Legal in the USA? - Maladolescenza (1977) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

5 to 40 years ?! For owning THIS movie ?
Wow, an other clear example of the USA justice system being frickin' insane !

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

Just a logical question that has probably come up b4......where 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

reply

[–] MatthewMPerry 19 years ago

In a different country...

Not every film is created in the U.S. and other countries have different laws about this kind of material.

reply

[–] crimsondraven 19 years ago

hmmm....jail time for owning the film?

I wonder how much time I will get for owning all these underage Traci Lords films then?

reply

[–] junk-mail-4 19 years ago

About 5 to 40.

reply

[–] galaqxus1987 9 years ago

Hmm jail, so what about 2 "Blue Lagoon" films with 14-15 yo girls... :D 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 :p

reply

[–] aotearoa_2006 19 years ago

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).

reply

[–] teawoman_2000 13 years ago

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.

reply

[–] hand-eti 12 years ago

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.

reply

[–] widescreenguy 19 years ago

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.

reply

[–] princegriever 17 years ago

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.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kalvinharp 17 years ago

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

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SherlockVonEinstein 13 years ago

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.

reply

[–] Wetbones 19 years ago

If that's true, then how come the movie KIDS by Larry Clark is available on DVD in practically every video store in the US? There's nothing "worse" or more explicit in MALADOLESCENZA than in KIDS.

reply

[–] chadbb6 19 years ago

Why in the world is it so hard to get a no or yes answer on this movie? You can research any data you want and still come up short if you are "not" a lawyer" and then be wrong.
Why is it anymore difficult than a traffic violation to state "This movie is NOT legal to own in the USA" or a "Stop sign" demands you to stop or you break the law? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" if one goes before any judge on a matter of where you did not know.

Can there not be a data base for illegal movies by name aka's etc? I am only concerned for the simple reason that too many good people go to jail over stupidity of not being aware and that is a shame, what would be so difficult for our law makers to put important jail time giving laws into plain English so you do not have to graduate law school to understand those laws? Of course it is too difficult, take you tax forms you fill out or should fill out, are they EZ, no! One poster stated "Kids" is worse than Maladolescenza and I am sure he is correct but not one post have I read about Kids is if it is legal or not but could be, hey I simply do not know.

I have seen parts of the movie and agree with Marcus 100% on "kids". Why is there not a plain and simple solution to this movie problem? There are so many crimes in this area it appears the law makers would want every single American to be aware of any movie that had anything to do with underage actors that would be illegal to view/own or sale this would help stop the spread of any such movie I would think.

Yes I buy many movies as a very serious collector of many foreign films and but if I have to sit and worry every time I buy one that I could do 5 to 40 then it is time someone makes it damn clear which movie/s are not to be owned in the USA. Not one of you do not know if you rob a bank your butt is mud and you could tell me by what agency, or maybe go on a hot check cashing spree across 3 State lines, you know what you have to deal with and most likely from all 3 States, also you would know when you started the spree what to expect if caught.

It simply is not right to be so damn shady about an issue as important as this. I would not buy "Kids" in hopes of it becoming priceless someday just because there is no true answer or real data from our Government who gives you 5 to 40 if that movie is not legal to own/view, sure many sell the movie but remember ignorance of any law is none excusable, another way of saying sorry but you are screwed unless you have big bucks.

90% of the USA citizens cannot tell you the meaning of any given law to any extent that they would bet their home and job on it, you must be a lawyer/attorney with the tools of research at your disposal to understand many laws, butttttt,,,not laws our Government wants you to understand clearly like paying your Federal Income taxes, we understand very clearly sex with a underage person is 100% against the law no matter the reason or excuse, run a stop sign, it is against the law and that is EZ to understand!

But hells bells owning a movie if you are NOT a underage convicted sex offender that is this controversial over the content is simply super screaming ridiculous, if there were sexual intercourse simulated or real intercourse then it is suppose to be illegal you and I understand that or maybe understand that,, but hey I eat at Mcdonalds every once in a while and kids make out in the parking lots, inside at times some what, sell drugs and simulate every Friday and Saturday nights and you as a person would have to be blind not to see it, what do I do? Stay home, never stop at Mcdonalds or Jack in the Box because of a few wild running harmonizes? Am I going to get jail time over this live simulated sex? Where does it end? I am sorry but I get so upset at our laws sometime and I love the good old USA, but folks is it not time to become real and demand of our law makers to supply a statement of a law we as the people can understand clearly on many legal issues, one other being my frigging income tax forms?

Clearly we must have good laws and we do, many very good but some simply suck. "I never had sex with that woman" and got clean away with it, see that is what I am trying to say, sex is what or not (clear huh?, if a underage person grabs you and does a Monica on your person and you did not want to hit that underage person so not to break yet another law "DID you have sex or NOT? Clearly they (our high court) for Mr. *beep* did not think it was sex, so is this mixed signals or can we all have oral stimulation without calling it sex? My wife can clarify it for me if you need to ask!

Viewing a movie commercially made either by another Country or not if it is illegal we the people should know without paying $2000 to a lawyer before we purchase such a movie so we would not spend 5 to 40 years, is this reasonable?, but again "ignorance" is no excuse and "I did smoke but I did not inhale" nor "I did not have sex with that woman" will not wash "IF" you are not "RICH" my fellow Americans because those statements is "to assume we are all stupid" and as you know being stupid is no excuse. The laws we have must fit your into your budget if you break one of those laws, fair enough?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bitter_Almonds 18 years ago

So, you're basically saying that you viewed a film with children having sex. Saying it is repulsive is a given, but you watch movies with children having sex? Sounds inherently repulsive in itself.

Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bitter_Almonds 18 years ago

[lolz]You obviously don't work with the law or are part of any of those group of people because you're writing about "borderline slander" over a medium exclusively done in writing. True learned people don't mismatch "slander" and "libel".[/lolz] lol at you again for having watched a movie showing children having sex and admitting it. Of course, this being the intarweb, you can admit to it and nobody has to know. I mean, in real life this is just as repulsive as the ones you accuse of producing it.

Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] haileybaron 11 years ago

plus you spelled naive and liable wrong, so i'm just going to "ass-u-me" you're a 4 year old...

Hahaha... Nope.
It's spelled LIBEL
YOU are spelling it wrong genius.

You're liable to spell libel wrong because you're a dumbass.
Get it?

reply

[–] japonaliya 18 years ago

"The movie "Kids" does not contain under age sex scene's(I know, I have seen it) and can be purchased full uncut at K-Mart for pete's sake" (quote)

BS!!! The first scene in Kids shows a 12 year old having intercourse in her bedroom...it shocked the hell out of me, much more than Maladolecenza because it seemed REAL, not like a student art film.
As far as Maladolecenza goes...porn or not..it is available for free download on many torrent sites...uncut with subs in DVD quality.
So go see it for your self. IMO once is enough!

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kalvinharp 15 years ago

wow the 1st rant I've seen without saying anthing or even menchining the movie at all

reply

[–] Eliakim48 17 years ago

"Yes I have seen the uncut version of Malado, NO I do not and never will own it, YES I think it is repulsive."

In answer to that, it doesn't appear repulsive to me. One reason is that I also remember what it was like in those early years, and I remember friends going over to girl's houses and doing those very things. That was many years ago. And today, it's even more prevalent with the junior high and high school crowd, to the point where these things (of sex and being nude) are simply ways to "introduce oneself" to another person -- not much more than that. It's something that these young people engage in as soon as possible, because it has now become a "rite of passage" and they continually engage in it, because now it's simply an "accepted norm" for this age group and what they do together. It's much worse today than anything that this movie represents.

This movie is actually a bit more "pure" in its depictions of nudity and sex scenes, in that it's not as unfeeling and vulgar as the kids are making it out to be today. Perhaps if they saw this movie, they could even "take it back a few steps" to where it used to be and not where it is today (which is much worse than this movie).

It seems that half the youth crowd of today -- is already acting out, in real life, what would be what you classify as child porn. They just happen to be actually "living it" and not simply depcting it.

reply

[–] Dismenot 17 years ago

It seems that half the youth crowd of today -- is already acting out, in real life, what would be what you classify as child porn. They just happen to be actually "living it" and not simply depcting it.

Erm, yes, we know some kids have sex, making movies about it is called Child Pornography.

http://www.citizensforaonestrikelaw.org/
An HSX Baron

reply

[–] Eliakim48 17 years ago

Quote from you: "Erm, yes, we know some kids have sex, making movies about it is called Child Pornography."

LOL..., I gotta laugh here. You've got things backwards. The actual doing of it is the more significant matter, not the depiction of it. I can't quit laughing at that statement.

To make it a bit clearer, lets' say we're talking about murder. Okay, now on the movies we've got murders and in real life we've got murders. Now, someone comes up and says, "You know..., there's a lot of murders going on, these days!" And then someone else says, "Yeah, but that's okay, because at least we're not showing or depicting those murders in movies."

Oh..., okay, it's like -- don't show it in a drama or a movie about people -- but yeah, as long as you do it in real life and don't film it, it's perfectly okay... LOL... that's pretty good!

Now, in this particular depiction of it (Maladolescenza), it pretty much gives a real good understanding of the kind of drama and emotions and interactions that go on and can go on with that particular age group. And this would be completely different than what would go on with, let's say, college age people (for example) or adults (for another example). It's something especially unique and different, in that there are mighty powerful emotions combined with (what was depicted) as cruelty in that age group (which is so, so true, also). You've got the movement from an innocence in these things, to what pulls all the characters together in their "fatal dance", so to speak. That's what makes for some real drama and real depiction of how this particular age group would be in real life. And it just doesn't apply in the same way to another age group.

With any other age group, they've got different dynamics going in life, they're a bit more sophisticated and don't start out to be so innocent. And also, in this particular age group (and as shown in the movie), it was sort of shocking to find that Sylvia was -both- seemingly more sophisticated, but yet, at the same time, less sophisticated in other ways. It was a good contrast.

But, going on further, with what you said -- it's pretty evident how far out of touch you are with what is really going on these days. You're saying that "we know some kids have sex." Ummm..., you're stuck somewhere 50 years ago, I'm afraid. It's even worse than what is depicted in this movie of 30 years ago (Maladolescenza). This particular movie is almost sort of sweet and nice (aside from the cruelty involved), in comparison to today's culture.

Today, it's literally rampant, and even down to the 10-11-12 year old range, and is seen/perceived within that age group and up as a "rite of passage" and a sort of "confirmation" among one's peers. It's on the order of "introductions" today. It's like, "Let me introduce myself, by getting my clothes off and getting it on with you."

And furthermore, today, with the rapid increase of the numbers of video cams out there, these things are not only being done, they are being filmed. And it seems that the "being filmed" part is also an "incentive" of some sort to "more action" on the part of the participants. They seem to revel in it. It would seem that everyone's an actor today, and especially our 12-yeard olds and up.

Now, some people may want to present the "depiction" of these things as the real problem, but they've missed the really, really big problem and it's that this age group of 12-year-olds and up are simply throwing off any restraints that were ever there before (and doing it wholesale, as a group), and engaging with others in sex with wholesale abandon. And the filming that this group is doing happens to be a side-line ancilliary product -- something they seem to do, also, for the fun of it.

The depiction is a totally non-event, as far as what the true and real actions are, that are going on these days. It's not even worth mentioning the depiction. I would only wish that this was simply a depiction of an occasional and isolated event. But, it's far from it, today.

reply

[–] Dismenot 17 years ago

Wow!

LOL..., I gotta laugh here. You've got things backwards. The actual doing of it is the more significant matter, not the depiction of it. I can't quit laughing at that statement.

That is the stupidest argument for kiddie porn I've heard yet. (though not the first time I've heard it, lol)

So, since some kids have sex, you think we should make lots of movies with little kids doing the hoochie-coochie so you can get your rocks off?

It would appear so, since you have already managed to convince yourself that all kids everywhere are having this "rampant" sex mania frenzy thing going on.

Most kiddie porn lovers convince themselves of that early on, it gives them an excuse for their behaviour, and their fantasies.

http://www.citizensforaonestrikelaw.org/
An HSX Baron

reply

[–] kalvinharp 17 years ago

what you say is mostly true about kiddie porn lovers, but thats neither here nor there. "Spielen wir Liebe" is not kiddie porn, nor illegal except in germany. Spielen wir Liebe is a great tale of the hardships of emerging adolescence. Its not porn, its not erotica, its a great story to which i can relate to, having gone through very difficult preteen and young teen years (Junior High).

reply

[–] Dismenot 17 years ago

"Spielen wir Liebe" is not kiddie porn, nor illegal except in germany. "

Sorry, but you are incorrect on both counts.
It is classified as child pornograghy everywhere now.
Germany was the last country to outlaw it, not the only one.
It has been illegal elsewhere for a very long time, and it was never legal in the USA.

http://www.citizensforaonestrikelaw.org/
An HSX Baron

reply

[–] Bitter_Almonds 17 years ago

That's funny. I saw this movie in a university library.

Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

reply

[–] kalvinharp 17 years ago

show me your proof that this movie is illegal. It is protected under freedom of speech along with nudist films and art films. I bought this, non-bootleg, version of the movie from a site that sold artistic and nudist films. They had a disclaimer, that warrented that nudist films and art films are not pornographic. I even asked my friend at the FBI about it, becuase I am a sociology: criminal justice major, and having read the laws regarding pornography, i can conclude that this movie is legal. The only movies that I know of that are illegal, that were officially produced are Traci Lord's underage porn films that she completed from 1984 thru 1986. Inly one remains legal, whcih was done after Traci's 18th birthday, "Traci, I Love You" (1987). My uncle should know, he is a sheriff, and I have questioned him about the film, after screening it, He told me that it was legal, that it was not kiddy porn. So if 2 FBI agents and a sheriff tell me that it is legal, what more proof do you need to believe that it is legal.

Trust me being a Criminal Justice major and having a cop as an uncle, I know the law pretty well. Both the seller's disclaimer along with law officers have told me it is legal. Under your basis of illegal, all of David Hamilton's films, and many european films would be illegal, just because of the fact that they show or imply that children are naked. Remember nudity is not pornography. If you like i can send you a copy of the 1st amendment to the constitution of the United States and the laws regarding child pornography. Even your estimate for prison time regarding child pornography is wrong, it is 5 to 10 years for each count. 3 pictures could equal you up to 30 years.

Don't s**t to Bulls**t ! I know the law, and have encountered cases through internship and studies of child pornography cases. You have every right to despise the movie, and bash it all you want, but please don't make false statements about the legality of the film, please base your arguments on fact....not fiction !!!!!

reply

[–] Eliakim48 17 years ago

Oh, one more thing, as a follow-up to my last post. The thing about the depiction of the sex scenes in Maladolescenza as compared to what is happening today is much more of a contrast than one might perceive at first glance.

At least, when one saw Maladolescenza, while one understood that this was indeed the kind of thing that did happen and was shown here, it was also understood and known that it was a "depiction" and a drama which was acted out for the audience. That was well-understood.

But, today, the video cams are not producing "re-enactments" but are the real-thing. What people are getting now is the "raw footage" and you can be sure that you're not getting acting but you're getting the actual acts themselves. It's just totally whacko, actually, to think about it.

We have a group of films banned for the depiction of these sex scenes with these very young people (12-18 years old, in the movie), while we have today real sex scenes being actually done in real-time, real-life, and filmed in raw-footage, and dispersed all over the Internet for anyone to pick up (and cell phone cameras have gone a long ways towards popularizing that one).

You begin to understand what a momentous "sea change" has happened with video, in real-life things, when you see people in what is seemingly thought of in backward places (like Mosul, Iraq) filming, on their video phones, the killing and stoning of a very young girl (in her teens) for "dishonoring" her family by not coming back home one night. She's shown in gory detail, stoned to death, head smashed by concrete blocks, blood pouring out of her head on the ground, in real-life and real-time -- while others are hollering about the "depiction" of the scenes in Maladolescenza -- all the while thinking that the actual doing of these things by 12-years olds today is perfectly fine (as long as we don't "depict" it).

Ummm..., someone has got things on completely backwards, I would say...

And by the way, those scenes of the very young teen girl with her head smashed open, blood pouring out on the ground, and done in real-life, in real-time, is not banned -- by the way.

Yep, some people sure have a screwed-up sense of priorities in this life...

reply

[–] Dismenot 17 years ago

"And by the way, those scenes of the very young teen girl with her head smashed open, blood pouring out on the ground, and done in real-life, in real-time, is not banned -- by the way.
Yep, some people sure have a screwed-up sense of priorities in this life... "

Very silly point to defend this movie on.
May as well say, "Well, it's OK to kill in self defense, so it should be OK to kill all the time."
Or the reverse, "Murder and assult are against the law, so you have no right to defend yourself.".

Just because one miscarriage of justice exists, does not make the others OK, or any better or worse.
Nor does it necessarily have to have the same moral implications.

Your 'point' is much like the pedophiles that scream, "Hey! the gays get to be gay and that's different and sexual, so my sick kiddy porn thing that is different and sexual is OK too!".

Apples and oranges.

http://www.citizensforaonestrikelaw.org/
An HSX Baron

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jeorj Euler 7 years ago

Why is it anymore difficult than a traffic violation to state "This movie is NOT legal to own in the USA" or a "Stop sign" demands you to stop or you break the law?

That's like comparing apples and, well, strawberries. For the traffic analogy to apply, it would be a situation in which drivers and pedestrians aren't sure that a given sign is in fact a stop sign. It might be circular not octagonal but still bearing the word "STOP", or it might be octagonal but bearing the word "CAUTION". But of course, in that case, the sign itself is illegal, and government gets in trouble with government.


reply

[–] potless 19 years ago

Duh maybe it is because the little girls WERE 11 and 12 in this film not in their late teens or twenties

They say "it's not denial" they are just selective about the reality they accept

reply

[–] SnoopyDogDog 18 years ago

by - markus_zuba (Mon Jun 27 2005 03:49:22 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
If that's true, then how come the movie KIDS by Larry Clark is available on DVD in practically every video store in the US? There's nothing "worse" or more explicit in MALADOLESCENZA than in KIDS.

hmmm, you must own the cut version then, or, I have never seen the uncut KIDS. Because in
Mala there's T and C visible of real 12-11 year old girls. And I don't think that it's like
that in Kids, in which in the beginning of the movie, there's a lot of suggestion but the girl
who DOES look like she's 10 years old, you have to admit, NEVER has any T, C or A visible.
Her hair is nicely glued over her T's
If there's more nudity in KIDS, please let me know.

reply

[–] juergen-werner 17 years ago

they don't have sex or anything in the movie.

reply

[–] Poukram 19 years ago

It is quite amusing for a non-american to read about your "moral"! What is your problem with nudity or naked children? See, in Europe, we have no problem with nudity at all. And to see a nude body is fully natural. And nobody is pedophile when looking at a nude child. I am going on holidays to Montalivet/France, one of the biggest nudist-camps in Europe for the last 30 years (first with my parents, now alone or with my own family and/or friends). And there are nudes of all ages and sizes. And there is no problem to be nude, there are no "perverts" or something like that. Nudity is natural!
And by the way: Eva was and is still a beauty. I have all the pictures here mother took from here, when she was between 11 and 16 years old. She was lovely!

And if someone is going to answer me, please let me know: nudity is not good, but giving weapons to children is OK? Violence is better than being nude?

Thx a million!

"The light at the end of the tunnel might be a train!"

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] junk-mail-4 19 years ago

Simple question in return; if your daughter was in a nudist camp, with 999 "normal" naturalists and 1 stated sex offender, would you knowingly leave her there unclothed for his entertainment? Think hard before you answer.

And "...if someone is going to answer me, please let me know: nudity is not good, but giving weapons to children is OK? Violence is better than being nude?"; that's just pure sophism masquerading as a coherant answer.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Poukram 19 years ago

One question back to you, junk-mail-4: you let your children go out on the street even knowing, that there could be a guy who wants to rape your child? Even knowing, that 1 from a 100 could kill your child?

But to your question: from your answer I can see, that you never ever have been in a nudist camp in your whole live. You even don't know, that children are never alone, they are all the time together with their parents, familiy or direct peer-group (if you know, what it means). Alone-standing (does this word exists in english?) people are not allowed in the most nudist-camps. The majority is married and have a family. You are answering (or questioning) like someone, who says "NUDITY = SEX = RAPE = BAD". THATs what I see in America for along time now, you cannot devide between nudity and sexuality (no wonder, that most of the american teenager are the prudest in the whole world).
So, if you have never been in a camp like that, don't bother me by asking questions from the yellow press.

And you didn't answer my question: is violence better? Didn't you learn from Columbine?

AND BY THE WAY: IT IS CALLED NATURIST AND NOT NATURALIST!

Das Volk ist doof ... aber gerissen

reply

[–] Parrhesia02 18 years ago

And you didn't answer my question: is violence better? Didn't you learn from Columbine?

Or Erfurt?

reply

[–] andrpas 18 years ago

I may seem to be impolite, but here is what I think:

What I respect most of all are two things:

1. truth (it does not matter if it is spelled out or not, as it is always there).
2. logical thinking, based NOT on some cliche(s) or stereotype(s), not even on emotions regardless of their origin (even if these emotions stem from a culture or religion).

But this might be a little bit too "general" personal statement.
I'll try to be more specific here.

What I see and hear everywhere around me quite often is just a little bit too much "WHAT IF...". Especially after 9/11.

"What if there will be a terrorist hiding nuclear bomb in the minivan and driving it to our ("proper") town?"
WOWWW!
This is right!
Let's invade another weaker country and kill tens of thousands to feel a little bit more comfortable JUST ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR "What if...", etc.

I won't continue with more silly examples of "reasonings" which start with "What if...".
Any one of us can think of and come up with hundreds of them.
"Dutschke" gave you a very good one, out of (probably) 1000 others possible.
And all of them would be as good as the one given.

At this point, and frankly, I would call 99% of statements starting
with "what if..." as at least five cents demagogy.
Not even as good as cheap NLP manipulation techniques or exercises from popular brochures on "the art of a dispute".
But then, depending on the subject and emotions involved, it could be
(and unfortunately it is true for many situations in everyday's life here, in the US) as bad as "brainwashing" for certain purposes on one side, and signs of a possible emotional or even mere psychiatrical problem(s) on the other side in certain cases...

Please, do not think I am calling you "crazy"!
I am not a US-born, so if I would try to insult you, I would say it explicitly.
(BTW, according to what you write, I think that you are quite far from being "crazy", otherwise I would not write this post or any other comment at all).
I am just trying to inspire your thinking about some concepts (!!!) in a given modern culture. And about a concept of "nudity" in particular.
As far as our personality is concerned, it does not really matter what I/we/you say in public about whatever.
But it does matter if you can realize (just for yourself) at least the following:
to what extent your PERSONAL opinion (even if it is just a "feeling", not a solid opinion) on any particular concept or event is formed by a "culture" around you, and to what extent it is formed by your own cold reasoning based on YOUR cold logic with the help of facts/statistics and, perhaps,
your OWN (!!!) experience? ;)

Speaking about "nudity of minors" concept applied to the US culture and its stereotypes, I can easily ask you a few simple yet logical questions which might completely knock you down. These questions would not be rude or insulting to anyone.
Not at all!
They just might be from the area you may prefer not to think about at all due to a possible "cultural" influence, etc.
I will not ask you to answer those questions to me or to anyone else in person or over the Internet, if you decide so.
They will be just for you, so you could ask them yourself.
Yet, I am not sure...
Let me know. ;)

reply

[–] rgallison 17 years ago

The majority of child sexual abuse cases are carried out by members of the same family, not by strangers on a beach.

reply

[–] theholographic 17 years ago

My instant reaction to your question was, of course, "No way!". But then I got thinking. There are killers out there, but I would still send my kids out into the streets. So I don't know. I'd want to protect them, but not be overly-protective.

To the Observatory!

reply

[–] przgzr 15 years ago

First paragraph: yes, I am a nudist and I took my family to naturist beaches, and if there was a sex offender among us enjoying what he could have see, there have been 999 "normal" naturists (not naturalists... but it's just a matter of education to know who were or are naturalists) to help my daughter if he tried to do anything, what is much safer then being fully dressed alone with a sex offender.

As for second paragraph, " that's just pure sophism masquerading as a coherant answer " that was just a pure avoiding to write any answer.

reply

[–] harryposter 18 years ago

Not sure of USA, but DVD is available with canadian net store.
Ask guys from http://rarefilmfinder.com. They know where to find those movies like Maladolescenza.

reply

[–] flipendo666 18 years ago

You must be kidding!
5-40 years for what? for watching a movie, where people under 18 acting nude? watch out for watching the news, there mite be a chance u see a beach footage where a youngster running on the beach with out clothes. Sigh. Plz dont use this movie as a bat in a discussion about child porn. Its a movie. It contains underage actors, and yes, they appear nude. But to compare that to childporn is just ignorant.
my 2 cents
Skaata

reply

[–] mocoslocos_667 18 years ago

Weird, i was thinking about getting this movie untill i noticed the content..
Looks pretty disturbing to me. Having a child at that age makes me think about the people out there. And why anybody would want to see a movie with naked children in the first place. Call it "art" if you will but, adults have no buisiness watching such a movie. I googled the name of this movie and child porn sites came up. If it seems perfectly natural to see a movie with kids *beep* in it, i would like to keep my kids out of europe.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kalvinharp 17 years ago

The reason you get child porn sites when you google it is because some people, mostly pedophiles, watch the film and look at it in a sexual way. However, the films main purpose was to protray the struggles preteens and young teens struggle with during emerging adolescence. If you have a mature child, i would say let them watch the film because it can be used as a tool to which your son or daughter can relate to, knowing that such feelings are natural at "that age" but that in most cases it can be dangerous to act on such impulses, just look at what happens at the end of the film. Another great film to show kids that they are not alone in feeling certain feelings and being totally confused is: Thirteen (2003), You Are Not Alone (1978, Angela (1995), Elephant (2003).
Such films can be very real to a preteen, or a teen, and can be used to either show kids what needs to be done or what should not be done. Many of these kind of issues dealt with in these films has never really been addressed in mainstream media, if a kid acts out we dope them up with drugs for ADD and ADHD instead of trying to solve or locate the source of the problem.
However, if you feel that these kinds of films are not right for your child, I would reccomend that you, yourself watch them. I would say that it would help you become a better parent, being able to better understand what a person going through adolescence or preteen age kids are going through.
Remember that none of these films were made to be a child erotica or child porn platform (however some choose to see them that way), they were made to explore many untalked about subjects and taboo subjects that need to be addressed.

I, myself, went through many harsh times during adolescence and if I would have seen one of these films, I think I would of been able to cope better knowing that I was not the only one thinking and feeling and going through certain things.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

Hi-
Were you just stating your opinion, or were you expecting me to answer and explain how sadly misinformed you are?

btw, you missed Pheobe Cates in Paradise, she was 17 and showed T&A both, with a few milliseconds of bush tossed in.

What's next? Are they going to go arrest the artist who painted the famous Coppertone ad? After all, I'm sure there's someone, somewhere who gets turned by looking at it

The above is the only paragraph in your post with any merit, if you want me to show you what's wrong with the rest, let me know and I'll oblige.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

Or the part about the US having more laws pertaining to sex and sexual activities than it does for killing someone?

Um, America has more traffic laws than both of those put together, so like, what your point?
Next irrelevant 'fact'?

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

Why? Like much of your original reply, your question has absolutely nothing to do with the movie.
I have no desire to have my posts deleted for posting off-topic.
So you don't like the laws around here, fine, if you want to debate the morals of America, then please do so in the soapbox where it belongs.
Otherwise stay on-topic, personal rants don't belong on movie boards.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] person64389 18 years ago

two points dismenot, firstly, in the thing dated may 1, you state that downloading this thing would be illegal due to piracy as well as its being child pornography (not having seen it, I make no judgement as to whether it actually is child pornography). don't those two obviously conflict? if the thing is illegal child pornography, how can it be protected by intellectual property laws?

secondly, how can you suggest that the morals of some americans should be writen into americas laws? I don't care if 99.9% of americans find a particular action morally repulsive, if thats all they've got against it, then there should be no law against it. this is citizenship 101.

reply

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

My reply to your two points frank-bellamy/person64389:

First, it is still legal in the country it was produced in, the 'R' rated version is legal in several countries, therefore a violation of international copyright laws, but why bother making a point of this? The term "splitting hairs" comes to mind.

Second, I made no such "suggestion" I said I would not discuss the morals of America on a movie board, don't stick words in my mouth. There would be much less debate on these boards if people would pay attention to what they read.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dismenot 18 years ago

Hmm, I'm guessing you might be a2zvideos with a new name, or the other guy.
At any rate, speak to me with a civil tongue in your head or stfu.(or get replies like this one)
I did not tell anyone how to "Live their life" but you want to be a jerk so you read things in that aren't there. I was commenting on the legality of owning a movie, something you have shown you have no clue of.

Since when is a DVD box a worldwide authority on law? What moron would believe that when any fool can print a DVD sleeve out of their own printer? Why don't you upload a pic of this box showing where it says "Uncut/Legal Worldwide" and link to it so we can see?
I am guessing it's because you are waiting for someone to PM you and ask for a link to this "Legitimate Distributor" which of course, is probably you.

I saw your thread starter, why are you so concerned with getting people to buy this video?

Regardless, you are full of it, this video, uncut, is NOT legal worldwide, and MY information does not come off the back of a home-made video box from a distributor that wants to sell movies.

Show me a legit link on the web that verifies your statement.

More importantly....Tell us just who is this worldwide authority that can "re-evaluate" and Force every country (let alone every state Within said countries) on the planet to change their laws and make this movie legal to own everywhere, you cannot, no such authority exists, and never has, and only an idiot would think that it did.

You are so full of hooey it's laughable.

An HSX Baron

reply

[–] gusleon04 18 years ago

I NEVER SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE, I LOVE ALL CULT AND EROTIC MOVIES IF HAVE CONTROVERSY BETTER I LOVE IT, BUT IN THIS MOVIE ( ONLY I SEE THE PICS OR SCREENSHOTS ) AND I READ THE ARTICLE, THE NUDITY IS NOT OBSCENE IS ART AND WE HAVE TO SEE IT THAT WAY, IS JUST A MOVIE, PORNOGRAPHY IS MEAT ,THEY ARE ACTORS THEY PRETEND, ONLY THEY ARE NAKED BUT IN THE PORNO MOVIES THEY NOT PRETEND THE SCENES, THIS MOVIE IS NOT PORNOGRAPHY IS EROTIC , YOU REMEMBER THOSE MOVIES: LAGGON BLUE,KIDS AND SOME OTHERS . SEE IT IF YOU WANT TO , IS JUST MOVIE ,KEEP INTIMATE TO YOURSELF.

reply

[–] kryptonianpsycho 18 years ago

haha, i laugh at humanity's never-ending ignorance

reply

[–] kalvinharp 17 years ago

http://www.azovfilms.com/default.asp

is the site that is selling it. Read their disclaimer it is legal. Plus I have talked to 2 FBi agents and a sheriff about the film, it is 100% legal.

reply

[–] lonebear-1 17 years ago

The reason you get several different opinions from people who should know is inconsistency in the laws. It is what I call situational ethics.

Examples:
A parent posts pictures of there teen age daughter on the internet dressed in a bathing suit you'd see at the beach or underwear you'd see in a magazine ad from Abercrombie and Fitch. A judge makes the subjective decision that the pictures are suggestive and the parent goes to jail. This is happening in the USA right now!!! The reasoning seems to be that the Internet is for porn but what large corporations do is OK.

The movie Hounddog with Dakota Fanning has caused a little bit of an uproar but a judge has ruled it as not child porn. Why, large company, well known actress. Try to do the same thing at home and post it on youtube and I'll send you a card in the federal prison.

We have passed strong laws to fight the War on Terror which I think is great. But then the FBI uses them to go after child pornography. This makes a mockery of the very important problem they were made to prevent.

We send our kids a confusing message. We want them to live up to some sort of artificial morality but all around we show them role models like many of our athletes, actors and yes presidents who flaunt the fact that they don't follow this same morality.

Now don't get me wrong. I see nothing wrong with nudity. I have seen Maladol… and it is a well photographed but very boring movie. In my opinion this attitude towards sex is one of the few things that the Europeans have us beat on.

I'm an old photographer who has pretty much retired. For the last two years I have been renting out my studio space as I don't have much use for it. Not a month goes by when a photographer is not shooting nudes or partial nudes of models 14 or younger almost always with the models mother in attendance and usually at her request. These photographers tell me that this is a necessary part of shooting a portfolio for the better agencies.

Let us be consistent people!!!

reply

[–] officer1044 15 years ago

I WOULD LIKE TO TELL EVERYONE NOT TO LISTEN DESMINOT. I AM INVOLVED IN LAW ENFEORCEMENT IN THE USA AND I CAN TELL YOU WITH 100% ACCURACY THAT THIS MOVIE IS COMPLETELY LEGAL TO OWN IN ALL 50 STATES AND ALL US TERRITORIES. THATS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES INLUDING FBI, DEA, AND US CUSTOMS. I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS FILM OR ITS CONTENT MATTER. I AM ONLY GIVING THE LEGAL FACTS THAT EVEYONE IS DEBATING. THANK YOU.

reply

[–] Falconeer 15 years ago

yeah, that's why they seized my copy at JFK airport, flying in from Netherlands.
One look at the nude form of 12 yo Lara Wendel sprawling against the hot pink backdrop was enough for authorities to deny its entry. Im glad that there was no legal action taken against me, and I realize that they search a bit more dilligently for this kind of material when you fly in from the Netherlands. My advice is to just be careful when trying to obtain or transport this movie. Everyone seems to have a different opinion. It is an excellent movie incidentally, and 11 yo Eva Ionesco turns in a ferocious performance as the cruelest pre teen vixen of all time. Eva was no stranger to nude modeling before she hit the age of 10 even, however I was suprised just how far she went here. They really leave nothing to the imagination, and i think that this is what upsets people so much about the film. They can't figure out if it is art or pornographic exploitation. IMO, it is a little bit of both...

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 14 years ago

Zontar Thing from Weenus it ain't. More's the pity.

"What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?"
Alonso Semple McFlondheim

reply

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

The fact that they seized your copy is neither evidence for or against its legality - police often will base their actions on what they assume is illegal or want to be illegal, regardless of what the law actually says (and showing them the laws/statues in question protecting your right to own something will not result in an apology, dropping of charges, and return of your stuff, but rather a doubling-down). And the fact that there is a prior Supreme Court ruling protecting artistic child nudity will not prevent your arrest and conviction if the authorities and a jury choose to ignore it. (I'm shocked they let you go after seizing your copy - after all, if it's illegal, shouldn't they have held you and charged you with a crime? And if you didn't commit a crime, they had no right to seize your property.)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ultumaphoenix 11 years ago

Basically: Use discretion.

Technically, it is legal since there is no official judgement banning this film here. The film was created and distributed as a movie with political undertones told in an artistic, fantasy dream-world and not as a pornographic or erotic film, so it doesn't fall under the child porn ban. However, these laws can be largely discretionary. All it takes is for some neighbor to see it on your TV through an open window and call the police. A terribly closed-minded judge can screw you good, but chances are, you'll win your case. Unfortunately, your neighbors might think differently of you.

I have no attraction to anyone under 25 years of age, so I certainly find nothing erotic about this film. I only see the nudity as a plot device. I particularly like the scenery and music and appreciate the artistic value. But I live in a neighborhood with lots of kids and nosy neighbors. I make sure to draw the shades when I watch this or really any movie that might have overly graphic sex scenes for my own reputation and common courtesy for the kids who can see my big-screen through my large windows. I would just rather not have to defend myself against public opinion. This film is controversial for any number of reasons and will always have supporters and haters.

Trying to import the DVD can raise suspicion since the box does it make appear as child-erotica. But being legally classified as a film will likely result in its seizure without criminal penalty. I was fortunate enough that it really can be argued that it falls under public domain in this country at this point and was able to purchase it from a domestic distributor ... it came from Michigan :)

reply