — 21 years ago(January 11, 2005 10:27 PM)
Help!
OK, honestly, I can't seem to get a straight answer. Is the UNCUT 94 minute, non fogged version (with English subtitles) legal or not in the US? It is not at all difficult to find on Ebay, often inexpensively, mostly from the UK. I'd very much like to watch this (both my wife and I enjoy cult and erotic movieswe loved Beau Pere and The Lover for example) but it sure isn't worth getting arrested over or having it seized by customs. Please help! And, if you are so inclined, please resist the temptation to give me a lecture on child pornographythat is NOT what this is about. Thank you very much. -
Molerat123 — 20 years ago(April 14, 2005 07:00 AM)
Just a logical question that has probably come up b4where are the filmakers that made this?
If its illegal to WATCH this movie then how did they MAKE it?
"I really should stop getting my qoutes from fight club"
-Jack's Lack of Imagination -
galaqxus1987 — 10 years ago(April 18, 2015 11:56 PM)
Hmm jail, so what about 2 "Blue Lagoon" films with 14-15 yo girls
3-4 yo older but still not 18 like in US law
Super logical US law driving licence - 15-16yo, voting,sex - 18yo, cigarettes,alcohol - mostly 21! WTF F.ck logic
-
aotearoa_2006 — 20 years ago(October 07, 2005 07:48 AM)
To answer your question of "how" the movie was made, the simple answer is that it was a European collaboration. This movie would NEVER be made in the States - the slightly pseudo-prudes have made certain of that. The two girls (Eva Ionesco and Lara Wendell) have several scenes of full-frontal nudity which in itself isn't illegal. It's just the suggested sex scenes that are the issue. Neither of these two girls really look 12 years old, but that really doesn't matter to the censors. In 1977 when this movie was made, there were fewer regulations regarding the activities of youth in films, and most European individuals spend a good bit of their youth naked on a beach somewhere. You don't see that in the States, and I doubt that most Americans would understand that the mere sight of a naked child is not in itself erotic or sexual. The majority of the world population doesn't really care, and that is how it should be - go after the real child pornographers not the artists like Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and David Hamilton - all of whom understand that there is an inherent sexuality in all of us, but not for exploitation purposes. Besides, many 12 year olds are now sexually active (something that wasn't really the case in 1977).
-
teawoman_2000 — 14 years ago(June 30, 2011 03:14 PM)
I doubt very much that Eva Ionesco is proud of this film today. She was basically sold by her mother to participate in elaborate erotica from a very young age (would you believe it if I said 4?), and no, filming children having sex doesn't seem very acceptable to me. I don't care how good the story is.
-
hand-eti — 14 years ago(January 16, 2012 04:42 AM)
The movie was banned almost immediately in most European countries. I have seen it just because I wanted to know what all the controversy was about - and I pretty much agree with the banning. I think the movie is a pure excuse to wathc very young children having sex, and I cannot imagine that the child actors felt comfortable making this movie.
I would still not classify it as child porn because as far as I can tell the actors did not really have sex, but having child actors perform this kind of scenes is still way beyond what I think can be tolerated.
And I am not talking about the full frontal nudity, I am talking about all the scenes suggesting rape and intercourse in a very un-subtle manner. -
widescreenguy — 20 years ago(June 23, 2005 09:41 AM)
the american legal system truly is very bizarre.
their prisons are crammed full and the costs of maintaining them cut into the budgets of the states at the expense of, typically, such things as infrastructure, social programs and education.
chocked full of , for example from the show '60 minutes', a young man serving 15 years for . . . shoplifting. thats because of the appallingly absurd 3 strikes law. they are also full to the brim with people busted for pot possession. despite the fact that the hemp plant has been around since the days of the caveman and unlike alcohol which causes MILLIONS of bar fights every year and death on the roads, pot makes you mellow out and look for something to eat.
here in Canada it is LEGAL to smoke pot for medical reasons.
americans sadly have a very warped sense of right and wrong. -
princegriever — 18 years ago(May 29, 2007 02:43 PM)
If you're stupid enough to try theft 3 times and get caught, then you deserve to be sent to jail for 15 years.
Saying that the system is too harsh for the crime is like saying that for fooling around with a gun around your friends, and one of your friends getting killed is too harsh. Having fun with weapons isn't anything unheard of here in america, though most of the times it's illegal, and your friend died. You shouldn't have done it, but you did, and now you have to pay.
You shouldn't have been fooling around with something so simple yet so
dangerous, yet you did. Just don't do it and you won't get in trouble. Simple. -
kalvinharp — 18 years ago(May 31, 2007 02:32 PM)
read the posts. It is legal. After having talked to police officers and FBI agents, I can assure you that it is legal. Remember that nudity does not equal pornography. I own a copy, and reccomend it to family and friends becuase, for one the scenery is breath taking, and two it is a great exploration into the mind of a preteen or a teenager. Being a sociologist, this movie sparks my interest in (1) trying to understand my own painful experiences of when i was that age, and, (2) explaining why children and young adults act the way they do
-
SherlockVonEinstein — 14 years ago(September 18, 2011 01:12 AM)
America does not have a 3 strikes law. Only a handful of states (the only one I know of off the top of my head is California) has a 3 strikes law. The vast majority of states do not have any such laws, because they are in fact silly.
And the reason laws like that exist is not because citizens of those states have a "warped sense of right and wrong." It's because those states have privitized their prisons. In other words, the owners of those prisons get paid for housing prisoners. Therefore, the longer someone's in prison, the more money a businessman makes.
Most laws and attitudes are not the reflection of the everyday American, but the small group of millionaires and billionaires who run this country. -
jbaker1-2 — 12 months ago(April 04, 2025 12:21 AM)
Unfortunately, religion still has far too much influence on our legal system. Things that shouldn't by any stretch of the imagination be considered crimes are illegal because Bible-thumping assholes in positions of authority find them offensive.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it.