MovieChat Forums > Pretty Baby (1978) Discussion > I get why it's controversial, but...

I get why it's controversial, but...

posted 11 years ago by Mr_Ectoplasma
10 replies | jump to latest

I get why it's controversial. I mean, yeah. A twelve year old girl getting naked and playing a child prostitute— point taken. That said, it's NOT in any way, shape, or form "porn". There is no explicit sex in the film, and no sex scenes involving Shields whatsoever. Is it sexually suggestive? Yes. But nudity does not = porn; even child nudity. I think the claims of this film being pornographic or offensive have more to do with the people watching it than the film as an autonomous work. It's not a film that condones child prostitution or attempts to promote pedophilia or something. This film was (and still is) a reality for many young girls in this world.

[–] jackdaly1996 11 years ago

Exactly, it's something of a naturalist/social realist expose about child prostitution in early 20th Century America.
It's an observation, not a condemnation, which is the reason why many Americans are unable to understand it. If on the other hand it was a formulaic Hollywood film, with clear cut goodies and badies, no one would have a problem with it, but because Malle doesn't condemn any of the characters, presenting them all as fully-rounded human beings deserving of our sympathy, they think he's condoning what takes place in the film.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

I don't think it's a particularly great film and I don't think I'll be watching it again, but yeah, it's not porn.🐭

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harveythepooka 9 years ago

I get why it's controversial. I mean, yeah. A twelve year old girl getting naked and playing a child prostitute— point taken. That said, it's NOT in any way, shape, or form "porn". There is no explicit sex in the film, and no sex scenes involving Shields whatsoever. Is it sexually suggestive? Yes. But nudity does not = porn; even child nudity. I think the claims of this film being pornographic or offensive have more to do with the people watching it than the film as an autonomous work. It's not a film that condones child prostitution or attempts to promote pedophilia or something. This film was (and still is) a reality for many young girls in this world.

I agree with most of what you said, other than the part about it not being offensive. By definition something that is offensive is subjective so of course it will depend on the viewer. IMO anyone who isn't offended my the synopsis won't be offended by the movie, but it is personal. Whether it's pornography or not is a technical thing and not subjective, imo.

[–] unknown_soul278 8 years ago

It's called 'promoting the sexual performance of a child'. There have always been pedophiles and some child pornography, but it was easier to keep track of. When photography was in its infancy it was too easy to connect a photo to the photographer. When cameras progressed to film instead of plates and started being developed in labs it was still high-risk. Digital cameras and the Internet threw open doors worldwide for photos and videos. The more technology improved the easier it got to swap photos, then videos. Laws changed as well but they can't keep up with the ever-progressing communications and tech. I won't get into the 'nudity isn't always sexual' argument but this movie centers around a whorehouse so it is absolutely sexual. There are plenty of images out there that don't quite fit into the pornography box, so they are covered by charges like 'promoting the sexual performance of a child'.

[–] bingobingo25 8 years ago

People are also forgetting that Shields did not really consent to being in the film. Her mother had to talk her into it so they could make some money. Hence, why Shields was then emancipated from her mother once she was older.

I think that would certainly make it child abuse. Nudity is fine and dandy when it's an adult who is consenting to show their OWN body, but a child can't give consent and it's really not fair to have a guardian consent for the child when the child is very uncomfortable or hesitant about it or might not even understand what's going on.

[–] SexyActorsJunkie 8 years ago

People are also forgetting that Shields did not really consent to being in the film. Her mother had to talk her into it so they could make some money. Hence, why Shields was then emancipated from her mother once she was older.

I think that would certainly make it child abuse. Nudity is fine and dandy when it's an adult who is consenting to show their OWN body, but a child can't give consent and it's really not fair to have a guardian consent for the child when the child is very uncomfortable or hesitant about it or might not even understand what's going on.

I wondered about that. This movie came out when I was in junior high and I never got to see it until last night. All I could think was, wow, Brooke Shield's mother let her do this film ? Then I figured (without reading anything here) that her mother must have wanted the money or else WHY would you have a clearly underage actress (doesn't matter that she's an actress) portray a WHORE and get to use the dialogue and participate in the kinds of scenes that she did? It doesn't matter that there was no explicit sex. Being a character in this film was completely inappropriate for any actress (or actors) that young age. I am not even remotely a prude in any way and I found watching Brooke Shields in this film, pardon the pun, whoring her out for money !

[–] ricky_says_hi 8 years ago

I recently watched an interview with Brooke Shields where she talked about getting cast. Yes her mother suggested the film to her, but she was not pressured into it. And if she was, she didn't say so. She's praised the movie and Violet as a character, so she seems to be quite proud of taking part.

Her mother did pressure her in a lot of other ways, which is what led to Brooke eventually getting emancipated. She said that the pressure from her mother meant that she was afraid to have sex and didn't lose her virginity until she was twenty two.

[–] przgzr 8 years ago

Being a retarded, maladjusted, closeminded etc European that still, in spite of all decades-long American efforts to change our attitudes, norms and traditions, finds violence and weapond bigger issue than nudity and sex, I'd guess that, analogically, if ever (as I hope) boxing becomes obsolete sport, forbidden in developed countries, "being a character in film about boxing would be completely inappropriate for any actress (or actors) that young age". So no movie about boxing could be made any more if it might show us the early years and early career of boxers.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]