MovieChat Forums > Pretty Baby (1978) Discussion > It's child porn because...

It's child porn because...


The nudity doesn't ultimately add anything to the story (hence porn) and the nudity in question is of a child (hence child porn). If the movie was exactly the same but the lead actress was older, no one would make the argument that the nudity added anything, because the reason it's there is the added impact it makes thanks to Brooke Shields being twelve. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Giving the film the benefit of the doubt, it seems to assume we're going to have a particular reaction to child nudity, something like "oh no, how awful it was for children in that situation back then!" But all the truly unpleasant abuse has to occur off-screen for obvious reasons, so any dramatic impact is toothless. None of the nudity is placed within a context that forces the audience to confront how awful it is, on the contrary it's all supremely tasteful, partly thanks to the whitewashed characterisation of the most artificially appealing pedophile in cinema history, Bellocq. And by using real child nudity in an attempt to demonstrate how exploitative of children people were back then, the film ignores Its own message.

It doesn't help that there's effectively no story. There's almost no focus on what Violet is actually feeling at all, instead there's an alternation between scenes where she acts like a child and scenes where she earns her keep as a prostitute. I got the impression I was supposed to sympathise with the character soley because she was a child in a sh!tty situation, not because the writers gave her interesting traits, or at the very least, conveyed an impression of how she saw the world.

We could argue how to define porn, of course, but I don't think that's difficult: it's where the nudity is the point. If this movie hadn't had Brooke Shields naked no one would even remember it, as there's little dramatic content and no plot. The main character has, from beginning to end, no ultimate control over her fate - and regardless of how realistic that is it still makes for a lousy story. If they had made the narrative more character-based, so it hinged on something that Violet could have some influence over, perhaps a story about a child prostitute in this era could have worked... but not like this.

1/10, one of the most pathetically misguided exploitation flicks ever.

reply

Nudity never adds anything to any story. Movies were perfectly fine back during the decades when nudity wasn't allowed. Are you saying all movies with adult nudity are porn?

Porn means sexually explicit. Nudity has nothing to do with it.

reply

If we are going to start calling things "porn" because they don't add to the story, then all those gorgeous sweeping shots of incredible landscapes are porn. They're only there because they look cool or beautiful or whatever.


-
Greatest Hope: LOTR
Worst Fear: LOTL

reply

Reasoned and articulate as it reads on the surface, the OP's entire argument turns on the nudity of Brooke Shields as pornographic. Pornography is meant to sexually excite the viewer through depictions of sexual activity. Some nudity is of course necessary for that; but it is necessary for non-pornographic purposes, too, like biopics about painters, adult romances, etc. Red herrings about the "meaning" of her nude scenes and how they contribute to her growth as a character are irrelevant; if you have to interpret nudity, you've already lost the pornographic audience, because pornography by definition needs no interpretation. The real question is whether the viewer finds Brooke Shields' nudity -- what little there actually is of it -- sexually arousing. I don't, not just because I'm not a pedophile, but because even if she had been an adult, she is never photographed in arousing ways. Nor is Susan Sarandon, for that matter. The nude portrait scene with Bellocq is so tastefully done as to be clinical.

In fact, Pretty Baby may be one of the least sexually titillating films of the 1970s. It's more a period piece than anything else.

Now, if a pedophile watches this film, he will most likely be turned on by the few glimpses of child nudity that there are. But that is accidental, and pedophiles can obviously be aroused simply by the sight of children. You might as well prohibit any image of children in film. Good luck with that.



There, daddy, do I get a gold star?

reply

[deleted]

Agreed.

Personally I am stunned by her beauty, but that doesn't mean I sit there with a boner in my pants in front of the TV.

Kevinology is reporting my posts for no reason.
If you reply to me, use quote tags. Thank you!
I though you two had moved on to the Lolita (1992) boards.


-
Greatest Hope: LOTR
Worst Fear: LOTL

reply

[deleted]

It's a signature.
Lolita 1992? :o There's another one? lol.
Yep. Lolita (1962), directed by Stanley Kubric, starring Sue Lyon as Lolita and James Mason as Humbert. The tagline was: How did they ever make a movie of Lolita? Which is a good question, in 1962 or in 1992.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056193/

Then again, how did the ever make a movie of Pretty Baby?


-
Greatest Hope: LOTR
Worst Fear: LOTL

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Sometimes I miss these things. I can't get tone of voice. Well, maybe somebody else is helped by it.


-
Greatest Hope: LOTR
Worst Fear: LOTL

reply

<< Reasoned and articulate as it reads on the surface, the OP's entire argument turns on the nudity of Brooke Shields as pornographic. Pornography is meant to sexually excite the viewer through depictions of sexual activity. >>

I agree. There's nothing sexualized about the presentation of the character's nudity here. I think the director was just trying to present a somewhat realistic view of the world the characters were living in.

reply

Nudity never adding anything to any story is a factually incorrect statement.

reply

That there were at least six decades of good and great movies with no nudity is a factually correct statement.

reply

And? Way to ignore my comment and reply with a non sequitur in a weak-ass attempt at straw manning.

reply

While I agree with the OP that the story and narrative was lacking, however certainly not pornographic at all.

The reason that the subject matter comes off as trying to be "tastefull" has to do with the character of Bellocq, the photographer. He was a real person who did take photographs of the Storyville Prostitutes circa 1912 (although the movie dates it as 1917). So in a way, this movie could be a biopic or homage to the man and his work. But again, like the OP suggests, as a movie, the narrative, plot, and purpose of this movie is lost. No real dramatic moments. Just a pituresque look into that life in that era...which is what a photograph should be right?

I suggest googling his name and taking a look at the pictures. They are quite haunting and certainly captures a piece of New Orleans' history.

reply

[deleted]

The definition of porn isn't whether it "adds anything to the story" or not; it's whether it was SOLELY designed to titillate...






Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me

reply

and I found this film infinitely more civilised than Gigi.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply

Roger Ebert (highly respected film critic of Chicago Sun Times)says in fact:

'The pretty baby of the title is named Violet, and is played by Brooke Shields, as an extraordinarily beautiful child. Before anyone had seen "Pretty Baby," Malle was being accused of exploiting that fact. But he's thoughtful and almost cautious in his approach: Given the film's subject matter and its obligatory sex scenes, Malle shows taste and restraint.'

And goes on to add:

'"Pretty Baby" has been attacked in some quarters as child porn. It's not. It's an evocation of a time and a place and a sad chapter of Americana.'

The scene in which Violet destroys Bellocq's photographs is the only one where she is full frontally nude. Her crotch is hidden behind her leg, and when you see shots of her behind, you can clearly see the strings of the special underwear Shields was wearing. Also, you'll notice that the arrangement of shots means that no actors, adult or child, saw her naked front whilst doing the scenes.

At the end of the day, perhaps you should rather blame Shields' mother Teri, who sold photos of her daughter aged 10, fully naked and made up, in a bathtub. If you think someone was exploiting Brooke's child nudity, I'd say it was the mother who allowed it all in the first place.

reply


None of the nudity is placed within a context that forces the audience to confront how awful it is, on the contrary it's all supremely tasteful


if Violet being photographed naked is supremely tasteful, then you have killed your own argument that the film is porn


She gave me a smile so sweet you could have poured it on your pancakes.

reply

Instead of making a porn reference to this film howabout you talk about the fact that.Brooke shields mother on top of being your typical stage mother she had a pimp mentality.Also how she it seems without reguard just was so willing to hand over her daughter for profit .I think this is a more important topic it also scarred brooke shields as well.She's bi polar or has depression one of thoses two let's talk about the negative affects.That showbiz can have a family the greed it instills in people is more disturbing.

From what i read the nude scene seemed tasteful she gets out of a tub nude end of story .Nothing pornographic about it well it is graphic but not porno-graphic also the guy who directed this is french.Over in europe they have nude beaches where men woman and children run around naked as the day they were born .They also im sure have films that show children nude in a non sexual way.

Once again the real issue here is people like brooke shields mother allowing her child to do this .Not for artistic endeavor but for the money the bitch is greedy she whored her daughter out.To line her pockets ,not good every other thread should be blasting the bitch .Damning her to hell .then praying for her return so we can damn her to hell again .It's not like brooke shields had much of a choice her moms had her under her thumb .This is fact not fiction she even admits to it that's why she suffers from depression even now .

In Europe an actor is an artist. In Hollywood, if he isn't working, he's a bum.

reply

****POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT*****
I respectfully disagree with the OP's argument that nudity does not add anything to Pretty Baby. As I understand it, a main thrust of the movie was to depict the 'sexualization' of a young girl at an age long before most girls have become aware of their sexuality. I do not see how the director & writers could have shown this without nudity.
Violet has, after all, grown up in a house of prostitution. She's seen many women nude or in various states of undress for years. By age 12, she has adopted their own casual attitude toward nudity because that for her is the norm. It is very different from a girl who, say, grew up in a "normal" American household.
Director Malle demonstrates this by the fact that in many scenes, Violet runs around the house wearing a thin gown and apparently nothing more. He also uses nudity to show how vulnerable is a young girl in those surroundings. In the bathtub scene, the Madam takes a man into the room where she is bathing. The Madam pulls away Violet's towel, baring her to the stranger. The girl's nudity makes us realize how vulnerable she is, and foreshadows the later auctioning scene.
When Violet is with Bellocq, we see that she is bored, not embarrassed, when posing nude for him. And why not? Earlier she watched as Bellocq took photos of her mother topless, and thought nothing of it. This nude scene, and Violet's behavior while nude, is used to again remind us that modesty is not inherent, but rather learned from our environment.
In the final scene, Violet is now part of a 'respectable' family. How do we know? She is fully clothed, wearing far more than in any previous scene. The scene reminded me of those missionaries who would go to South Pacific islands to bring religion to the natives. The first order of business was to get them to put some clothes on because up to then the natives, like wild child Violet, had thought nothing of being nude or nearly so.

reply

[deleted]

Please read up on the definition of porn, you sound very uninformed.

reply

You have to be off you're flippin rocker to think this is child porn. I've routinely seen more child nudity at the beach on a hot day. You're a nut job! You yourself have even said that her nudity in this film adds impact, but yet you also say it adds nothing. You say the nudity is "all supremely tasteful", yet you call it "child porn". You write in circles that only amount to one thing, irrational thought.

The Supreme Court established the basic legal standard for pornography in Miller v. California in 1973. One of the three criteria material must have to even be considered pornography by law, is that there actually is sexual conduct. Therefore since there is actually no real sex in this film, it definitely could not even nearly be considered pornographic by a court of law in the United States.

Up tight, irrational thinking, anti social odd balls like you have been trying to censor art for God knows how long, however the courts have thrown out many better arguments than yours, that's for sure.

It's not child porn because...most people on earth are more realistic and reasonable than you are. End of story.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

reply