Is the erection real?


Is it really Thomas Fryk´s own penis that we can see erected in the barn? Í remember the camera tilts down from Fryk´s face to his genitals in one shot. So there is no cut there. But could it still be some kind of an artificial penis?

I remember that in the 70s´ Jörn Donner´s movie Naisenkuvia (Portraits of women) caused lots of debate, because of Donner´s erected penis that is shown for about 10 seconds in the film. I´ve watched that scene many times and the penis looks very real. But in the TV-series Jörn Donnerin kuusi elämää (The six lives of Jörn Donner) Donner reveals that the penis was not real. It was a handle of a hammer that was made to look like a real penis.

So what do you think? Is it really Fryk´s penis that we can see in the turning point of the film? Or is it a fake-one? I wanna hear your opinions?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

At the end of the scene, he is starting to "deflate." Of course it's real. Some people would argue there's no such thing as a stupid question. I disagree. This is a stupid question.

reply

[deleted]

I think that Tomas Feyk or Kay Pollak are the only ones who can give as the right answer.

The erection in the film sure looks real, but how can you be so certain about it. As I said the erection in Naisenkuvia also looked real and I was amazed when I later heardt that it was not. I just though that in Barnens ö they would have used a fake-penis, because showing his own penis in erection would have been too embarrasing for such a young kid.

How come a gilr could not make a difference between a real erection and a fake-one. I mean that they are usually girls who are watching penises from that point of view:)

reply

[deleted]

"I doubt that they would use a "fake penis" on a boy. They would have to go through the trouble of making a really small one and molding it to him which would really defeat the purpose if it's just to save embarrassment. It was real, you could tell because it subsided"

So you think that they are ready to embarrass a teenage boy instead of seeing the trouble to make a fake penis? And they are ready to make child pornoraphy instead of seeing the trouble to make a fake penis? And how come they could have not make a fake penis that subsices.

You should´t think that everything you see in the movies is real. Movies are full of illusions. Even an amateur movie-goer should know that...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"This film was made in Europe (Sweden I belive) where the laws regarding nudity in film is much more lax than in the states. Also, nudity in general is not considered pornography in most of Europe (the same is not true for the states) and it is rather common to see children nude in European films "

What!? Thats extremely arrogant and presumptuous and is almost completely wrong.

reply

Completely wrong? So, it means that it's wrong the movie was made in Europe, in Sweden? Or...?

reply


It is wrong because this film is legal to be shown in the United States. It could be made in the United States today, legally. As long as the images are not lewd and lascivious and do not appeal only or mainly to prurient interests, then they are fine.

There are certainly a lot of uptight Americans that object to any image of naked people, children or not, but fortunately our Supreme Court defends the artistic depiction of nudity as a 1st Amendment free speech issue.

It is wrong to suggest that all Americans are uptight about nudity and its wrong to suggest that any such film could not be made in the U.S.

--
www.ClamBake.org - Welcome to the Church of Scientology.

reply

Theoretically, I don't doubt any of your statements at all. Theoretically.

However, has in reality recently been made any movie that can be compared to "Barnens ö"? And I don't mean just this one particular scene. I don't need you to name the movie(s), I just ask when was the last time (if ever) that a movie like this has been produced, released, shown in USA.

I don't doubt that many American wouldn't mind it. But because of the rest the producers wouldn't risk. It is not only that the movie might not bring money (because many theaters would refuse to show it and many stores wouldn't dare to put it on shelves) but most likely the producers, authors, actors, parents etc would face countless court processes. And though I believe (according to the image I have about USA) that finally the verdicts would be in their favor, I don't think there are masochists who would want to go through it.

reply

Unfortunately it is not the Supreme Court that decides these matters, it is the film rating board. Recently a documentary movie about Bullying was rated "R" (Restricted) because a couple of the kids in the movie said *beep* a couple of times in the course of their natural daily language. A majority of time, an "R" rating is death to a commercial movie.

As to the lewd, lascivious, prurient aspect, it is a young boy engaged in sexual activity. That pretty much seals it. While it may be legal in the USA as 'artistic expression', that doesn't mean the local police could not arrest you and drag you into court calling it Child Pornography.

America gets far too hysterical over these things. It is not wrong to suggest that America is to uptight about nudity. In Europe they see more nudity nightly on television than we see in the USA in "R"-Rated movies.

This film could be made, but it could never be shown in the USA in commerial theaters, and they would probably have trouble showing it in a Independent film theater.

By the way, in Sweden, based on another discussion on this movie at IMDB, it was rated for age 11 and above. In Finland, it was K-14 meaning age 14 and above can watch, and if I understand correctly, age 7 to 13 can watch if accompanied by an adult.

In Sweden, and else where in Scandinavia, based on the same parallel discussion, the movie is routinely available at the local Library in the kids movie section.

In the USA, the hysterical religious right wold be calling for blood if such a movie were made available to anyone.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080419/board/thread/20703553?d=83532775&p=1#83532775

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080419/board/thread/20703553?d=126966898&p=1#126966898

reply

You are in serious denial of you think this film could be made in the United States
NO WAY!
I love my country, don't get me wrong, but let's face it we ARE very uptight. We don't care if our kids see horror movies where limbs are cut off or where women are treated as objects. And we don't care that our kids are playing video games where they shoot cops in the head point blank. BUT we have to protect our kids from seeing a woman's bare breast! Oh nooo that would be bad.
The human body? = BAD
Bloody violence? = OKAY
And you're also kidding yourself if you think this film would be completely legal in the U.S. There are news stories everyday about men being arrested for possession of naturist materials. Videos that show children nude. Happens all the time.
And if a director here in the U.S. Told the studio that he was going to have a scene in his film where an 11-year-old boy was going to show his naked erect penis..?! Well it would never be allowed! You wouldn't even find a young American actor to do it.

Do you remember how crazy everyone was here in the U.S. When they were making the movie Birth?
Nicole Kidman plays a widow who meets an 11 year old boy who claims to be her dead husband reincarnated. There is scene where she takes a bath with the boy. The boy is not shown nude and neither is Kidman. He simply gets into the tub with her and they stare at each other. End of scene. NOTHING happens. But people were up in arms about it!
Of course no one is saying that ALL Americans are uptight. But as a whole? Yes we are.

reply


The "reality" of the penis doesn't make a difference on whether it is child pornography. It is either lewd and lascivious and appealing to prurient interests or it is not. You can't just give underage kids strap-ons and let them simulate sex in a porno film and then claim that the images aren't "real"

I'm not trying to suggest that's what happened in this film because I haven't seen it yet.



--
www.ClamBake.org - Welcome to the Church of Scientology.

reply

Give it up already, henriwr. You're just making yourself look like an idiot. Maybe we'll get lucky and the administrator will delete this whole stupid thread.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Actually, the penis is real. The nuts are fake.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Actually, the penis is real. The nuts are fake.

i lol'd XDXD

i know i know its rather irresponsible of me to post such a thing but i just burst(ed?) out laughing when i read that =P

reply

This whole thread is a laughable comedy...but nothing is quite as laughable as saying "henriwr makes more sense than anyone here". True comedy!!!

The fact that the ten-year old boy may or may not have an erection should really be a non-issue. Of course it's his own erection...and as a matter of fact, it might not even have been scripted in, it might have just "popped up", if you'll excuse the pun, and the directors decided to keep running film, as it really is no big deal in Scandinavia. The fact that the film was shown during primetime, uncut, on swedish public tv highlights the fact that the Scandinavians in general have more natural and less prudish viewpoints on human sexuality.

I believe whole-heartedly that neo-puritanism begets increased prudishness which begets increased perversion...this can readily be seen in the Catholic church, a more prudish and puritanical offshoot of religion if there was one.

reply

[deleted]

i just want to know why jordyguy said the scene in 1900 was shocking and worse. it was the same exact thing: a young boy touching his erection for a few seconds. it's not shocking OR a big deal. i saw both movies when i was 15 (last year) and didn't think anything of either erection till people on here started talking about it. everyone gets them. big deal.



Follow me to: http://IfYouThinkItSayIt.activeboard.com

reply

[deleted]


Showing "it" up close, inside out, backwards, or upside down doesn't make it child pornography. It is legal in the United States and many other civilized countries because the movie and this scene in particular was not meant to appeal mainly to the prurient interests of the viewer.

The scene wasn't filmed so that viewers would become sexually excited from watching it. It was filmed because it was a natural part of a film that is depicting a young male that is worried about his changing body during puberty. All healthy men have erections. It is a natural part of being a male. Viewing an erection artistically (or otherwise) doesn't have to be a sexual act for the viewer. You'd have to be one gigantic weirdo to imagine that this movie was created so that its viewers would have the 10 second opportunity to be sexually gratified by seeing a young male's naked erection.

I have been on many beaches in the world where young boys proudly run around playing gleefully. Some of them get erections. It's part of being a boy and man. It's not child pornography just because you see "one".

I firmly believe that religious teachings on sexuality and nudity are responsible for nearly all the sexual depravity that goes on in this world.

--
www.ClamBake.org - Welcome to the Church of Scientology.

reply

Excuse me for being OT but. I dont understand whats all the fuzz about his genitals being shown? Im swedish and remember seing this movie on tv when I was a little boy. I grew up in the suburbs of stockholm shown in some scenes. I recognise lots of areas. So I guess I could relate to Reine quite alot, I even looked like him having a björn borg look :)

Well back to the nudity part. In sweden nudity like this is quite common in films, the human body is natural. Whe're born naked and we die naked.
Having an erection is not common though in swedish films, and there was lots of critique regarding that. But they still aired it on tv. The movie has not been aired since the early 90s though. I believe the reason is not the erection part, there is no demand for this movie in sweden, its nothing special to the majority.

I have emailed Kay Pollak and asked if an dvd is avaiable, he said there is no official dvd produced. And probably wont be either. Too bad. Good movie though close to my heart.



My favourite quote LOL!!
"Har ja berättat för dig va vi körde i ambulansen i förrgår? - Did I tell you what we drove in the ambulance the other day?"

reply

not true. the dvd is available. i've owned it for a couple years. you can purchase it online at azovfilms (out of canada), but they ship to the states. they have thousands of similar, coming of age films.

reply

Vad är hans email-adress? Jag vill också skicka honom ett meddelande!

reply

You don't understand what "all the FUZZ is about"?
Actually if you watch the scene closely you'll see there's no fuzz at all on the boy actually. :)

But seriously the phrase is WHATS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT?
Not FUzz.

reply

Have you even seen this film? Of course the erection was scripted! That's the whole point of the scene. The kid doesn't want to grow up or have impure thoughts. He sees a naked woman and he gets an erection.
He's upset because his body has betrayed him and he's becoming a man
If he didn't get an erection in the scene then it wouldn't make sense

reply

... how many times since then (1980) has a pre-teen's erect penis / stroking his penis / erection subsiding been shown in such close-up (one-third screenwidth)? More rare than the pubic hair examination that you describe as being roughly the same. These days that prolonged camera shot zoomed in is called "exploitative nudity".

Many people seem to think that putting an "artistic" reason around the picture will protect the intention. As if the intention promptly becomes pure and all interpretations of it will be in this pure manner. As if art is something that happens on another planet, in a parallel universe perhaps. It's quite simple. Art reflects life and challenges the society's (viewers') perception of life. But it doesn't end there. The society is fully entitled to fight back against what is presented by art and reject it.

Armisael_seel, you have rather fantastic notions of Scandinavian social norms, derived simply from a film or two, which themself caused scandal in the same Scandinavian countries at the time of release. Since then, films such as this have been banished to late night tv. Scandinavian tourists are also found in child-sex industries around the world, as are other nationalities, so we won't pretend the Scandinavians have wiped out the pedophilia problem yet.

And if, as you say, the Scandinavians prefer to leave erotic film-making to the Italians and French, than wasn't the theme of this film erotic? That's where the scandal lies -- a scene of child vulnerability buried in the story of sexual eroticism.

Yes, we all know that nudity does not equate to sex. But we should be reminded that exactly the same "child erection scene" in a 2009-made film would lead to criminal investigation of the filmmakers and child's guardians by local authorities in nations that have progressive child protection laws. And even if your own family photos show naked children running around, even with erections, you'd find that a close-up, exploitative shot like this would draw the interest of authorities.

reply

[deleted]

Gee, Armisael_seel, you're quite keen to tell me how to interpret the film, but you finish off by ordering me not to tell you "what is wrong and what is right".

You seem to forget that this film was not just a lovely fictional tale. Somewhere in the making of it was a real child actor. Perhaps even pushed into scenes by guardians who didn't know better. Did you really think the boy was shown a naked women and then followed to the barn and waited patiently until he acquired an erection? Really? More likely was that he was encouraged to "stimulate" himself for the camera and then the useful shots were edited (I'll just remind you that the shot showed the fully erect penis, not some "aftermath" only). Hey, even likely that the "naked woman" scene was filmed afterwards for convenience' sake rather than for continuity. You see, making the film is not the cute, lovely process that is presented to you in the final cut.

The child protection agencies that I mentioned would prevent something like this happening again. But ... only in civilised countries that do not permit hosting of websites such as you mentioned.

reply

you have rather fantastic notions of Scandinavian social norms, derived simply from a film or two, which themself caused scandal in the same Scandinavian countries at the time of release. Since then, films such as this have been banished to late night tv.

Really? I'm from Scandinavia and I haven't heard of such "movie scandals". Could you mention some sources from which I could cross-check your claims?

As I wrote elsewhere, one can borrow this movie on VHS from the children's department of a public libray in several cities in Finland, and there is no "late night banishment" either, as far as I know. Perhaps you could lead me to a reliable source of information (not Wikipedia)?

reply

Some facts:

Tomas Fryk (born 18 September 1966) who played Reine Larsson, was 14 years old at the making of this movie, not 10-11 years old!

What you see in the movie is real and it was voluntary! He has said that in several newspaper and television interviews in Sweden.

Tomas Fryk had his breakthrough in 1980 in Kay Pollak's film of PC Jersild's novel "Barnens Ö" (Children's Island), for her performance in the film, he get a half Guldbagge! (a Swedish film prize) as director Kay Pollak decided to share his prize withs Tomas Fryk and plit it into two parts.

Films he made:

* 1980 - Barnens ö
* 1985 - On The Loose
* 1986 - Älska mej
* 1987 - Nionde kompaniet
* 1990 - Black Jack
* 2001 - Jordgubbar med riktig mjölk
* 2001 - Sprängaren
* 2010 - Beck - I stormens öga


Ab imo pectore

Carpe Diem

reply

thank you for the update on Tomas Fryk, I thought the movie was very good.
How come only the Scandinavian countries make movies that show teenagers engaged in sex? In America, in the late 60s and early 70s there was a cultural revolution that advocated, among other things, an attitude that sex was healthly and should be encouraged. Then there was this tremendous backlash, led mainly by the lesbian, men bashing, sex hating femNazis who have since been joined by the pedoNazis, who are anti-sex and closely related to the Christian
freaks who want to control the sexual habits of everyone! Fortunately, Freud was right, we are sexual beings, from the time we are born. To try and control the sexual impulse is like trying to control the ocean tide. Can't be done, won't be
done, people of all ages engage in sex, in all kinds of sex, and do it because they enjoy it. Ideology, Religious doctrine, 21st Century Western Culture, all
a load of crap.

reply

Actually, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Island_(film), filming took place "between July and October 1979," and Tomas was born in 1966, he would have been between the ages of 12-13.

reply

Wrong wrong wrong
He was not 14 when the film was made
He may have been that age when it was finally released but during filming he was 12 years old
Do you think films are shot and released the same year? Lol

reply

[deleted]