what do you see?


I haven't seen this movie. In fact I hadn't heard of it till half an hour ago when I saw it going for a HUGE price on Ebay and thought, WTF? There was no explanation of what it was, so I came here and have read a few posts to try and work out what's going on.
What on earth happens in this movie that gets so much controversy? Naked 12-yr-olds "running around"? Doesn't sound like much of a plot. "Simulated sex"? That could mean anything from the vilest child pornography to the most innocuous offscreen fondling. I presume if it was really foul it wouldn't even be on imdb, though - and what bugs me about these discussions is that some people seem to be objecting to images of naked children per se, no other reason given. "Naked child - the most disgusting image in the universe! Naked children make me want to puke!"

So can somebody help me out here? I don't particularly want to see it, I'm just curious what gets such a reaction from people. Is Truffaut's L'Argent de Poche kiddy porn? What about the australian flick Mouth to Mouth? Or then again, does a 12-yr-old actress bump her face against someone's groin to simulate a blowjob? That would definitely be abusive to the actress, but presumably as I say it doesn't descend to that level...or everyone would be condemning it and it wouldn't be legal anywhere on the planet.

When I was shooting a promotional video for the Grt Russell St YMCA, in London, we had two weeks to film all the activities that took place, then to be edited into a montage: the pool, the gyms, the art studio...at one point I saw a class of children, with a bloke in the middle swivelling, throwing a football to each kid in turn. They were so cute! "Film that!" I cried to the cameraman. "Get the kids! Look at them, they're so cute!"
But the PR manager of the YMCA stepped in and covered the lens with his hand. "I hope you're not filming the kids," he said. "We can't have that, for legal reasons. Take the camera somewhere else."
I was flabberghasted. "But they're just throwing a ball! It's a great image: bring your kids!" Nothing doing. No images of those kids were allowed. Not least because permission would have been needed from all of the parents (why?), and of course in today's climate what parent would say yes? The YMCA weren't even going to ask them.
If someone finds children sexy, it's easy enough to ogle the pyjama pages of a clothes catalogue. And personally, I don't believe in thought-crime anyway...

reply

We're talking Louis Malle (Pretty Baby), David Hamilton (Tendres Cousines) kind of sexual situations that are very controversial because of the ages of the actresses at the time (12) and what was actually filmed, not because they were nude per se. The movie has some shots of simulated sex which can be construed as actual child pornography in some jurisdictions of North America, England, and Australia. You'd probably be a little shocked that such a movie was filmed in the first place.


Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

reply

Kinda like that Hound Dog movie with Dakota Fanning?

reply

i like this movie because it has 12 yo girls running around naked

reply

Hehe, good for you! :)

reply

[deleted]

Of course you have never heard of this film and Of course you have never seen it....You just came on here to defend it like every other normal citizen.....

reply

??????????
What are you on about? I hadn't heard of this film and I still haven't seen it. Why would I defend it? And against what? My YMCA story was just a digression.

Weirdo.

reply

Right..........

reply

Wait a minute, what? Explain yourself.
You imply that I've seen this movie and am defending it (against what?). You express disbelief when I reiterate that I haven't seen it. For what it's worth, I don't give a flying c rap about this movie or defending it against anything. I haven't seen it and probably never will.
So explain how I am defending this piece of s--t movie that I'd never heard of, and just why you're so convinced that I must be lying about something...If I was gonna "defend" a movie that people find offensive, I would just defend it; I wouldn't waste time pretending I haven't seen it and asking what is in it that gets people so het up. What kind of mind do you have that you accuse me of such roundabout methods?

You don't really think I've seen it at all. You're just pretending to accuse me of having seen it so that, by attacking me so strangely, you can make the film's attackers look strange and really YOUR agenda, not mine, is to defend the movie...You're blatantly a paedophile! (I am being sarcastic to show you how your arguments look to me. I am not actually accusing you of anything personal, just using harsh rhetoric.)

I repeat: I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE. I LOST ALL CURIOSITY WHEN SOMEONE ABOVE COMPARED IT TO LOUIS MALLE (a boring film-maker in my opinion). I HADN'T GIVEN IT A SECOND THOUGHT UNTIL YOUR ACCUSATION TURNED UP IN MY EMAIL INBOX.
Even if you still insist that I'm somehow "defending" this movie, at least humour me by explaining how that would work.

reply

You're not missing anything.

The first scene of "simulated sex" as the defenders like to call it, is a 16 year old boy throwing a 14 (some say 12) year old girl on the ground, ripping off her clothes, and raping her, all in full view of the camera.
The "plot" is supposed to be about how little kids can be "cruel" to each other.
The movie isn't boring, its repulsive.


An HSX Baron

reply

Hmm...no, doesn't sound like I'm missing much. Admittedly, the different responses I've gotten, the level of controversy and disagreement, probably mean I'd have to see it myself to "make up my mind" - but neither the film's defenders NOR the film's attackers have made it sound appealing, so I'm officially shelving this one in the "Life's too short" category. Everyone just forget I asked.


except ctigerlass, who no doubt thinks this is my ingenious way to defend the movie...

reply

Whatever.......... Shrub noun a plant with a wooden stem and many small branches that usually does not grow very tall ah small talk

reply

um...are you dissing me by defining a word similar to my imdb nickname? should i be embarrassed that my choice of nonsense syllable, SHUB, is one letter different from the word SHRUB? excuse me while i run away and cry - meanwhile, keep watching child pornography and pretending to yourself that you find it disgusting x

reply

Interestingly enough, ctigerlass, a nonsense syllable, has never posted on any boards except the "Spielen" boards, one could assume it only registered at IMDB because it is infatuated with this particular movie.
Or maybe it has a guilty conscience.

Just an observation.



An HSX Baron

reply

Yr observation is much appreciated, dude, thanks for that...thought maybe it was me that was crazy for a moment there.

reply

Dismenot may I congratulate you on your excellent grammar and English now shoo back to the Lolita discussion

reply

Thank you for the compliment, but why would I go there? I'm not much of a "bumper" and I have said just about all I have to say, I have not posted there in over a month, as I see no point in repeating myself over and over to the fools that keep claiming Delores was a tramp, I am an adult survivor, and I know child abuse when I see it, but that does nothing to change the daydreams of perv's.

I do not however, appreciate your rather obvious inference, Nabokov was brilliant, and I'll read the Lolita board as often as I damn well please.

If you can't wrap your mind around that, too bad, but stop being a troll, or you'll get reported.

Why don't you post here under your REAL nic, so we can all go see what boards YOU post to??
Coward.
I have nothing to hide, apparently you do.
Now shoo back to your TV before you miss your favorite scene again.


An HSX Baron

reply

LOL! There! I went and posted to the Lolita board, just to make you happy.
Now how about you return the favor?
Post with your real nic, Mr. Arrested Development.


An HSX Baron

reply

no massa I aints dissing ya. Oh Shubby you've cottoned on what glorious intelligence I won't detain you I know you have many films like this not to watch but to enjoy and comment on.

reply

gibberish.

reply

Lara Wendel was born in 1965 this film was released in 1977 she turned 12 during filmimg. Eva Ionesco was 11 at the time of filming. The film was distributed by Seven Star Film who had connections to a company producing pornography

reply

You are remembering it incorrectly. Either that or the recent 'uncut' German dvd is cut - which is unlikely.

The "first scene" as you call it happens like this:

He grabs her man-handles her to the ground (in the forest) and ties her hands to sticks in the ground. Both are fully clothed. He goes to sit nearby to watch her. A snake comes along and she panicks and screams, he does nothing, snake goes away. End of scene

10 mins later in the film (a few days later in film time) they are in the cave, to escape the rain, they lie down together, he undresses her, she is compliant. his head goes down on her (off camera) - she likes it. He lies atop her (top half showing on camera), at this point she has second thoughts says "no, it hurts" but he asks her to go along with it, saying, it will be ok, she goes along with it and has no more objection. She did not persist in her objection she did not raise her voice in fear or anger, and this scene could never be described as rape, except statutory rape, but as he is about 16 that would probably not be the case.

A further 10 mins later (runtime) she (sitting on the forest floor) offers him her breasts, he pushes her backwards pulls down her underwear, she screams, says she doesn't like it (too rough), he stops and goes away.

reply

I do not know or care if the "new" version is cut or not, I am content in the fact that I will never have to watch it.

I believe you are correct on the point that it is not the "first" scene, I remembered later that it was some time after that, but the scene I described was in the fully uncut version that I saw.
How I came about seeing this piece of crap will not be posted on a public board, but suffice to say that I was in a room with several other rather educated people, who saw exactly the same thing I did.

At any rate, the point is moot, it does not matter what version you might own, they are all kiddie porn.
As such, I see no point in making an issue of which scene it is and where in runtime it happens.


An HSX Baron

reply

Your post implies that there is a rape scene, I would hardly call it that, she offered herself to him he was a bit rough for about 10 seconds, he did not rip any of her clothes off, just pulled down her underwear - from underneath her skirt camera does not see anything, she was objecting and before anything happened either on camera or off camera he gets up and walks away. This was not a rape scene. You described it incorrectly.

And I think I saw a post from you elsewhere on this board
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076749/board/nest/6557691?d=24516437#24516437 where you explained the scene further, you said that in the process of the rape she began to submit and enjoy it. You said that scenes like this are frowned on today. The problem is that such a scene does not exist in this film, you are combining scenes in your memory (the 3 scenes I described above) to suit your dislike for the film.

reply

Quoting you: "The first scene of "simulated sex" as the defenders like to call it, is a 16 year old boy throwing a 14 (some say 12) year old girl on the ground, ripping off her clothes, and raping her, all in full view of the camera. The "plot" is supposed to be about how little kids can be "cruel" to each other.
The movie isn't boring, its repulsive."

Well, that's fully of baloney. You are really trying to slant the movie in order to depict it as nothing more than sex scenes (of which there certainly are some in the movie), so that you can say that it's merely a sex movie about kids and nothing more.

It's far from that.

First of all, in terms of that particular scene. There is not "thowing" a girl to the ground, or "ripping" off her clothes, or "raping" her. Each one of those points you just made are false, and they show that you're not interested in accuracy, but merely trying to enforce a viewpoint upon people who don't know any differently.

The scene starts with them in a cave and the girl is cold and scared. The boy holds her in his arms. And this particular boy (of 17 years old in real life; girl of 11 years old in real life) is also the one she has feelings for. She really likes him (can't say for sure if she loves him, but by the end of the movie, it's clear that she definitely loves him).

So, here they are, she's cold and scared, inside of a cave that they went in to explore, and he's holding her and they lean up against a wall of the cave and they each "sink" down slowly to the floor, her in his arms and she's feeling comforted, while doing so. They are both then sitting/leaning back against the wall of the cave. He then talks to her and proceeds to start slowly unbuttoning her blouse. She first asks, "What are you doing?" being somewhat surprised at his advances. But, then she quickly and easily acquiesces to his advances by simply gazing into his eyes (and I'm sure we've all seen those sorts of gazes into the others' eyes...). He continues to slowly and methodically unbutton her blouse, pulls it back and exposes her breasts fully. He then proceeds to remove the rest of her clothing. She is simply watching him and looking intently at him, with loving gazes.

He then gets naked himself, after she's fully naked. And he gently caressing her breasts, very slowly, moving back and forth. She's enjoying it, from her breathing and her small noises. He then moves down to her genitals and proceeds to give her some enjoyment there, and she comments on how it feels to her and that it feels warm and she likes it. He then proceeds to have her move her hand on his genitals, which she acquiesces without a word and does so. And then he moves himself on top of her and she says to "Be gentle" when he does so. He assures her that he will be gentle and says that they both will like it.

It then goes to show her feelilng an initial bit of discomfort (at apparently being penetrated) and she says it hurts (obviously the case if it was her first time). And then he continues and she settles into it not hurting her any more and she's shown to be enjoying it, and then after a few moments of that, the scenes ends in fade to black.

That's very specifically how the scene goes. And from that, people can see that you've misrepresented it, apparently because you want to characterize it as something different than it actually is -- whatever the nudity is and whatever the simulated sex is (obviously they are not going to do real sex in these movies, without a doubt).

Now -- in "real life" as it is today in junior high and high schools, the kids are not even that feeling and kind and gentle as is portrayed in those scenes. It gets to be a lot more brutal and insistent (as you try to indicate that this movie is here in this scene). What you describe falsely for this movie is "actually" happening in real life with junior high kids right now, today. On top of that, these same kids are filming themselves and putting these flim clips out on the Internet showing people what they're doing (not professional films, mind you, just people filming people). It seems that almost everyone is getting into this thing of fliming the "real thing".

And so, while this movie is simulated and more gentle and kind in the depiction of this particular scene -- today they are not simulating it, but showing the "real sex" with junior high students, on the Internet, and it is more forceful, plus a lot of the girls drunk and doing it with several guys at once. This movie is so tame, compared to what is happening today in real life, that it seems that people would be more concerned about reality today, than a movie of 30 years ago.

reply

What on earth happens in this movie that gets so much controversy? Naked 12-yr-olds "running around"? Doesn't sound like much of a plot. "Simulated sex"? That could mean anything from the vilest child pornography to the most innocuous offscreen fondling.


Well it's kind of halfway between the two. Think 'soft porn' - with 12 yr old girls and 16 yr old boy. No genitalia touching (on camera) but yes, showing female genitalia in a sexual pose - on hands and knees filmed from behind, not close up but close enough. Male flacid genetalia also. numerous full frontals male and female throughout the film.

reply