MovieChat Forums > Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1973) Discussion > And that scene isn't child-porn because....

And that scene isn't child-porn because..


..uh, because...uh...no, I give up, why?



"Never finish what you can't start!" ;)

reply

Because it's not actual sex innit

reply

Good guess and I expected that one, but according to the law in America it doesn't matter. You're not allowed to _display_ an underage kid in a sexual or lewd situation - period. And simulated or not, this definitely is a 'sexual situation' (if not 'lewd' as well).
So that's strike one, any other suggestions?

"Never finish what you can't start!" ;)

reply

i heard mario was affected by this for yrs, which justify your case

reply

Icelander67, that's not true. There are many mainstream, legal movies that have scenes depicting someone under the age of 18 simulating sex.

reply

The law is subjective and can change based on the morality of anybody in power. That's why - for instance - gays still don't have all the same rights as heterosexuals. So what the law says is essentially irrelevant as to whether something *really* is bad or not. Victimless crimes are another example, like having consensual sodomy sex or smoking a joint.

Child porn is reprehensible not because the LAW says it is, but because children (generally) cannot emotionally/psychologically be counted on to make decisions that are in their own best interest in the long run. That's why they like eating candy without regard for rotting their teeth or becoming fat when they're older.

Remains the question whether the scene is child porn or not. Depends on how you look at it. The kid KNOWS its acting, and not actual sex, just like any adult sex scene in a mainstream movie is not actual sex but merely acting.
Just as there is a difference between having actual sex in a movie (porn movie) and not (sex scene in a mainstream movie), the same goes here.
This is NOT child porn because there is no actual sex. To suggest that a "sexual or lewd situation" in movie means "porn", is to suggest that any sexual or lewd situation between adult actors in a mainstream movie is ALSO by definition "porn", which is ridiculous. It inflates the meaning of "porn".

Is it disturbing? Is it exploitative? You could answer yes to those questions.

But it is NOT child porn.

reply

by Tridentmovies (Wed Jul 23 2008 07:02:53) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

This is NOT child porn because there is no actual sex.
==================

Hey Perry Mason Jr., just to let you know-it is child porn, and if that scene came out today there would be serious charges filed. And sex offender for life registration.

Does not have to be actual sex for a Kiddie Porn beef to attach.

reply

sd619rules, if that scene was child porn, you wouldn't be able to buy the movie today.

You're right that there doesn't have to be actual sex for something to be illegal. There doesn't even have to be nudity. Nudity can also be completely legal. If there is an emphasis on the pubic or genital area fully clothed it can be illegal. Since there is no actual sex act and no emphasis on the boy pubic or genital area, it's not illegal.

reply

sd619rules, if that scene was child porn, you wouldn't be able to buy the movie today.
========================

maybe you cant buy it today.

reply

[deleted]

Nope.

It's not child porn.
No matter what the law says.
If the law starts deciding that feigned sex scenes in mainstream movies are "porn" it doesn't make it porn either.

You completely missed my argument.

reply

To put it simple: The law decides whether something is ILLEGAL or not. It does not decide what something *is* outside of legal issues.

The law can call a bunny a cow, but that doesn't make a bunny a cow.

The sex scene in this movie is NOT child porn, because it is not PORN to begin with. If something is not PORN to begin with, it also cannot be child porn.

reply

Oh, it's child porn alreight-all the way.

reply

That's the law now. That wasn't the law then. Watch "To the Devil a Daughter" to see a 15-year-old Natassja Kinski doing a nude sex scene with an adult. That movie also came out in the 70s. Times were different then.

reply

Natassja Kinski is also doing a sex scene as a 13-14 year old in Wim Wenders' Falsche Bewegung.

And let's not forget the famous Christian Slater scene in The Name of the Rose...

reply

I just recently saw this film and was disturbed by that scene and the last scene with the dead dogs....

"A Festivus for the rest of us!" Frank Costanza

reply

It's child-porn! I watched it last night for the first time, and you have no idea how disturbed I was by that scene. It does not have to be actual sexual intercourse to constitute as child-porn. Intercourse between he and the woman was a rather explicit message, don't you think? Most films that deal with adults and children involved in sexual issues, the sexual contact is implicit to the plot. In this film, the NUDE little boy was between the legs of a naked woman, slowly moving back forth as she climaxed. That scene was maybe three minutes long. It's Child pornography! I can't believe the praise this film receives.


Fun is Fun and Done is Done

reply

*sigh*

That is how you know that a film has earned its greatness. When people so clearly look past all the obvious powerful points of the film to harp on something that it isn't (i.e. child pornography).

reply

Yea i don't see how they got away with shoting a nude 14 years old.

reply

It is not child porn because Mario has his guardian on the set and he was their the whole time. I believe American Beauty shows nudity and sexual situations for under 18 years actresses as well. Their parents were on the set as well.

Brooke Shields did some risque movies back in the eighties in which a guardian was on the set.

reply

by collin-reid (Fri Nov 14 2008 09:05:37) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

It is not child porn because Mario has his guardian on the set and he was their the whole time.
===============

OMFG!!! Are you an idiot!

Yes, it is not child porn because the "guardian" was "on the set"!

Hey Einstein, if Mario's "guardian" was on the set and Mario was slamming heroin with his buddies that would not be a crime either, because the "guardian" was on the set-right???

reply

sd619rules, how about this scene not being child pornography becasuse this isn't a porno movie? An exploitation movie obviously, but not a porno.

--- Hey Einstein, if Mario's "guardian" was on the set and Mario was slamming heroin with his buddies that would not be a crime either, because the "guardian" was on the set-right??? ---

sd619rules, that argument falls down because last time I looked it wasn't ilegal for a 14 year old to be naked (either on film, on set, or in private), but heroin use/possesion is (in the USA anyway).





"I think you're a load of old crap too, Mr Mulligan."

reply

sd619rules, how about this scene not being child pornography becasuse this isn't a porno movie? An exploitation movie obviously, but not a porno.
====================================

Please!.....let me get this correct-your claim is that it is NOT kiddie porn because it is NOT a pornography movie????

1) Porn can be in any kind of movie, not just a "porno" movie.

2) if there is ANY porn in a movie it can be called a "porno" movie.

Sort of like saying a picture of kiddie porn is NOT a picture of porn if it is in a family picture album. Does not make any sense.

reply

Sorry to take so long to reply to your comment sd619rules, but I rarly use the email address I registered at IMBD with and was unaware of your reply.

You say:

--- 1) Porn can be in any kind of movie, not just a "porno" movie ---

So your saying porn doesn't have to be porn to be porn?

--- 2) if there is ANY porn in a movie it can be called a "porno" movie. ---

But you just said "Porn can be in any kind of movie, not just a "porno" movie"?

--- Sort of like saying a picture of kiddie porn is NOT a picture of porn if it is in a family picture album. ---

And who would keep kiddie porn in a family picture album?





"I think you're a load of old crap too, Mr Mulligan."

reply

You're an idiot.

How many times do you need to be told that the scene is NOT PORN.
There is no sex, you idiot. It's a sex scene in which the sex is FAKE, just as it would be with adults in a mainstream movie.

This is no more child porn that it would be adult porn if they had both been adults.

Child porn is ACTUAL SEX involving minors. If you don't get it then it's your loss. But you'll still be wrong, and stupid.

reply

Red herrings don't make your point. They just make you look phenomenally stupid and bereft of an actual valid argument. Non medical heroin use is illegal regardless of circumstance. There can be no comparison with an activity which has to be MADE illegal BY circumstance.

Can you wrap your Play-Doh head around that distinction there?

reply

Baby Einstein, who the hell did you reply to on a thread 3 years old?????

reply

There are plenty of scenes showing underage teenage nudity. Off the top of my head there are (ignoring child nudity, and the fact Britian and Europe view underage as -16 rather than -18)

Walkabout (16 year old actress, actor about same age)
Return To Blue Lagoon (14 year old actress)
Toto the Hero (12/13 year old actress)
Beau Pere (15 year old actress)
Honest (15 year old actress)
Prespero's Books (numerous nude adolecent extras)
Noce Blanche (famously features a 16 year old Venessa Paradis)
Baby Love (a very lovely looking 15 year old Linda Hayden)

There are many more, infact there is a thread somewhere on these boards I once found that lists at least 80 of the blighters.







"I think you're a load of old crap too, Mr Mulligan."

reply

Brooke shields wasn't really nude.it was a stunt double.

reply

"Return To Blue Lagoon" featured a 14 year old Milla Jovovik (forgive my *beep* spelling) and didn't use a body double. Still a crap movie though :-)





"I think you're a load of old crap too, Mr Mulligan."

reply

And don't forget that in 1997, the Oklahoma Police Department got a warrant and seized child pornography from a man's home and he was arrested. He'd rented The Tin Drum from a local Blockbuster.

reply

Really? That's pretty bad. Glad I don't live in Oklahoma, I've got that movie, plus maybe a dozen others with child nudity, in my collection.





"I think you're a load of old crap too, Mr Mulligan."

reply

What constitutes pornography is very subjective and depending on the individual's perception of the situation. Legally-speaking, it's not pornography because it is not actual sex that is occurring (unless I'm mistaken?). Second of all, it is the basis for the entire film and explains why he is what he is later on in the movie. Third of all, this film is not pornography because it's intent is not to bring sexual stimulation to the viewer in any way.

What is disturbing about this film, is that the boy was apparently traumatized after this event. This is odd, however, since one would think a 12 year old boy in his situation would absolutely be thrilled. The fact is that his psychological state became imbalanced because of this film so this is a very unfortunate and sad outcome that could be prosecuted under some sort of child endangerment laws, with respect to his psyche and emotional stability.

reply

Who gives a damn? The scene gets its point across.

I don't care about morality as long as nobody gets killed. Art first, ask questions later, even if nobody is listening.





There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

reply

"Third of all, this film is not pornography because it's intent is not to bring sexual stimulation to the viewer in any way."

Is that a fact? Generally speaking, I would say when a movie shows gratuitous sex/nudity and it's not rape or some other disturbing context, or there's no obviously logical purpose for it, it seems safe to assume the filmmakers know it could cause sexual stimulation and intended this as part of the movie's appeal. I would definitely say this is the case in Sweetback.

"I am Jack's wasted life."

reply

[deleted]

There are many movie with young minor boys and older women having sex. Could they get away with a young girl and an older man.

Imagine. Can the do the same thing with a nude 10 year old girl on top of a nude 40 year old man. I don't think so, not even in the 70's.

reply

Man,I'm glad you guys didn't see "Love Strange Love".

reply

And that scene isn't child-porn because..

1. Child pornography laws didn't exist at the time. General obscenity laws were in effect, but society's standards were becoming looser, and artists were pushing the envelope more and more. A scene like that wouldn't be as controversial as it is today, child nudity in art was more common and less controversial at the time.

2. It's a male child and a female adult. If the gender roles were reversed, the movie would have been more controversial then, and probably criminal now. Society clearly has a double standard for inter-generational sexual relationships and the artistic depiction of such, depending on what gender the child/adolescent and adult is.

reply

or, "Pretty Baby" (1978) Directed by Louis Malle with a 13 year old Brooke Shields. There is a similar endless thread on the Pretty Baby message boards.

"ASA NISI MASA"

reply

[deleted]

And you're using "your" instead of "you're". Ironic, considering that you call people "idiots" and don't know which form of a word to use. I remember the Tin Drum controversy too and thought that was pretty silly considering that the boy in the scene was actually older than the character he was playing.

The opening of this movie is as important as the rest of the scenes in the movie. It let's us know what kind of man Sweetback will become and helps us form our opinion of him as the movie plays.



Yippee: "For king!"
Yappee: "For country!"
Yahooie: "And, most of all, for 10ยข an hour!"

reply

[deleted]

It's difficult to say it wasn't real sex.
It didn't have penetration, but it was a boy completely nude, stucked in the middle of a woman's legs. Impossible that nothing touched. And that the boy didn't got up.
It's at least foreplay.

So. Porn.

reply

It is more than his butt.

You see a naked boy get on top and stay on top of a naked woman.

What kind of a father does that to his child?

It is disturbing.

reply

The previous poster is correct about the difference between laws then and now.

There wasn't a child pornography law then.

When child pornography laws finally did come along some years later, they applied at first only to the production and selling/distribution of it. The possession of it wasn't illegal all the way until years after that!

People don't realize that there are lots of things that were legally available in the 1970s that are actually likely illegal today. The child porn laws are more strict than ever nowadays.

The law states that the sexual performance of a child under 18, rather real or simulated, constitutes child pornography. It goes on to say that even certain lewd posing, or instances where there is a specific focus on the genital areas, is child porn, also. It even now says that if it is implied that sexual conduct has, is, or will take place between children or adults and children, that this may also be child pornography. Under these broad terms, many things made in the 70s would be never be made today, and would likely be considered child pornography today. And yet another distinction of note is that the law further states that in a case of alleged child pornography, unlike other obscenity charges (wherein the work as a whole must be looked at), the law states that the whole work need not be considered. If there is one frame of Child porn in a film, the work is illegal, unless the child porn element is removed. It doesn't matter what the work as a whole is about.

To correct another poster, they stated that Brooke Shields did not appear nude. That is incorrect. She appears completely nude, at the age of 12, in the 1978 film, "Pretty Baby". It is also implied that she has been sexually active with several grown men, as well. Now, Jodie Foster, in the film, "The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane", had a body double (actually her only slightly older sister) for a brief nude scene. It is also implied in that film that Foster has been sexually active with an older boy several times, and she is stalked by creepy pedo neighbor Martin Sheen. She also plays the chil hooker in "Taxi Driver", as well. And there are certain European films that are likely not legal at all today, like some of the David Hamilton films, and especially the notorious "Maladolescenza". In 1978, "Maladolescenza" was released by New World Pictures in the US briefly. It played in NYC art houses without incident. Today, no one in the whole world will release it. One Austrian company tried in 2004, and resulted in its getting officially banned and pulled from shelves in Austria. No one else has tried it since. And a fellow got arrested in THE NETHERLANDS for possessing a copy of it. You know people are taking it seriously when The Netherlands arrests you for it!

reply

The film Mysterious Skin had sexually sugestive scenes involving a young boy. But I wouldn't class that as porn. It's a fine line and it's a very grey area. Personally, I havn't seen this film so can't comment on this situation but i don't believe just because a child actor in a mainstream film is doing scenes which involves adult situations, makes it child porn. It's ignorant and just plain stupid to believe otherwise.

Our entry into the 2 Days Later Short Horror Comp 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqNBZkEotgU

reply

umm...uh...its not a pornographic movie idiot

reply

I came to the boards wondering the same thing. If it were full-frontal nudity of a 14-year old girl, and watching the 14-year old girl's butt while she was having sex with an older man, I doubt this movie would still be available today.

Ahhh... double standards!

reply

Right.They would have edited that scene so fast Probably would even called Child protected service.

reply

IT'S CHILD ABUSE AND MELVIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN PRISON FOR IT!!!!!

reply