child nudity? - Mitt liv som hund (1987) Discussion

[–] marianeta 18 years ago

why is it that so many people can have a problem with nudity in this kind of scenario, but they turn a blind eye to the nudity if its from a film which clearly exposes the breasts of an underage african or american indian in the jungle?

there are many such films which have escaped the censors...

Carpe Diem

reply

[–] Skadeglad 18 years ago

American indian in the jungle? I must have turned a blind eye to those films as well ;-)

reply

[–] voyeur26m 18 years ago

I haven't yet seen the film, but I can see the definite double-standards perpetrating the world today.

Everyone knows kids grow up and end up having "adult parts" on them. This does not happen the day they turn 21. Big deal. Why hide it? After living in Europe for a while, I began thinking like Europeans, and was less of a prude as a result.

At lakes and beaches in Europe, I have seen girls taking off their tops or even going nude to sunbathe, or even getting changed in front of everyone else. It is no big deal. You even see teenage relationships in Europe which would not happen elsewhere. I have seen girls and boys from about 12 upwards with 16-17 year olds. No-one cares. In the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and other "prudish" countries, teenagers are scared to go nude at the beach, date anyone else not exactly their age, and are permitted to see films of people killing and raping, as long as there is no consensual physical love or nudity. If I had kids, I would rather them see all love-making and no violence than the other way around.

This whole thread is rather ironic considering, as one other wise poster here mentioned, that the US produces/consumes more porn than anywhere else. Guns: OK. Bombs: OK. Women's breasts: OK. Girl's breasts: BANNED. Male penis: BANNED. Hypocrytical, don't you think?

What is so wrong with a girl's breast anyway? It looks similar to an adult one, but smaller. Nothing ugly about it. I think the shape, in the context of the whole body, is actually rather beautiful, and am not alone in my opinion. Master sculptors/painters/photographers have captured the nude child's form in their art. A whole era of art (Victorian) recognises the beauty of children as artistic subjects.

I think there is just a lot of hate-mongering and politically-motivated fear merchants pulling strings these days, and I don't like it one bit. If an ultra-conservative church (for example) has a strong negative opinion on nudity, you can bet your paycheck a politician will pander to it in order to get all their votes, and the minority wins.

How did the world become so sick, twisted and evil that we allow guns, bombs, homicide, suicide, genocide, rape, and more, to invade our screens (and give them ratings low enough so KIDS can see them), but nudity and consensual love-making is taboo?

The human body is beautiful. Period. So beautiful it is almost holy in its own right, regardless of age. Yet many countries censor it. Yeah, blood, guts and killing one's fellow man is fine, but an errant nipple (god forbid a CHILD's nipple) could see a movie banned.

I say it is time to put prudishness aside, recognise all human bodies are beautiful, and stop censoring nudity/sex and start censoring guns and violence.

As a world, we have gotten our priorities very wrong.

E-mail me if you'd like to chat more: leconnoisseur @ artlover dot com

Le Connoisseur

reply

[–] lunne 18 years ago

Very good reply!
I too think that the double-morale in the U.S and other countries is just plain strange. WHY oh why is it okay to show a womans partially or fully exposed breast, but not a girls.

I myself is swedish (bra och fylliga inlägg förresten przgzr (at least I suspect you're swedish)) and I can tell that what has been said about the view on sexuality in Europe differs from that in, MAINLY, U.S.A.

I myself is 16 years old, and I'm perfectely OK with saying that I found that moment when he helped her take of her bandages to be both emotionally and sexually charged. I myself prefer small breasts, and don't think that there is anything strange about that, nor the viewing of her breasts. You ARE seeing the movie through his eyes mostly, and he sees nothing strange in seeing her breasts.

In short;
Very intresting topic, where a lot of emotions and views get expressed, but I personally don't think that there is anything to it.

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Sorry... I'm not that lucky to live in Sweden, but I'm lucky enough not to live in USA.

reply

[–] lunne 18 years ago

It doesn't matter where you live; ANYWHERE but Swden is a bad place to live ;-)

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

If she doesn't have a problem with herself, she probably wouldn't care. I don't care what people do with movies, screencaps, books, scientific papers, whatever, as long as they do it behind their own walls (and without anyone held as a hostage or prisoner).

Just look another example, that will seem very different. Imagine a singer, a good old fashioned singer with a good voice that he is proud of, and he/she makes a record, not only for money, but for joy and art. This person gives a part of his/her soul as well as body (larynx...). How does this singer feel when someone in public - not behind his walls, but in front of millions of people - mutilates this piece of art, makes mixes, remixes or whatever he calls it, and earnes some million $, becoming a worldwide star - a DJ - just because he is ruining someones art, humiliating the original singer and his work. How comfortable can any artist be, regardless of age, in the world where it is not only allowed, not only legal, but stimulated and welcome as well?

A sportist fails on the Olympic games where a billion people auditory can see it. Do you know how many people will enjoy the moment of his mistake, failure, abort? Have you never seen sreencaps of such situations? It is more traumatic than anything what could have happened to Melinda.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Well I hate to hear all those destroyed mutilated songs and I can only guess how do the songwriters and original singers feel when they hear the new sound. But maybe they don't care. And that is not the only reason that I'm not a singer and they are. I believe it's because of the quality of my singing.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] princessleia184 18 years ago

Most of you people are overreacting. There is a part where a girl is nude but it is just a movie and it doesn't show it for very long so just stop it you dumb people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

People can be misused in many different ways. When you do something in public, it always contains such a risk, no matter if it was singing, acting, writing, sports or even science. I believe Nobel felt much worse knowing how many people have been killed (and still happen to but he is too dead to know) because of his work than any girl or woman, boy or man could be if someone uses his/her picture or movie for purpose you mention.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] william230347 18 years ago

I saw a Swedish anti-smoking television commercial some years ago where a young girl, probably about the same age as Melinda with the same size breasts, had a black gunge poured on to her bare chest to represent the amount of damage smoking does to your lungs. Maybe they had a boy version, I don't know, but no-one took offence and it seemed like a good way to warn young people of the dangers of smoking.

reply

[–] paulkimpaul 18 years ago

Hmm...one has to understand something about America. We were founded by Puritans. If one took the strictest European "branch," and made a new tree out of it, that would be America. There are many things that America and the world has started allowing since the country was made, but this country retains this legacy to today. We are all descendants of the Pilgrims who came here in 1620.

reply

[–] Petie3-2 18 years ago

Good point about the Pilgrims, it is absolutely true. Back in the 'Puritan' 1950s I swam at the YMCA nude until I was 14 or so. We took gang showers. Everybody knew what everybody looked like and it was no big deal.
During and after the 'wild 60s' anyone looking at a cute kid was a perv, and any nudity was porn.
I've been to Europe three times and around the world. I appreciate the naked body of both sexes and all ages. Porn is in the eye of the beholder, except if it is gratuitous and obvious perversion. I might even enjoy a video of a nude beach, surely for artistic sake, don't ya know...ahem....

reply

[–] anxietyresister 18 years ago

She wasn't even naked, it was only the top half of her body that was exposed. Her breasts were not fully developed, and to me it was just like looking at a topless boy. If I was the actress as a grown-up and I found out people were jacking off to my naked chest as a 14 year old, I would laugh at how pathetic they were and let them get on with it. You really have to feel sorry for some people..

reply

[–] mwshearing 18 years ago

Absolutely - not nudity. Americans see nudity in the same way they see a Weapon of Mass Destruction - where it isn't. But a lot of this thread also seems to be missing the point of how brilliantly, naturally the scene in question, and others, are acted by the 2 children.

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Wrong. It is nudity.

But it is a sweet, romantic nudity comming out of children innocence - not sexual meaning of innocence, but emotional innocence of open mind and open heart, condition of being uncorrupted, lack of greed, perfidy, hipocrisy they will learn from us adults very soon. It is a nudity that emphasizes this innocence more than prayers, school uniforms and thanksgivings with families.

This is an innocence that has to be protected, saved, preserved. But not protected by hiding, keeping in safety vaults, behind bars and army guards; not protected by some self-declared authorities, censors or jealous adults who envy kids for being young; not protected by those who have any reasons for kids never to grow up or to grow up too fast.

If we don't hide it, we may understand children and who they really are, and children may understand themselves better than watching soap operas or Hollywood vision of childhood and adolescence.

If we show it, we might remember who we once were, and want our kids to be it too, to have what we once had, and understand why they and their childhood should be protected. But many people are too afraid of what they might find out about themselves. And many are scared by efforts they and all of us should do to make the world at least a bit better place for children, the way it used to be while we were their age.

(And I hope this way I've also shared my feelings regarding to your last sentence about this movie that I keep on my own top-ten movies of all time.)

reply

[–] schmidt_haus 18 years ago

"We are all descendants of the Pilgrims who came here in 1620"

Really? All the people who live in the Chinatowns of New York and L.A. are decendants of english puritans? And the Italian Americans, not Catholic at all but Puritan? And the Irish? And the Poles, Germans, Russians? What about the native Americans?

Nice theory but it doesn't really hold up too well!

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

I believe you understand what the poster wanted to say, so don't attack him for stylish figure.

Italians don't have problem with nudity, so don't Russians, German, Swedish and many others that you mention or skip. They all live in USA and they've brought their culture and attitudes that are different from Dutch and English puritans. But who has the real influence? Either members of other nations accepted puritan's culture and standards, or they keep mouth shut and let Pilgrim passengers make a picture about USA. It is the mentality that matters, not the genetics.

reply

[–] schmidt_haus 18 years ago

Not sure I understand what you mean, "don't attack him for stylish figure"?

If my post needs explanation it's just that I couldn't agree with a generalisation that the whole of America was descended from one small group of people and that the whole of american morality has been passed down by them. And yes, as a european myself I'm well aware that Italians, Germans, etc, etc don't generally have as much of an issue with nudity which is why I referred to them in my post!

I'm fascinated by the dichotomy of american culture, for every wholesome, apple pie slice of american culture (Barney for instance) there's a Hunter S Thompson or Jack Kerouac showing the darker, flip-side, love it!

reply

[–] thetripdoctor 18 years ago

This is long already but, one thing I want to add:

This movie is not cut in america. We don't really have censors in america... we sort of have 'pseudo censorship', where they can't legally ban anything, and they can't cut stuff out, and you don't have to submit movies to the motion picture association of america at all, but movies get cut anyways. Its sort of hard to explain, even a lot of americans don't really understand US pseudo-censorship. But, we don't have a board that has the power to just go out and make a movie illegal. We've had legal hardcore porn since 1972, also. Back in the early 70s I think we had the least censorship of any country.

Anyways, this movie is not illegal in america, and if you tried to get it prosecuted as child porn you wouldn't even make it into court. I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard of it, no way you could get it banned. Even just a photograph of that scene, out of context, would be legal. This movie is rated PG-13, meaning that any age can see it, its just not reccomended for under 13s. And, its uncut.

Mainly the problem that the USA has nowdays is that "nudity" is always the point at which a movie becomes rated R(17+ unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. This was PG13 in the 80s, it probably would get R now. It becomes "nudity" when nippes, pubic hair, or genitals are shown. Asses are usually not considered nudity.

Anyway, a PG13 rated movie nowdays can have tons and tons of sexual innuendo and "skin teases" from start to finish, plus it can have a few sex scenes, but if "nudity" is shown, even for a few seconds, then it gets put into the R category. The "halftime show controversy" is the worst example of this. People don't have a problem with the very sexual music videos which play on MTV, because they always stop short of showing nudity. Parents don't have a problem with 12 year olds watching hours of MTV, which is basically an ultra-softcore form of porn. The halftime show, on the other hand, was a huge 'shocker', and parents all over the country were pissed off about it. The same parents that let their 12 year olds watch hours of MTV softcore music videos.

Anyways, the way the MPAA sees it, they are just giving out ratings that are in line with what the parents want. "We don't try to change standards, just reflect them", they say. Im sorry but if the standards of parents are that bad, then you need to rate movies more reasonably in spite of their standards. Parents standards are sort of formed by the MPAA, they assume that if nudity gets an R, it must be harmful, but excessive sexual innuendo must not be. Which reinforces what the MPAA is doing.

The MPAA is also not rating movies in line with their own standards. On the MPAA site, it says that nudity is allowed in the PG(for all ages, but still has a content description)category as long as its breif. Thats how it used to be, not anymore.

These cartoons make Mitt liv som hund (1985) look like a sunday picnic!
http://www.lungsfilms.cjb.net/

reply

[–] schmidt_haus 18 years ago

Hey there, good post!

Interesting to note what you say about the MPAA as certainly in my lifetime I think the same thing was pretty much true about the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). The BBFC can't actually ban a film, what they can do is refuse to award a certificate which means most cinemas wont show the film. A distributor (or an individual) can apply to their local authority (similar to a town Mayor in America) for a special licence to have a film screened, if approved then you can show it. If you show it without the licence you are in breach of the law and liable to prosecution.

The obscenity laws that we have are very much outdated now, the test was always if the material (book, film, picture) was likely to "deprave and corrupt" an individual exposed to it. Increasingly juries are returning not guilty verdicts in these cases (which rarely appear now) hence the reason why it's now legal to buy hardcore pornography from approved shops in the UK now.

Agree what you say about music videos and reaction to "nipplegate"

On an interesting side-note the latest "film" to incur wrath and suffer censorship here in the UK is .... a Tom and Jerry cartoon! I kid you not, someone objected to Tom smoking a cigarette in an attempt to woo a lady cat, the dropping of anvils on heads, smashing faces in with frying pans, etc is seemingly acceptable to children!

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

British laws seem to be overinfluenced by Political correctness that was invented by USA who did its best to make it a world standard, but it was nowhere accepted that strong and even developed as in UK.

I haven't smoked a single cigarette my whole life, but I am laughing and trembling seeing what has been done in anti-smoking activities last year. Laughing seeing how ridiculous thing can get, trembling thinking what is next, because it is obvious that every little thing in human life is being analyzed and put in standards, rules and limits.

This is a primary school way of thinking. "Kids will see that their cartoon heros smoke, so they will think smoking in good and they'll do the same." That's absurd. As you wrote, kids see smashing faces etc. and they don't do it. We, adults, especially parents are responsible for what the kids will do. If kids see that their parents do or don't smoke (drink, swear...), it will be the most important influence on their behaving. Maybe they'll have a few cigarettes among peers, just to show they are equal to them, but most of them won't do it often and get addicted if parents don't do it.

And an example how far this PC blindness can go - I found it on this link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081912/alternateversions

"As of 2004 the BBC which produces the series is re-editing some episodes the remove certain terms which are now considered un-PC. They are doing the same to several other programmes."

You may think it is something controverse, full of violence, sex, offensive stuff... If you have ever watched it, you'll see what I mean - they found so much incorectness in Only Fools and Horses.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Though I don't agree with your opinion I liked your last sentence, so far away from all those radical, exclusive, didactic etc posts. That's why I took liberty to visit your profile page and read your "biography" to see what movies you like. I was surprised that among so much listed I found only five that I've seen so far (3 of them horors). However, they are all great movies. But I'm suprised how did you come to this board at all? This movie doesn't seem to be similar to anything you watch - or at least like.

And when you say "extremely offensive", may I ask - offensive for whom? As a person who spent many summers on naturist beaches I can't say I was offended by any human body regardless of its age, as I was not offended by any animal or plant. Maybe, though, someone was offended by how bad I looked, but noone showed it. Being too polite, or, more likely, just didn't care, as well as I didn't care for their possible bad appearance.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] luthlieneldar 18 years ago

I like you.

As for the rest of you saying "omg r u american? All u americans need to stop being sew hung-up," shove it. Just because he/she doesn't feel comfortable with child nudity, etc. doesn't make him/her "hung-up." I didn't care for the movie (found it boring). I didn't care about the nudity either.

I'm Romanian btw.

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

I also said I liked the poster you were answering to. You probably include me in those "rest of...", so I'd like to reply though not adressed personaly.

I don't care where people come from when I talk to them. I can find all kind of people in my neighbourhood, as I could find them in Sweden or Romania or Uruguay. The problem with Americans is only when (and that is frequently, while very seldom among others) find their opinion not only right (all of us believe we are right) but the only possible and therefore obligatory for the rest of the world. It is their position of power above all of the rest. Similar to Britain on the top of their colonial power in 19th century. And far from being the problem of child nudity only, it is a problem of violence, vigilantes, free shopping and using of weapons, religion, social security system etc etc.

Personaly, I am not comfortable with certain words (that American like to call four-letter). But I won't cry every time they are said. Glengarry Glen Ross is a great movie though every sentence longer than three words said by any of character contains at least two F-words. As an whole-life-non-smoker I am not comfortable with people enjoying their cigaretts, but I find it absurd, sad and humiliating for authors as well as audience when modern censors cut smoking from old cartoons.

People do smoke. Kids will probably see it in their living room or (if lucky) they'll have to look through the window. People use certain words all over the world and we can't walk through the life with cheese in our ears. People wear skin under the clothes, so when they take them off they are nude, being children, adults or seniors. People hurt and kill each other as TV and papers show us in news coming from Iraq or our neighbourhood. But it's weird how many people deny others to have different opinions and attitudes.

reply

[–] luthlieneldar 18 years ago

I read your previous posts and didn't really include you in that. What I was saying is, yes many Americans like stuff censored but why make such a bid deal out of it? Is it hurting anyone? It's a preference and frankly there's so much *beep* in this world I don't blame them for not wanting to see/hear certain things. Now, I for one, don't think everything should be censored. We're given choices and you can choose to watch this movie and then you form your opinion on the movie. Maybe you didn't feel comfortable watching young children nude and maybe it bothers you. So what? So then we have all these folks coming on here saying "You need to get over it"!!!!! No, all of you saying that need to STFU and let the person be. It's alright to not feel comfortable seeing it. And I understand LarryIrwin's opinion and curiosity on this subject, being from Asia where skin is/was not so much shown.

Sorry to rant on you and I hear what you're saying and I like it. I guess what I'm saying is it's alright to have your own opinion on this movie. Whether you liked it or not, whether the nudity was right or not, I don't think we need others taking that person down and telling them what kind of opinion they need to have.

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

It's quite refreshing to read opinions like yours. This is what I also intercede for: people should be free to chose, but they have to be 1) allowed to have a choice, 2) be informed what choice they have.

First, if you already cut movie or forbid it entirely, you don't give a person a chance to chose. This is a twisted look at the democracy: we'll fobrid everything that can stir up the water. If a Mohammed picture is shown, forbid it. If a Holy Cross is in public, forbid it (take it off the wall). If skin is shown, forbid it (movie, and if possible, skin too). If you hear a joke, forbid it (just to be on the safe side, someone might have an objection). If you see killing the animal forbid it (only the movie, because if you forbid killing animals we won't have steaks and burgers any more). This is just a safe way to keep people peaceful, and to keep on ruling. Everyone has the same right to be safe, to be protected from all kind of disturbance. Everyone has the same right to be bored and have brain washed. I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember how it looks like when everyone is equally free to be poor and keep mouth shut. And, yes, they called it democracy, too.

Second, if you are well informed you won't be mislead into something you don't want. And if you still do it (in this case watch a film with content you don't approve) it's your fault. MPAA is not bad, but people (especially out of USA) misunderstand it. Internet pages like Kidsinmind (or something like that) and page edited by American bishops also can inform people well and there are surely enough movies that person can chose after he finds which are not fitting in his life style and attitudes. So, no need for inputing any opinions in anyone's mind, and no need for cutting anything. Just good information.

By the way, I believe that censorsihp does hurt, it hurts the piece of art, its authors and audience that wants to see art as it was ment to be.

And maybe Americans are so often mentioned because of big influence of certain groups that demand censorship, that burn books on streets, break windows of theatres that show movies they don't approve, urge for boycottes of certain TV shows and even TV products advertised in them etc. Yes, this kind of people exist all over the world, but don't have much influence except in two similar civilisations: American and Islamic.

I remmeber the noise that "Last Temptation of Christ" made in Europe. And what happened? Nothing much. The movie has been playing, here and there a few people screamed in front of theatres. Compare it to organized resistance in USA (or, recently, riots caused by Prophet's picture). And I remember a song that was attacked by Party because it was spoiling youth with lyrics that were inputing wrong values, like having a big car, and being popular and having a better life. The singer's career - surprise, surprise - suddenly went down. But some countries managed to get over it. America obviously didn't, and I guess this is why it's trreated the way you were analysing.

And, as we both said, Americans should be let free to chose their own way. But why don't they let us do the same?

reply

[–] luthlieneldar 18 years ago

Thankyou. I also enjoy reading yours. Just out of curiosity, what country are you from?

On your reference to "The Last Temptaion of Christ," I can see both sides of the cases. Many, who are religious, don't like seeing something they base their lives on being insulted. So, should they revolt and tear down buildings and bomb countries (just giving some extreme examples)? Or should they just silently or even openly disagree with the movie, live with the insults, and move on (I guess even "turn the other cheek")? It really all depends on a lot.

And to answer your question on why Americans don't let others chose their own way...well, they do and don't. It's like if you want something one way, most of the time, you're driven to enforce it and sometimes even criticize others for their differneces. For example, if I've just read a good book and I really like it but let's say my sister hated it and she tells me what should/could be done differently. I want to argue with her and call her crazy and tell her to re-read it and that she should like it the way it is. But I can't make her like it. I don't control her. Probably the most I can do is tell her to accept it the way it is and re-read it. Maybe that's how it is in these cases. Like when people get into huge ridiculous arguments on how good/bad a film is and then they try to convince the other person it's a good/bad film. Somtimes though, after explinations, people do change their opinions on films.

Ha, I don't know if that help. Maybe that's just how it is with me.

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

That's how it should be, but mostly it is not so in real life.

I usually don't expect people to change their opinions (though my discussions sometimes appear to be quite steamy), I'd just want them to try to understand - first that someone has different opinion, second what that opinion looks like, and if possible as third to understand the reason this other person has different opinion or attitude.

Alas, most of people have arguments like "This is how it should be" or "Everyone/noone does it & everyone knows it is good/bad" or "if you don't agree with me you are sicko/perv/freak/jackass/idiot/..." and think it is the end of discussions because they, as supreme persons or supreme nation, can tell the rest to shut up unless confirming their statements.

Americans look today a lot like USSR in Brezhnev years. Stalin made his influence region by occupation (like Baltic states) or semi-occupation (Eastern Europe), but Brezhnev invented the "export of revolution", stimulating politicaly and helping military pro-Soviet forces in far away countries like Angola, Ethiopia, Syria etc. And as long as they were implementing Soviet values in their life, they were considered "good" and could expect help; if not so, they could be removed by more suitable ones. Today (meaning last few decades) America is doing the same, often however under the vail of UN, NATO etc. Attacking usually leftist countries and persons (Grenada, Noriega in Panama, Iraq, Somalia etc), and sometimes radical right ones to keep some balance (Haiti), they also promt witch hunts agains other persons or nations that are either too strong to be attacked, or in such positions that USA doesn't want to be overexposed against them. Do you remember sanctions against Austria because they had Waldheim for president? He was legally chosen but USA (together with some European brain-collonies) demanded from Austrians to "freely and voluntary" remove him (the same like Castro in Cuba, Hussein in Iraq etc). So, nations are free to chose as long as they chose those who are suitable for USA.

About the movie mentioned before... People who believe in something should express their opinion - in fact I think Europeans can be too quiet sometimes. But noone forces them to watch the movie. It's not as in the years when we were collected from schools and sent to cinema to watch propaganda movies. Even if "Last Temptation..." was on TV, there are two important buttons on remote control: change channel amd switch off. So, express the opinion, yes, warn people with similar attitudes, yes, but how can bombs and burning fit into any religion? Too often people just use religion as an excuse for different purposes... violence being one of them. Therefore I can't consider them religious.

I am against violence, and I accept the "turning the other cheek" - as long as you have enough big supply of cheeks. All I can't accept is any attack on human lives, from abortion and death penalty to euthanasia. This led me to a months long discussion on another board with an American feminist who - what a coincidence - a few days ago asked me, out of curiosity as she said, where do I come from. So I told her to take a map and mycroscope, but I think you won't need it since my homeland Croatia isn't far from Romania.

Just a remark... we don't mention Hallström's movie any more, though being on its board...

reply

[–] luthlieneldar 18 years ago

Well, it sounds as if you have a pretty healthy outlook on life. I've enjoyed reading your replies.

Ah, Croatia. Never been there but I would love to go there someday.

:)

reply

[–] solex10 15 years ago

I think that if any body under the age of 18 is nude in a movie it should be considered extremely offensive. But that's just me.

It is just you, and it's getting tiresome to the max.

reply

[–] mmhmm131 18 years ago

She doesn't even have anything that would make it wrong, shes still like a 12 year old boy in the boob department.

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

And what is the margin when "good" or "right" nudity becomes a "wrong" one? Is it the size of the breasts? Which size would make it wrong? Should it be determined by size of bra, circumference of chest or breast shape by Tanner scale? And which size (if any) would make it O.K. again? What about women that never develop full size breasts (I know a girl who, due to pituitary gland disease, had breasts a little bigger than Saga's at the age of 20)?

This bidding could be followed by making a strict and definite measure of covering breasts: is it wrong if you can see nipples, any part of breast, anything below clavicle; or maybe a certain percentage of breast skin?

Isn't it all ridiculous?

Probably not, comparing to the fact that IMDb lists "child nudity" in "Beautiful Mind". Since I find that movie great (almost like My Life as a Dog) I have seen it several times, so I've discovered that this nudity (therefore a very controversal issue for some people) consists of one or two seconds long scene showing a bottom part of back of a 1.5 year old baby while changing diapers preparing for bath.

reply

[–] mmhmm131 18 years ago

Why does it matter so much? It's not like there's not nudity in every other movie. And when is there ever child nudity in A Beautiful Mind?

reply

[–] przgzr 18 years ago

Why does it matter? I don't know, it is something I've been asking for a long while. But some people open the same discussions over and over again, either asking or complaining.

About Beautiful Mind - read again what I wrote. And then check on "Plot Keywords" page of this movie. All these pages are made by people like you and me, and someone did find this important or disturbing, so he/she warned us all and noone replied nor the administrators erased it. Even more, on the same page you can find "infant nudity", therefore it is so important that it has to be mentioned twice just in case someone might miss one note.

It seems that it really matters to some people, and they have nothing more clever to do.

reply

[–] bitememan12 17 years ago

Wow! People have problems with a brief bit of non-sexualized nudity in this film? Check out Leolo some time, there's next to no nudity in that film and it's enough to make even me blush. The scene (from what I remember, bear in mind I was very young when I saw this film) is absolutely benign in nature. It's the first time Saga reveals any sort of femininity in the film. . . only to have her gesture collapse upon the slightly prudish cloddery of Ingmar. I'd rank it as early misadventures with the fairer sex more than as an overly sexualized scene involving a minor.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

reply

[–] movieman200 17 years ago

man some of yall guys are crazy. it's like yall see a naked kid and start thinking all kinds of stuff. i just watched this movie and decided to come on here to see the reviews and stuff and then i see this thread. i'll admit the movie is uncomfortable to watch with certain ppl around b/c some of some of the themes. but i could care less about that stupid little nude scene with that girl. those of yall worried that it should be banned or making a big fuss about it, i dont understand. it's like yall see it and think too much into it, then they got a whole bunch of other ppl start writing about it, and that gets other people starting to have wacko ideas and next thing u know there's all kinds of perverts and pedophiles

reply

[–] henriwr 17 years ago

I think you shoul see Kay Pollak´s film Barnens Ö. In that film we can see a 15-year old boy having an erection. That is nothing compared to a girl revealing her boobs.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amandabom 17 years ago

emma .i grew up in this time .(the eighties) in sweden...We were always playing and bathing nude i´n the summer.our parents taught us to be realxed with our bodies.And i saw this movie when i was a child ,and was totally fine with the nudity and how they grow up and discover life.Nudity and sex is not a big deal for us here.we have a more relaxed attitude about it here.And it takes away the tabuness from it. therefore we have no large porn industry here (although it does exist).But i was shocked when i came to the US.everything was about sex,and kids weren't allowed to see eachother naked ..ever.. to me it's a starnge way to teach your children about life and sex. You know what they say about forbidden fruit.

reply

[–] garreck27 17 years ago

huset, I couldn't agree more. I was born in Helsingborg as a kid and almost all of my "kiddie" pictures where I was at the beach or in the yard playing in the water is of me nude. Some adults and most children are nude at the beach and else where. It isn't a big deal. And in response to a post farther up where the woman stated that pornography and nudity in films would only worsen the harassment of children and woman: that has been proven to be false. Back in the 60's when Playboy first came out, feminists and their supporters went nuts thinking that rape ans sexual assult would increase exponentially. After a number of years of research it was discovered that "addicts" of pornography became more sheltered, hermit like and anti social. The would keep to them selves more. The opposit of what you would think happened. Viewing pornography did not cause more rape and sexual assult. I am not condoning pornography here. Because I disagree with it. But we need to get our facts straight before just spitting out random ideas. As for the nudity in this movie: It reminded me of my own youth. Who of us wasn't curious about sex when we were growing up? Get over yourselves already.

reply

[–] cwoliver-1 17 years ago

Well I guess you're right. I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't have naked children in movies.

--------------
Euro police in child abuse raids Operation Icebreaker
15th June 2005

Police across Europe raided 150 different addresses on Tuesday. . . .Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK took part in the operation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/15/euro_child_abuse_raids/
--------------
Europol conducts child porn raids
The Hague
September 22, 2005
Police carried out a series of raids in six European countries on Wednesday as part of a co-ordinated investigation.
The raids - condenamed "Operation Icebreaker II" - took place in France, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and Britain.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/breaking/europol-conducts-child-porn-raids/2005/09/22/1126982153849.html
--------------
Germany | 02.08.2004
Preventing New Perpetrators
While German programs to prevent sexual abuse of children have so far mainly focussed on awareness among parents and educators, a new project in Berlin plans to offer treatment to people before they become perpetrators.
Standing in a swimming-pool and surrounded by children, he could sense the others eyeing him suspiciously. He felt as if a huge slippery ball was floating on the water in front of him, a ball he was struggling to submerge so that no one else could see his shame.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1281584,00.html
--------------
Spanish police make child porn raids
July 15, 2007
MADRID, Spain --Spanish police investigating a child pornography ring have arrested 66 people and seized computer hard drives containing 48 million photographs and video images, officials said Sunday.
The nationwide sweep came after a 10-month investigation that was coordinated with Interpol and began with information supplied by the Germany police, the Interior Ministry said.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/07/15/spanish_police_make_child_porn_raids/
--------------
Web child porn raids across Europe
July 2, 2002
THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- Police have swooped on a suspected Internet child pornography ring in a series of raids across Europe.
Police raided 50 premises in Belgium, Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden in a clampdown on a major Internet-based paedophile network the European Union's police agency Europol said.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/07/02/europe.porn/index.html?related
--------------
Norway child porn raids net 150
August 30, 2002
OSLO, Norway -- More than 150 members of an alleged paedophile network have been arrested in raids across Norway.
The raids, carried out by Norway's National Crime Police, also seized video tapes, photographs and computer material showing sexual abuse of children.
Police feared some suspects could also have sexually abused children and said more arrests could be made once the seized material had been analysed.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/30/norway.pornography/index.html
--------------
Wednesday, 14 November, 2001
Police in 14 countries across the world have carried out what has been described as the biggest ever operation to tackle child pornography.
In Germany alone, 93 properties were searched and about 2,200 people are now under investigation for the possession and dissemination of pornography.
As well as Germany, police in Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway, France, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Portugal, Ireland the USA, Australia and Canada carried out raids.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1656779.stm
--------------
Pravda
06.04.2005
Criminal group involves 1,500 under-age Ukrainian girls in porn business with parents' knowledge.
Disguised as a modeling agency, the firm rented a studio in the center of Kiev.

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/96/383/15246_girls.html
--------------
Manchester police arrest 45 in child porn raids “Operation Baglan”
14th July 2004
Mobile computing: Opportunities and risk - Free whitepaper
In brief Police are questioning 45 suspects over alleged child pornography offences following raids across Greater Manchester (GMP) this morning. Operation Baglan targeted individuals suspected of downloading paedophile images from child abuse websites. A team of 500 police officers conducted raids on 50 homes.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/14/operation_baglan/
--------------
BBC News, Operation Ore: Can the UK cope? 13 January, 2003
Operation Ore - May 2002 - Ongoing
• About 1300 arrested, including teachers, care workers, social workers,
soldiers, surgeons and 50 police officers.
• Forty children - 28 in London - are now under protective care.
• Detective Constable Brian Stevens, 41 has been charged with indecently assaulting three children.

http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/child.htm
--------------
2004-10-01
500 implicated in Australian porn raids
Police have information on more than 500 Australians who access child porn and more arrests are likely, Australia's police chief said Friday, a day after announcing the country's largest ever crackdown on the industry.
Over the past week Australian police have seized computers holding more than 2 million images of child pornography -- including some of children as young as 2 years -- and have arrested more than 150 Australians.
Teachers, a police officer, the owner of three child-care centers and an assistant to a state politician were among those charged with about 2,000 child pornography offenses.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/01/content_379394.htm
--------------
Swedish police confirm EU-wide child porn raids
7th May 2005
AFP Around 100 suspects have been questioned as part of a crackdown on child pornography on the Internet by police in eight European countries that wound up on Friday, Swedish police said.
"In joint operations [Operation Callidus] between May 2 and 6, police forces in eight countries undertook a series of raids of the homes of people suspected of child pornography crimes," a police statement said.
A Swedish champion from "a major spectator sport" has been arrested on suspicion of distributing child pornography on the Internet. While the tabloids dropped tantalising hints as to his identity - he has won "many titles, including Swedish gold" and has worked with youngsters in the sport - the man denied the charges.

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1392&date=20050507
http://www.thelocal.se/1377/20050504/
--------------
CNN
March 2, 2004
Operation Odysseus focused on Internet boards used to swap porn.
Last week police raids in 10 countries smashed a series of Internet child porn networks.

Thursday's operation, codenamed "Operation Odysseus" and run by the European police organization Europol, was hailed as one of the biggest and most successful operations of its type.
The main focus of the operation was in the German state of Hesse, although the homes and offices of more than 60 people were also searched in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/02/child.porn/index.html

reply