child nudity?
melinda kanniman.. i assume she's 13-14? and she exposed herself on a Sweden:11 rated film?
isn't this banned in most countries? there arent even any other film with child nudity are they?
Oh don't be silly. There's a huge difference between nudity and porn. Just because hollywood thinks of nudity as porn doesn't mean that the whole world does.
If a movie gets banned because of 20 seconds of child nudity then it just shows how sick this world is.
And yes, there's a lot of movies with child nudity in them, most of the ones I can think of are swedish and two of them are even based on Astrid Lindgren's books. Being naked is something natural and everyone has a naked body, everyone has a sexuality. Not to capture that in movies would be a sin.
These replies have been interesting. I would probably be considered a prudish American by most of the people who have posted things. But I wanted to share my experience with the film anyway. I went to this movie when I was young (like 8, 9, or 10) I think I remember the "boob scene" and I definitely remember the scene where he sticks his penis in a bottle. I'm not sure how I'd react to this movie as an adult, but as a child I was embarrased and uncomfortable watching the movie.
shareGood post, kbanks55. I always get a kick out of adults debating what is suitable for children while totally losing the child's perspective. Sure, everyone has their own culturally-imposed morals by the age of 18 (and btw the original poster is from Asia not America, you crazy yank-haters!). But kbanks I think you're the only person in this thread who has approached the topic through your own experience as a child. Your embarrasment & discomfort is enough to indicate to me that it may not be suitable for a 10-year-old to watch. And I think that was the whole point of the original poster.
shareOriginal poster wasn't mentioning age of watching at all, only age of appearing (actor's age). Appearing and watching is very different thing.
For instance, you can see children in extreme horror movies. But it is the editing when a completely innocent scene becomes frightening, and the person (child) doesn't have to know how will this scene be used later. A kid can simply play in the garden, and the editing will show approaching of a murderer, or alien, a ghost, whatever. Add some music, finish the scene with a dead corpse and you have a perfect horror, and all that child was doing was playing. Different situation is when it is obviously not editing, but e.g. child has a knife and performs a crime. But, interesting, unlike nude scenes, I've never read any compliance about exploiting children in horrors. And very, very rarely about them watching horrors or violence.
On the other hand, watching IS determined by culture and family. You must agree that parents are supposed to control what their 8 or 10-year-old is watching. And they are supposed to know what are the attitudes and values they are implementing in his personality. If you swear at home and laugh when your baby uses certain words, you can't expect it will be shocked to hear them on screen. If you smoke, it is likely your kid will smoke, no matter if he/she sees it in movie. If you have a pet and treat it properly, your kid most likely won't become an animal molestor (but might be terrified by such scenes on TV). If you go with your kid to naturist beaches, bare breast (or more) won't be anything special that he/she hasn't seen before. If you are religious or atheist you'll avoid movies that are extremely promoting the opposite view.
This thread is long, and I know you didn't have patience to read all of the posts. But there were few posts touching this aspect already. For instance, I wrote "Laika is not Lassie" as a response to poster named rebeljenn, you can read both posts if you want. I still think this is one of the best movies I've ever seen, perfectly suitable for teenagers, but parents with younger children should watch it before deciding if their child's ready for it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
While I agree with your overall opinion, I don't really think the Pope's confirmation or God is relevant at all to this topic. Let's leave religion out of this.
People who are uncomfortable with this minor nude scene are ignoring context -- this was a young boy and a young girl doing what is natural. That was basically a theme in the movie -- the ups and downs of growing up.
What else is there to say?
[deleted]
You do a perfect job of demonstrating how worthless organized religion is
share[deleted]
In that case Brooke Shields should be arrested.
Why? Because she ran-around naked in one of her films. She was only 13 at the time. It's called "Pretty Baby"
-----
Because God created it, the human body
can be uncovered and preserve His splendor. -Pope John Paul
Why would she be arrested? She didn't make the movie.
"Freedom means nothing if you are a slave to regular programing" - Kumarshare
but it is not natural for adults to look at them as well.
This movie isn't about what adults see, it's about what children see. Guess what, it's also unnatural for a man go ambush a woman and stab her, yet we see it all the time in movies. Just because something is unnatural, doesn't mean we shouldn't see it.
Child nudity in film is wrong no matter the context.
On what basis? It's wrong to murder someone, and we see it in movies. Why should child nudity be an exception?
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
Your argument about murder is flawed. In movies people aren't actually murdered.
While you make a good point, it does not mean my argument is flawed. The fact that people in movies being murdered aren't actually murdered doesn't change the fact that viewers are still seeing someone being murdered. They're seeing a film that (usually) portrays graphically and accurately how a person being murdered happens. My point is that there's nothing wrong with adults seeing child nudity for art, 'cause all adults already see acts that in real life would be illegal.
Your argument is on a different point however. You're arguing for the sake of the child, NOT the viewer (which is what my previous post was talking about).
If so, I feel sorry for those children.
That really depends on the child. I highly doubt the little girl in this movie embarked on the movie not knowing what was to be filmed. You should remember that there are kids who don't mind exposing themselves in front of cameras. I'm not a girl, so I can't say if I would have said yes to that scene at a young age, but most likely this girl did.
I am so sick of the argument that if someone thinks it's wrong to film children nude it's their own problem and they are the ones sexualizing them.
I'm not sure entirely who you are referring to me, but I am not one of those people.
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
when it comes to children the age of the actress playing Ingemar, it's unfair for adults to assume to know what her feelings about her own body are and that those feelings will never change.
Assuming that the film makers and the actresses parents did what they should, then her parents hard to have asked her about body exposing.
A child as young as the one playing Ingemar was at an age where she was too young to truly make her own decisions
The fact that she's too young to make her own decisions doesn't mean that she felt comfortable with the scene or not. When it comes to consent in child activities, the decision should be determined by both the parent's feelings AND the actress. You are right that adults can easily influence the actress, however, as long as the fact that she was comfortable with the scene remains, then there's really no problem.
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
I honestly don't understand why it's so hard for some to accept that children can be manipulated and confused and end up doing something they might regret later in life.
sheesh, calm down. First of all, I never said that children can't be manipulated and confused and end up doing something they might regret later in life. My point is that NOT ALL children are like that. Heck, I didn't even deny anything in your previous post (not the post I am responding to here), what's the problem here? I was simply implying that your assumption about children doesn't apply to ALL. There are in fact a lot kids who don't get easily manipulated or confused about a concept of exposing their body.
Also, I don't want you to think you can't convince me, 'cause I try as hard as I can to have an opened mind and to always be aware that my assumptions could be wrong. You're arguments are very well thought out and convincing.
Why take the chance? For what? Art?? Please.
The reason for "taking the chance" really depends on the movie. Sometimes a movie can use it's risky nudity to portray a very important message. Such as a movie like Kids. So why take the chance? 'Cause sometimes the art of film making is very important.s It may be taking a chance of some childhood damage to expose children, but a lot of times the chance is worth it. Especially since it's not that hard to find a child who will not have any damage with a scene like the one in this movie.
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
I don't believe in "the art of film."
I'm not really sure what that means, are you saying that the art of film is virtually pointless? Also, why shouldn't movies be elevated to anything more? Film art is entertainment, you know.
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
Do you think that the filmmakers of My Life A Dog had no intention of making money from their investment?
Of course not, but the filmmakers are also artist, who are interesting in portraying something. Generally it's the studio that is interested in the money, since they are the ones who receive money from tickets. Even though the director also gets money in the project, he has to have an actual motivation to become a director in the first place. It's not easy, you know.
In a way, your comment comes across as an insult to all the directors who have actual inspiration and love making movies for art. Orson Welles and Stephen Spielberg all love you (sarcasm).
Bottomline is, there is no movie worth risking a child's welfare for, not to mention an animal or stunt person.
The problem is you're still acting like the risk is really high. I'm telling you that it isn't hard to find a child that will be totally fine with nudity. Yes, there is a risk in the process, but as long as the filmmakers are smart, the chance is LOW.
Why unnecessarily film a child nude? Someone said up thread that the nudity was important because the story was being told from the child's perspective. I'm not buying that. The girl could have been filmed with her back showing and Ingemar's reaction to her and been just as effective.
Doing that angle is probably what most directors would have done. However, if that was what the director here did, then that scene would be very quickly forgotten, and not as effective. Do you think there would be so much fuss on this thread if the director shied out that shot?
Showing that scene without seeing the actual nudity wouldn't be as effective, 'cause you wouldn't be feeling in the actor's shoes as vigorously. Rather then feeling the curiosity, awkwardness and the "playing doctor" feeling. Instead, you'd be feeling like a camera cop out.
It's like filming a scene of someone getting murdered and only seeing the reaction of someone viewing the murder. It might be effective, but not NEARLY as much as actually seeing the murder.
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
See, I don't think any risk should be taken when it comes to a child's psyche. That means ZERO.
That's called paranoid. Life is full of risks worth taking, you know. This risk is worth taking because when you out way the risk and benefits, you're left with virtually an extremely small risk with the benefit of film art. The argument you have is that the film art is none existent.
Isn't it possible the director was seeking attention by filming the scene his way?
Of course it's possible, but seeking attention is much more different then "business". The scene we're talking about actually contradicts your argument. If all the director was doing was "business" then he wouldn't have filmed that scene. Obviously he filmed that scene because he has feelings about what that scene means. That's what film art is about.
Orson Welles? You're talking about an entirely different time in media history.
So what if it's an entirely different time in the media history? Film art is ALWAYS around no matter what time in history it is.
Steven Spielberg? He was influenced into making a crap movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE7fzr6lQ-s This is a perfect example of how movies are made by several people with different agendas.
That is exactly my point. There are a lot of movies that are made for the soul purpose of making money. This can be seen by movies that are remakes, sequels or retreads. However, there are also other films out there that are made with passion and art.
It's a business that just happens to have talented artists in the mix.
You are correct, but notice that the artists are ironically the ones who are writing the scripts, director and filming. Of course it's a business, but it's also an art. Some films have more business then art.
I for one am an artist, who not only paints, but writes stories and wants to be an author. Out of curiosity, are you an artist?
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
Not believing children should be filmed nude is paranoid?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's paranoid to be up against child nudity when that risk is so small to be almost none existent. You have the potential risk of completely killing a child and yourself when you're on the road, but HEY you probably take that risk everyday.
Your thoughts against child nudity are the equivalent of homeschooling a child because you don't want them bullied, wont drive them because the roads are dangerous or forcing them the study 3 times as much 'cause you want ZERO chance of failing a test. These are all the same methods of providing ZERO risk to anything.
Do you know that there are women who were unwittingly violated at the ages of 12, 13, or 14 and only later in life realize that the adults who were supposed to protect them betrayed them?
Yes, I do know this. However, it doesn't really matter if the child knows it's a violation at all, what matters is if there is any coherent damage.
You can call it a violation all you want, but at the end of the day, the child who didn't know it was a violation never was upset, hurt or damaged.
Do you realize the violation of one's privacy can have lifelong consequences?
Yes, and I also know that one's privacy WONT have a lifelong consequence. Child nudity exposure really isn't that bad.
Do you truly believe it is okay for only 1 child out of a million to experience psychic pain later in life because at the age of 12 they mistakenly thought they were totally cool with being nude on film and were part of creating a work of art?
Of course I don't believe that. I don't want a child to experience that at all. The thing is, I've met a lot of girls who suffered psychic pain due to a molestation, but I have yet to see a woman scared for life because of film footage. Do you have any visual aids? Anyone in the movie business that suffered due to one simple scene of showing her chest?
I believe that parents who know every freckle on their body would be able to tell what capability their child has. Parents can tell whether or not their child is truly okay with it. All I'm saying is that the risk of potential damage is low as long as there's good parenting in the use.
You should also keep in mind that a young girl exposing herself might not be as awkward as it would for you as a child. This movie apparently was made in Switzerland (correct me if I'm wrong), where children probably aren't as easily damaged by exposing, and girl's chests aren't as private as America. I don't know, I'm just making guesses.
In America, that scene probably never would have been filmed, because we are still hung up on female's breast exposure. Which is probably a different view in European countries. I'm only guessing, I don't know about the European culture in reference to breast. What do you know about it?
As I said before, we have reached an impasse. I don't get where you're coming from and never will, and you don't get where I'm coming from and apparently never will.
Again, please don't feel like you and me are simply oil and water and wont understand each other. I am very glad we're having this discussion, and I like hearing from the opposite side. If the discussion feels like it goes to long for you, you can simply not respond for a while and take a break. I don't want you to feel annoyed or like this is exhausting. :-) This is simply an insightful discussion.
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
Being filmed nude doesn't provide the strength of character a child needs to deal with life and it's not required to make art more artful either.
Like I said before, actually showing the nudity on the film is far more invigorating and effective, therefor it makes the art more artful.
You seem to not think that film art isn't necessary. Do you realize that we wouldn't even be talking about this subject if that movie didn't film that scene? Do you also realize that there wouldn't 7 pages of one thread of people debating the nudity? That is PROOF that the art of this particular scene is doing exactly what it is suppose to do, and that is making people talk about it.
The reason why film art is important is because it opens viewers to talk about life. Obviously, child nudity is NECESSARY 'cause it makes users on IMDb talk for hours and hours about it ethically. In order for a society to be working, growing and getting along, we have to talk about our disagreements and views, and this movie has opened that discussion successfully. So a girl showing her chest to the camera was definitely worth it.
Nobody knows what's going on inside someone else's head no matter how well you think you know them.
Of course we don't know that for sure, but seeing how humans all have brains that work similarly, we can get a very good idea of what a child's idea and mind is most likely thinking. The thing that adults have to do is take into account what makes a child fool themselves. In other words, what causes a child to THINK she's okay with nudity when really she's not? That is determined by the girl's personalities and what she already knows about her body.
Psychiatrists would love to pinpoint THE MOMENT that created the damaged adult in front of them, but often times it's not as simple as that.
When is it not that simple? For us none-psychiatrists, it wouldn't be easy to pinpoint the damage, but for a regular psychiatrist, when is it not easy?
The preteen and early teen years are confusing no matter what culture the child is growing up in.
How do you know that? If you live in America like me, then I'd hope that you've either spoke with people in other countries or actually been there.
What about the countries where woman walked around topless all the time? Do you think a little girl from that country would have a problem with nudity? No, she wouldn't.
While you are correct that children all get confused no matter what country, that really doesn't change my point. My point is that the way a society raises a child has a huge effect on what she's comfortable with, both during the scene and the rest of her life.
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
[deleted]
This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever read. I'm out.
Okay, clearly you didn't read any other part of my post, 'cause you didn't even bother to address any of my other points.
You do realize I made more statements then that, right? It's not necessary JUST because it makes IMDb members talk about it, but because it makes other people outside of just the internet also talk and think. I'm sure every American who watched this movie had something to say about that scene with someone else. That. Is. A. Good. Thing.
Would you like to make an actual argument against any other part of my post rather then just that one sentence?
___________
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100%
proud of it copy this and make your signature! share
"Child nudity in film is wrong no matter the context."
Fine, it's great you have your opinion. Just know that if you feel uncomfortable, it's because you are sexualizing them - not the makers of the film.
There is a sum total of no titillation whatsoever directed at the audience. This film involves exploring what kids experience as they grow. Such scenes are vital to such a film.
Also I hope your discomfort would not lead you to support the right wing politicians who think such art ought to be banned. Because really, the discomfort is your issue - nobody else's.
Come on. This is a great movie about how childhood can be.
I know mine happened to be much like this. I have been fortunate enough to travel a lot and get some perspective. What troubles me is the idea that a nude child is automatically pornographic in some way. I hate to tell everyone,
but children are nude sometimes. A ten year old boy sticking his penis in a bottle makes you uncomfortable ? Ten year old children are really like that. All of this stuff has little to do with the real point of the movie.
Blast away,
Very early in my life it was too late.
-Marguerite Duras
Regardless of how adults perceive (or misperceive) this film, I have to re-re-stress what k55 said above:
I went to this movie when I was young (like 8, 9, or 10) ... I'm not sure how I'd react to this movie as an adult, but as a child I was embarrased and uncomfortable watching the movie.
The fact is that k55 has offered the only child's perspective in this whole thread. The rest of us are just a bunch of adults debating how we adults see it. I have no problem with that, if you love the film or hate it. But if the question is "Is this film appropriate for 8-9-10 year olds?", we have to take k55's advice.
The whole point of a PG-13, NC-17 or R rating is simply to keep the 8-9-10 year olds out of the theatre. So why are we adults griping about it? It doesn't apply to us.
share
[deleted]
Whom are you talking to? Did you even read my post?
Do you even know how to read?
P.S. God hates nudity. Why else would she invent clothes? Read your bible and report back to us.
Please show me the place in the Bible where God invented clothes. As much as I remember God made humans and they made clothes AFTER committing sin. Before sin they were clothless as God made them.
shareI think it is rather silly to have so much debate on what amounts to a few seconds of screen time. This film dels with so many other themes. The so called controversial scenes are hardly unusual of children of that age. You can film the scenes from any angle but the point is you can't get away from the fact that children play those kinds of games. I have no problem seeing this kind of thing in films. To attribute an overly unwarranted sexual element to such things other than beyond the sexual innocence of the characters is to unnecessary pollute and pervert what is reality and at the end of the day part of growing up which we all go through. At the same time I would feel uncomfortable watching this film with any pre teen or even early teen- not sure why I feel this way. Maybe children should discover sexuality, nudity etc in their own time and exposing them to childhood sexuality, no matter how briefly in a movie, is perhaps not a good idea and I can understand why I child would possibly feel uncomfortable watching it- perhaps too much reality too soon, maturing sexually for a child can be an emotionally painful experience that you don't want to have to be exposed to in a film. As an adult I am comfortable seeing it because I have been through that growing up period and can look back at it from adult perspective- a big deal at the time but water off a duck's back now.
Chinatown is the greatest film of all time.
Come to think of it Ingemar's reaction to the budding sexuality of his girl buddy is realistically portrayed. As a pre-pubescent young boy his reaction at her changing body is very much one of awkwardness, I am not ready for this kind of thing etc. This is not about a lust-driven teenage boy having a masturbatory fantasy realised. One must also remember that young girls go into puberty at a younger age and Ingemar's reaction to Sage's body changing shows this. His reaction shows he was not ready to be confronted with it. He saw the young girl not as one growing into a young woman but as his soccer/ boxing buddy. Hallstrom did a good job at showing this awkward part of growing up and in a film which has one of its themes the pains and joys of growing up I think approprite. At the end of the film when he has his arms around her we realide Ingemar now sees Sage as an object of his puppy love. Ingemar has grown up a little from those awkward moments he had to confront earlier in the film. I remember kissing a girl at 12- I loved it but a huge part of me was saying woah what am I doing; I am just a kid.
Chinatown is the greatest film of all time.
Is this really an issue at all?...
I watched this when I was the same age as k55 if not younger and the boob scene was like "heh, boobs", nothing more nothing less I also laughed as hell at the penis in the bottle scene. I say this movie just fine for 8-9-10 year olds but I guess it depends where you live and your inherited mentality towards nudity.
shareI'm with pottan_15 on this. I watched it as a little kid. No damage done. I was probably 7 when I saw it... I thought the penis in the bottle trick was funny (and it probably saved me from falling for it myself over the following years) and the boobs scene was fascinating for me at the time. If anything, it gave me an earlier appreciation for the roles men and women are forced to assume in society, and a touch more empathy for the women in my life (not to say I didn't tease the girls when I was a kid :-p )
I'd like to know if K55 feels that his lack of comfort and embarrassment caused any lasting damage. Just because we're uncomfortable or embarrassed doesn't mean that we should avoid an experience. If we did that, most of us never would have started school. I can think of a lot of movies that have caused me discomfort.. much more than seeing some nude body parts. The real problem is that parents are often so preoccupied with protecting their children that they shelter them from normal healthy parts of growing up. Perhaps, if K55 were to think about it some more, he might agree that being uncomfortable caused him to gain a little insight.
I'm currently taking a college history class.. I'm, by far, one of the oldest students in the class. It's half filled with high-school students who are seeking early college credits. We were watching a video about Hinduism which involved some brief shots of some nude old men running into the ocean as part of an annual ritual. Our instructor, being responsible, warned the class just before this scene occurred.. and several of the younger students in the class (17/18yo) literally turned their heads and averted their eyes! I appreciate that our instructor respected the beliefs and wishes of his class, but I was appalled that the students actually made the choice to look away. Can you imagine and art class where the students shield their minds from the apparent 'sin' of body parts? These children have been conditioned by their over-protective parents into thinking that the human body is dirty and wrong.
Problem with the pottan_15's "logic" above is that there was only the SUGGESTION of the boy's penis in the bottle. Unlike the scene with the developing girl, where her adolescent breasts were fully exposed with no camera-angle, blurring, lighting tricks nor cover-ups, Ingemar's penis was only (strongly) hinted at in the Netflix™ on-line version of the film that I saw. Hinted at by the actors' attention to what we would understand the boy's crotch area to be, but it was entirely covered up by intervening scenery or props or actors' postures.
NOT that I would campaign for anyone's penis to be stuck in a bottle neck like that--as it was portrayed and I'm sure would be very painful--just for the sake of reality in a movie scene. Although I'm sure some kind of theatrical "tricks" could make it realistic looking without being actually painful, as most stunts presumably are staged for films, such as being hit in the face in fight scenes and such.
My point is that if the film makers were so liberal as to portray fully a girl's breasts, why shouldn't they be as "honest" about photographing a boy's penis, as it seemed important to film the penis-in-the-bottle in the first place. Seems cowardly or hypocritical to have such a double standard in a film. Perhaps the version of the film I saw the penis-in-the-bottle scene was edited to exclude more explicit filming and so then it would be the cowardliness of the distributors.
I don't think there was any censorship in the scene that you describe, it was the original scene. But, when you make this objection, don't forget that this movie (though for me personally it is still young and new) was made almost three decades ago, when there were no computer effects. Also, this movie was a rather slow family drama-comedy, besides made in Sweden, the genre and origin where you don't expect Hollywood effects.
shareI watched this movie when it came out and I was a pre-teen. This was a non-issue and was quite funny for me and my friends. Why? Because that's how kids are and we could relate to many of the silliness than went on.
Weird.
That's a question I suppose, but it's not a question anyone here actually asked.
This thread is not about whether the film is appropriate for a child to see.
It's about how appropriate, right or wrong it is to have child nudity in the film.
Of course given the context of the scene, any reasonable person will say yes.
And to be honest, and 8,9 or 20 year old will not want to see this - it's a film for adults. Not because of any explicit stuff, but because the theme itself would go way over their heads.
Being a girl and never really playing "doctor" with any neighboring boy, I don't think I would have caught on to the fact that he stuck his penis into the bottle. This scene would have just confused me and I might have thought it was funny because all the children in the movie were laughing.
Beyond that, I don't think this would be a film that children would be interested in since it doesn't really deal with any of the themes currently found in children's entertainment. I mean, I remember watching RadioFlyer which was a children's movie and, as an adult, I would NEVER show that to a child. Nudity isn't the issue so much as the theme of dealing with the death of a parent and budding sexuality.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
Why not? I saw Radio Flyer with my little brother in the theater as a child, and to this day it remains the most powerfully bonding film for us. It has some scary material, and might seem aimed at an audience that has a few decades of life experience, but I think there are some crucial lessons for kids found within, namely that not all adults can be trusted. It also has some excellent themes of protecting each other and sticking together, whether brother, sister, mother, or dog. Some things in life are hard to explain to a child, and Radio Flyer IMO offers a priceless jumping point for some very important stranger danger discussions. My brother and I didn't feel scarred by the subject matter at all. King was just a villain to us, but a villain that was easier to relate to than most, as well as something that would help us understand the real villains in life. The adventure, magic, and wonder elements are also very engaging for a child.
Honestly, I found the New York motel scenes in Big just as scary back then, just my two cents. ;)
----------------
My favorites:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur7568922/lists
"Being naked is something natural and everyone has a naked body, everyone has a sexuality. Not to capture that in movies would be a sin. "
That's what you say about a 12 year old girl's sexuality??
Ok Uncle Ernie...
Fiddling about, fiddling about, fiddle about.
Down with your bedclothes,
Up with your nightshirt.
Fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about.
"People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people."
"Being naked is something natural and everyone has a naked body, everyone has a sexuality. Not to capture that in movies would be a sin. "
I hope you don't disagree with the first sentence. The second one might not be clear enough, so it might make a confusion and irritate some people.
But the poster never said what is this sexuality like. "Everyone" means infants as well as people in nursing homes. But the shape, the form, the level of sexuality changes during one's life, and that must be respected. Even all people at same age don't have the same type of sexuality. But I think this movie showed the perfect understanding of children, including their ability to deal with traumas, their ability to adjust to new circumstances, the way they understand things happening around them, and in all that included the level of sexuality of kids on the edge of puberty (adolescence). (Watch other Hallström's movies like "Chocolate", "Gilbert Grape", even more "Cider House Rules" and you'll see it over and over again.)
This is my opinion, and I believe (but I can't say for sure, he/she should explain) that was what the poster you were replying meant.
Ok Uncle Ernie...
Fiddling about, fiddling about, fiddle about.
Down with your bedclothes,
Up with your nightshirt.
Fiddle about, fiddle about, fiddle about.
Great example of unhealthy sexuality, often the result of one's sexuality being repressed or exploited.
Fortunately there are many forms of sexuality and yes, even little children have it.. although it changes throughout adolescence. Little girls wanting to play dress-up and be 'girly' is sexuality. Little boys wanting to throw rocks at little girls and be 'boys' is sexuality. Sexuality doesn't begin and/or end with genitals. share
I couldn't had said it better myself! Hear hear!
shareIt's not Hollywood that thinks of nudity as porn, it's America's ignorant right wingers. They have no problem with their favorite TV and radio personalities calling for the genocide of Muslims, but heaven forbid an arty film show a child without any clothes on in clearly a non-sexual, non-threatening scene & pose. That's just over the line!
These people have enormous influence.
That is why the ratings are what they are, and America is one of the most heavily censored countries on the planet - probably THE most censored of the western counties.
Because apparently free speech only applies to right wingers. Same with being allowed to vote, habeas corpus etc.