I imagine if this was made and released today, even in the "indie" scene (aka to a bigger festival, sundance etc.), it would generate some serious heat. I wonder if it was controversial at the time it was originally released? Couldn't find anything on google. Denmark was probably a much more open society, even in 1978, to allow a film like this to even be made, period. Anyone know if American audiences had access to it then? Any huzzah about it?
Gratzi!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The film is in release in the States and does include the shower scene. Furthermore, it's not illegal to show someone under 18 nude in a film, though it may be against MPAA policy. Maybe that's why the film is unrated. Anyway, I don't recall frontal nudity in the shower scene. You can prove me wrong by going to Amazon.com and buying the DVD. :)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
There were lots of movies like this being made in Denmark in this time period. I've never seen this one, but I've seen other ones along the same "free" theme and it's really funny to see them all now where the society is so strict again...
My mum was in this movie! :D But she was cut out lol. Still she's credited which is soooo cool. I'll have to tell her that there are actually people who are fans of it :P
I remember when the movie "Apt Pupil" was released showing teen actor Brad Renfro in the shower, there was an outcry that real boys were really nude in the shower, even tho the final edit showed very little, if anything. I think one of the parents of one of the extras filed a lawsuit or something.
share*hides head in shame*
seriously, its things like this that make me embarassed to be american... at some point in the usa nudity became equal to SEX
As to SelyaLoyd's remark that it is illegal to show anyone under the age of 18 nude in a film in the U.S., that is pure unadulterated rubbish. It is NOT illegal to show people under the age of 18 nude, as popular films such as "Good Morning Vietnam" and a host of others will attest. There are quite a few American-made films that show people under age 18 nude. The law just states that such characters cannot be shown in a sexually-oriented or laschivious(sp) way. Just another example of someone who speaks before making sure they have their facts straight. And as a matter of fact, the film did play here in the theatres...with the shower scene intact...this was in the 1980s. The U.S. Gov has since become way more prudish, however, but under current federal and state statutes, that movie would STILL be allowed.
share[deleted]
The term "legal" is a bit of a misnomer here. The MPAA will not rate a movie where any actor under the age of 18, under any circumstance, is shown nude. In such cases, a body double is used. One such instance you can verify for yourself would be 2004's "The Girl Next Door" where a double was used for every nude scene involving Emile Hersh because he was 17 at the time of filming. In fact, during the lap dance scene, they were even required to place a pillow on his lap so there was no physical contact with the actress.
And as any American knows, if the MPAA does not give a movie a rating, it will not be shown in any mainstream theatre.
As for this movie, it would not be allowed to be shown in the US today. People should not be so hypocritical in their statements of others.
Prospero's Books (1991) and Criss Cross (1992) carry an MPAA rating (both "R"). Has the MPAA's policy changed since 1992? I can't find a reference to the "will not rate" policy you mentioned.
As for "...if the MPAA does not give a movie a rating, it will not be shown in any mainstream theatre", I think that "not shown in any mainstream theatre" is true of most foreign language movies anyway.
____________________
[deleted]
First, what do books have to do with cinematic nudity of youngsters?
Second, I see you're one of those people who don't understand that what is suppose to happen according to a rulebook isn't what happens in reality. The MPAA follows no set policy. I would suggest watching the 2006 under cover documentary "This Movie Is Not Yet Rated" which takes an in-depth look at the MPAA and their real decision making processes.
Maybe then you won't be so quick to whip off your egotistical responses. But then again I doubt it.
Prospero's Books is a movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102722/.
I've seen that documentary. I don't remember anything about a body-double-for-nude-minor in it.
And I don't see how your citation of an alleged MPAA policy to "... not rate a movie where any actor under the age of 18, under any circumstance, is shown nude" is consistent with the statement: "The MPAA follows no set policy."
If it's not a written rule, and they're not consistent, how do you know they won't again rate a movie like Prospero's Books or Criss Cross. (Those are the only two films with minor nudity that I know of, offhand, in recent years.)
____________________
you moron
YOU stated that the mpaa will not rate a film that has nude minors in it - you said that correct? you also said they wouldnt under any circumstances
now youre saying that there ARE circumstances where they will? so which is it?
this poster gave two examples of you being incorrect and you get pissy about it?!
yep you were WRONG!
man-up and admit it
oh and by the way Presperos Books isnt a book genius, its a film. educating yourself before running your mouth will save you a lot of embarassment
[deleted]
Where does the MPAA get the authority to compel mainstream theaters not to show certain films? It seems to me to be a form of restraint of trade. In fact, I'm not clear on the definition of "mainstream theater."
The MPAA's power is clear evidence that the notion we live in a "free" country is more of an illusion that a fact.
I rented a DVD that showed the shower scene and I didn't find it shocking or pornographic.
jerrywarriner: "Where does the MPAA get the authority to compel mainstream theaters not to show certain films?"
The MPAA has no such power. They provide a service. Filmmakers voluntarily request the ratings. Theater owners agree to enforce the restrictions about minors being admitted to the rated movies. It is all voluntary, except for the kids, and adults bringing kids to the participating theaters.
http://www.pitchershow.com/mpaa_ratings.htm#RatingLaw
There's probably more of a legitimate gripe against the FCC for restricting broadcast content.
____________________
The story is king.
I would have to say that this movie has always been controversal. Unfortunately, issues involving homosexuality will always be controversal. What makes this film so controversal is not necessarily the homosexuality but the fact that it revolves around teenagers so young. Like "Maladolescenza" this film boldly explores the issue of emerging sexuality and the troubles that arise from adolescence. Being a sociologist, I believe these are issues that need to be explored in much greater detail than they currently are. We underestimate the power of bullies in America, and than wonder why things like Virginia Tech. happens, and we play down the role of adolescent sexuality, and treat them as asexual. If we actually stopped and examined such issues as found in this film and in "Maladolescenza", we may be able to expalin more the issues of juvenile delinquency, peer pressure, school violence, and acting out sexually.
shareI saw this movie in a movie theater back in the 1970s. It was the good old Strand on Market Street in San Francisco. The Strand would show movies that no other repertory movie house would. I saw this twice at the Strand during two different engagements. The theater was packed both times and there was tremendous applause as the movie ended.
At that time, I read a lot of film magazines and I was devoted to seeing the movies that I had read about.I don't remember reading anything about this in the press at the time, nor can I recall any controversy over the movie. Perhaps someone else has memories of this time in SF?
If more of the mainstream movie-going public knew about this movie, there would be such an uproar with all the reports of child sexual abuse being reported in the media. When I saw this movie, I was barely out of my teenage years, having suffered horrible self-loathing about being gay. At that time, this movie gave me hope that there was something beyond being miserable. I don't think most of the mainstream audience would see "YANA" the same way.
[deleted]
I realize this is an old thread now, and nobody will probably see this, but for what it's worth, I managed a General Cinema theater here in Indianapolis from 1981-1984 (Castleton Square I, II and III, the one that used to be inside the mall for any of you from this area) and we played You Are Not Alone, in 1982 I think. There were a few minor protests outside the mall during those three weeks we played the movie, and we received NUMEROUS nasty phone calls from the bible thumpers and churches, telling us we were all perverts for showing this movie and we were going to hell for it. I also remember some nasty comments from readers of the Indianapolis Star (the local newspaper) in the editorial section. I am an openly gay man now, but I wasn't at all in 1982. I was very glad to see this movie come to my theater. As manager, I was responsible for assigning the show times each movie, and I made certain YANA was shown five times each day at my theater.
YANA began my love affair with foreign movies. I love foreign movies, especially when they are shown in their native language with the subscript down at the bottom.
Formerly Known As David-Indiana On IMDb
Hi Lsf - Thanks for the intersting perspective on this film. I can see where it would have aroused some controversy in the early '80's. In fact it would undoubtedly have freaked me out for a good part of my life, even though when I was Kim's age I yearned desperately (and futilely) for my Bo to come along.
"Nothing personal. Your name just happened to come up."
No. It was not controversial in the Scandinavian countries when released. I saw it in a movitheatre when it was just out, and I cannot recall any reactions saying that it was controversial in any way. The movie was even shown on Niorwegian state run TV a few years later.
David
The fact is that the people who would make this movie controversial and attack it just wouldn't see it. A review on Amazon says that they liked the fact that the nude scene would make the homophobes in the audience reel (to the reviewer's delight) but why the hell would those homophobes be watching it? It's not exactly likely to be shown on prime time tv or anything; it's a movie you have to seek out. There are no reviews on IMDb that even suggest the movie is morally unsound on any level, and no one on this message board is ranting about it. I don't think this movie could get made today from my memory of it - probably even in Denmark, a fairly liberal country - and yet ironically it seems ahead of its time.
There are people out there who would call for this movie to be banned. Probably lots of them. Fortunately they are never likely to see it.
If I have to tell you again, we're gonna take it outside and I'm gonna show you what it's like!
Since this was made in Denmark I doubt it caused any controversy. They are a lot more open about sexuality and don't have the hang ups that we do here in North America.
It just amazes me how people are so uptight about nudity. You can show someone suffering a gory ending in horror movies and people don't say anything. But, if you show any type of nudity, most will gasp and hoot and holler.
I think perhaps the reason behind that is that nudity has been linked to a countless number of exploitation movies made over the years so it is dirty and something to be hidden.
The human body is beautiful to behold and not something "dirty" to be covered up. I'm not saying everyone should go around in the buff although that would make for an interesting day at work. What is dirty, IMO, is the gratuitous and brutal violence that is shown in movies today.
I have not watched this particular movie but I had to add my 2 cents regarding nudity in film because I shake my head when people make such a big fuss over it.