Sexual tension between the man and the girl... - La cité des enfants perdus (1995) Discussion

[–] MonkeyPundit 14 years ago

I didn't really perceive any sexual tension in the movie (let alone and "extreme level"), and that brief nudity shot is and easily and quickly forgettable comic device.

I think that a full, intimate sex scene between Miette and One would have ruined the movie and destroyed the dynamic between them.

Remember that One is pretty much innocent- a non-violent Lemmy, so to speak. He is a compassionate and non-threatening adult figure; arguably the only one in the entire film.

Miette bonds with One because she feels protected by and cared for by him- a sense of emotional and physical security that is otherwise absent in her life. As she says at the end of the scene you mention: "He [Denree] can't complain [that] he's got nobody to worry about him".

Meitte also bonds with One out of a sense of sympathy and (for lack of a better word) charity; she realizes that he's essentially "a big kid" and that he needs her help in finding Denree; she gives him guidance and, to a certain extent, she cares for him in return.

One, on the other hand, bonds with Miette because he has a genuine(albeit perhaps puerile) desire to care for her; the same desire he has towards Denree. (Refer, for example, to the "Radiator" and the string from his sweater in the laboratory. He also bonds with her because he appreciates her help and guidance in finding Denree.

Their relationship is based on completely innocent motives. Were One and Miette to have sex, it would essentially obliterate any sense of trust, respect, or compassion that Miette has for One.

A One-Miette sex scene would also completely ruin One's character; it would have turned One from an innocent hero figure into a pedophile and child rapist.

Keep in mind that even when he's smashed drunk and has a prostitute practically throwing herself upon him, he STILL thinks only of Miette (in a caring way, of course)

I do not think that the film fell short of all- it was in no way about sex. The only reason for the brief nudity shot was that it was for comic effect in response to the flooding (and corresponding Rat infestation) of the Strip Club/Brothel (I can't remember which it was).

Honestly though- don't you think it's somewhat perverted and sick that you got horny in that scene in the first place?

You essentially got turned on by a scene in which an adult is telling a child a bedtime story and tucking her in.

reply

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

Nice analysis, Monk. I agree that any hint of sexual intimacy would've upset the balance.

I do think Miette is a bit of a tease. When she's questioning One about his ideal woman, there's a lot of sexuality in her mannerisms. Also her jealousy in the bar is definitely more than just friendship and protective instinct. In the "radiateur" scene, she seems quite willing to give herself up.

I think the characters of Miette and One should be seen in layers. Miette's outside layer shows a child, but inside she's worldly. Her counterpart, One, is an adult on the outside and a child beneath that layer.

The tension arises because they remain incompatible at both levels, outer and inner. To show them both acting as adults would destroy that poetic irony.

There's another film "Tideland" by Terry Gilliam which enters dangerous territory on this subject. It's essentially a copy of this situation: a man with the mental age of a child & a girl with the mental age of an adult. Gilliam actually shows them kissing & licking each other which really creeped me out (as well as many others). But to be honest, I wasn't disturbed by the paedophilia nearly as much as I was disappointed that Gilliam shattered the poetic balance we're talking about. Maybe he had a reason, I can't remember.

Anyway, I think it was handled perfectly in this film. There's not even a *hint* of interest on One's part. He is truly a big baby.

reply

[–] ProfessorPan 14 years ago

I disagree about the Tideland dynamics. The little girl in that movie, Jeliza Rose, didn't display nearly the kind of maturity that Miette did. The sexuality in that movie was different, because they were both mentally children. It was pretty much a more Gilliam-ed version of two kids playing "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Minus, you know, the whole nudity thing.

I generally agree with you about One and Miette, although I find their relationship totally different. The reason it doesn't go anywhere is because One doesn't want it to go anywhere. It *would* make him a legit paedo. And it would totally destroy the dynamic.

Hence, your getting horny at that is pretty much sick. And I'm seriously disturbed that you sound proud of the fact.

reply

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

It's been a while since I've seen Tideland, so you may be right. But I was still very disturbed by Tideland, while I thought the COLC scene was cute & innocent. Perhaps that's because Gilliam showed them acting in an adult fashion (kissing, licking each other). The game of "I'll show you mine" is just anatomical curiosity, but Gilliam showed sexual awakening which is entirely different. (And I'm sure Gilliam intended to disturb us, just like the ending was intended to disturb us deeply even though the children thought it was fun).

In COLC their attraction was purely emotional (no sexual advances, unless you count Miette batting her eyelashes), so I was not disturbed in the least. By the way, your last line was directed at the OP, not me right? He's the one who got horny & wanted to see a nude scene.

reply

[–] ProfessorPan 14 years ago

Yes, I agree about Tideland. Gilliam tries to make his audience squirm. City of Lost Children is a love story. (Although I'm pretty sure I heard the phrase "bedroomiest eyes since Betty Davis" somewhere on the board, and it made me laugh out loud.) Oh, I just love this movie.

And of course that line was directed at the OP. I wouldn't get snappy with anybody who likes/respects this film. It sounded like he was looking for porn in art. Anybody who can argue as well as you do doesn't need to be snapped at.

reply

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

Haha, "bedroomiest eyes since Betty Davis" sounds like something I might've said! I often make ridiculously exaggerated statements ;)

The OP's line about getting horny was pretty creepy ...the sort of thing you definitely shouldn't blurt out at Thanksgiving dinner.

You're so right about Gilliam; he likes to make us squirm. Those who understand irony can appreciate what he's doing, but I worry that some people might take home the wrong message. I think in Tideland, he was showing us that 'innocence' is a relative concept. Things that seem innocent to a child can be horrific to the rest of the world (as in the train scene). So we can't judge others nor can we necessarily condone their actions. Morality a messy situation with no clear resolution. But I worry that some people might miss Gilliam's intent, and instead they think the man-girl scene (or even the train scene) is perfectly kosher for everyone. It's when people don't squirm that spooks me!

Gilliam did a similar thing in Fear & Loathing where he seemingly showed drugs to be cool & fun. But the disturbing scene in the diner should've woken us up to realize that drugs can be a sloppy, disgusting mess. I worry that some people miss that point and instead leave the theater thinking, 'hey let's drop some acid, Gilliam says it's cool.' I guess, as with any complex message, the artist risks losing the audience completely.

Back to COLC, I'm pretty sure none of that stuff applies. Based on both my personal opinion as well as the director's commentary, I agree with you; he intended it as a simple love story, no sexual innuendo, no squirmage required!

reply

[–] Zoomorph 14 years ago

Yes I think it was the girl's eyes. I think maybe what the director intended and what happened were slightly different. The girl was probably intended to be accepting the outcast weirdo man almost like friends, but the way she made those sly glances at him and her expression looked like she wanted him to plug her.

Haven't seen Tideland so can't comment on it.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

reply

[–] MonkeyPundit 14 years ago

I do see the evidence that might suggest that Miette has something more than a platonic crush on One, but I disagree with the conclusions.

I think the look of comfort and happiness on Miette's face after the "Radiator" conversation suggests that she likes the idea of him as an older brother and a protector figure.

Likewise, Miette defends her feelings towards One by telling her orphan peers that he's just a "big kid". I can't remember the specific line here, but you can check the movie as reference.

I am familiar enough with adolescent girls to know that Miette's "crush" on One would have manifested itself more openly sometime during the course of the movie.

Miette never asked One anything about his life beyond his former profession. I believe that, had Miette harbored these feelings, she would likely have at least asked him if he was married or had any children. Such lines of inquiry are hallmarks of girls who have crushes on elder men. She had various opportunities to do so, including when they were sleeping together and when they were in the rowboat together.

Miette also never sees One with his shirt off (correct me if I'm wrong). Had the director intended Miette to have any sexual or semi-sexual feelings towards One, he could have easily made opportunities for Miette to react to the sight of One's bare chest.

When Miette defends One from the other orphans' jokes, one of them says "You must be in love" she asks them if they think they're funny. They remind her that he's a grown up and she knows it, to which she replies "He may be big, but he's not grown up", then reminds them that they might not be so grown up, either. This implies that Miette doesn't view One as an adult, but as a child. This, I think, negates the idea that she has an adolescent, "older man" crush on One.

In the rowboat on the way back from the exploding laboratory, Miette does look lovingly at One. However, while she is rowing the same oars with One while he is sitting behind her (an otherwise suggestive arrangement), she not only doesn't take what would be a good opportunity to kiss him (given the proximity of their faces) but also doesn't even touch his hands (another good opportunity, given the proximity of their hands). Their hands are not touching at all.

I think that even touching hands with him, or kissing him on the cheek, would have been a giveaway.

reply

[–] smoke0 12 years ago

Miette never asked One anything about his life because she is a young girl, and young girls don't give a rat's ass about their crush's marital status or relatives or career or future prospects. Young girls don't care about anything but their romantic-right-now vision. That's the innocent beauty of being young, the young don't ever worry about those things and they certainly are not a hallmark of any young girl who has a crush on an older man, unless that young girl is an abberantly mature gold-digger.

Revenge is a dish that best goes stale.

reply

[–] liven1812 14 years ago

I'm assuming most of you are guys? Do you have little sisters? Young girls, probably starting at 6, all the way to about 12 (the top end age probably coincides with “the talk” and realizing what reproductive biology is), have intriguing fascinations with older, teenage, even young adult, males. My sister, at about 8, LOVED (I mean full out, speechless, romantic, “I want to marry you”) a young man from our church she hadn't ever even spoken with. If she did speak to him, it was lost in a host of giggles. Well, after him, there was another who she fell in love with. In the same logic that boys chase girls and are rude to them, those they like typically, is a young girl falling into some odd form of romance with guys. There isn't anything to it.

One brought the girl on to be a little sister, and she loved him in a typical, confused, childish way. This love was both innocent, but absolutely, in her own mind, romantic. Enough with this pedophilia garbage, he obviously showed no signs of THAT. If you want to imagine that several years off they had a thing… go for it.

reply

[–] ProfessorPan 14 years ago

No, I think you make some very valid points. It looks like Miette did experience that older-man crush that lots of young girls get. I agree, it's very typical in girls of her age. I believe One, for the most part, indulged her ("Plenty of time to find shoes One's size") because he didn't want to hurt her feelings.

But, a film is only what the audience makes of it. So, if the audience wants to believe that there's a romantic connection between them in the future, then there is. If only for that audience member.

And by the way, I can't speak for any of the other members on this thread, but I'm not a man at all. I have a boy's name, but I'm female through and through.

reply

[–] Shiny-NZ 13 years ago

The original post in this thread sent a shiver up my spine. So Creepy. It's a special kind of person that sees the innocent and harmless crushes of young children as encouragement to be acted upon. Futhermore, what kind of self-respecting grown up refers to shots of women's breasts in films as being 'tits'? Time to update your vernacular if you want to be taken seriously by any woman with half a brain. I can only hope that the whole post was from some sad troll.

But in case any fool reads the original post nodding: young girls (and boys) do get crushes, and growing up on the streets would certainly lend Miette a more mature air - but the relationship between Miette and One is clearly established as that of big brother/little sister. Despite mentally seeming like a child, One is still the adult in the relationship.

If One had acted on Miette's crush he would have been a paedophile and thus the villain of the movie, not the hero. How could this film recovered from the horrific violation of a child?

reply

[–] burtthedestroyer 13 years ago

OP is clearly a troll. So everybody who thought he was serious just got trolled.

reply

[–] julie_robin2 13 years ago

Although obviously she is perhaps a few years older it reminded me of 'Leon' (The Cleaner, I think, in the USA?) where Nathalie Portman's character tells Leon that she loves him.
Perhaps the French are more willing to portray onscreen how young girls get crushes on men?

I prefer Imaginality to reality.

reply

[–] bigkabuto 13 years ago

Wait...you folks actually discussing a sexual scene between the two and not even saying it would be wrong as hell? Let's not forget One is an adult and the girl is a very young girl, a kid. Are you folks serious?

reply

[–] julie_robin2 13 years ago

Well I would have thought that that was a given without saying so, but if we need to say so then yes, obviously it would be 'wrong as hell'.
Personally I didn't see the scene as 'sexual', merely a young girl with perhaps a romantic crush on a man she sees as a hero. From her point of view it wasn't about sex at all, why would it be at her age, it is just as adults viewing this that we are aware that she may have made herself vulnerable to an adult man if he had decided to take advantage of her adoration of him. (Though the character has himself been set up as quite childlike).

I prefer Imaginality to reality.

reply

[–] virtualmetal 12 years ago

It's all in the process of growing up, I agree. This whole thread was confusing!

reply

[–] HighOnBlueTomorrows 13 years ago

"Failed to deliver" a sexscene between a man and a little girl? Getting horny from watching it? Wtf are you even saying?

I'm not even gonna bother with answering your question.

You don't insult my english - I don't insult your mother.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MonkeyPundit 12 years ago

I think one has to consider what, arguably, is One's intellectual impairment here. Not that he's a "Lemmy" archetype from "Of Mice and Men", but I don't think that One, as a character, is fully developed enough- on an intellectual level- to really be considered the type of "man" for whom the sexual tension would be relevant.

reply

[–] shadowphile 12 years ago

Having just watched the movie for the first time, I read it this way. Miette was inquiring as to whether he would find a wife in the future and if so, what she would be like because she did have a crush on One. His response was worded in such a way that she would be reassured but would not be falsely encouraged.

Was there sexual tension? No.

Was there romantic interest on Miette's part? Yes.

Miette was the oldest of her circle of thieves and would soon be moving out of that roll. There would be very few places she could go. By helping One, she was helping herself and developed feelings for him that were at the same time protective, filial and romantic.

One seemed to have a habit of adopting strays, first Denree and then Miette. He was big hearted, as evidenced by his inability to kill the whales after he heard them sing. Miette was one of his strays and he knew enough to recognize and not destroy Miette's romantic fantasy.

I do have to agree that the adult Miette was quite attractive.

There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls. -George Carlin

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

It wasn't sexual tension, it was love and attachment. Although One was a strongman he was a big kid at heart and Crumb was the adult in an emotional sense. They completed one another.

Fatima had a fetish for a wiggle in her scoot

reply

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

I don't entirely agree with you, Miss Transfusion.

I think everybody's looking at this subject the wrong way. When it comes to child actors, the situation is different. It's not as much how the characters are responding to each other (per script or interpretation) as it is how the child is relating to their adult counterpart's person. Children don't possess a distinct boundary between reality and acting/imagination. To me, there were moments when it was evident that Judith Vittet was infatuated with Ron Pearlman beyond the platonic sense.

I'm not saying she was exhibiting overtly lustful vibes, in the way Natalie Portman seemed to with Jean Reno (notice again, I'm not using the character's name) in Leon. But on the other hand, her interaction with Pearlman came off differently (also) than that of Dakota Fanning's with Denzel Washington in Man on Fire. In MOF, there was no overtone or heightened interest beyond innocent (though ardent) friendship displayed.

To me, these three films each present a different kind of child-to-adult dynamic, largely due to the way the child "actor" related to the adult (person) during shooting (and by 'shooting', I mean the entire shooting period, 'on' and 'off' camera). Important to note is that Fanning was a couple years younger than Vittet, and Portman a year or so older.

Something else. Years later, Judith Vittet visited Jean-Pierre Jeunet on the set of another film he was working on. One thing she made a point to mention to him was that she'd had sex (since the shooting of COLC). The indication was that she was proud to no longer be a virgin and wanted Jeunet specifically to know.

P.S. I really like your notion that the two characters complete one another.

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

I'd be surprised if you did Mr PV. :)

You make some interesting points about the actors and what they might import into their acting. I'm not sure that it's true in this film because ... did you know that Ron Pearlman actually hit Judith Vittet under Jeunet's direction? (You might do). I imagine their relationship was a father-child one in part because of the trauma of that action/scene. Apparently it was traumatic for Ron and Judith, unsurprisingly. So they might have forged a bond that would not otherwise have existed and that may have been the tension that other viewers perceived.

When it comes to their characters, regardless of their outside relationship, there was no sexual element.

Years later, Judith Vittet visited Jean-Pierre Jeunet on the set of another film he was working on. One thing she made a point to mention to him was that she'd had sex (since the shooting of COLC). The indication was that she was proud to no longer be a virgin and wanted Jeunet specifically to know.

Curious.

Have you seen The Fall? I'd be interested in your thoughts on that adult-child relationship in light of what the director told the child was happening.

To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

reply

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

When it comes to their characters, regardless of their outside relationship, there was no sexual element.

I still don't see how you've established this. Are you now making a separation between sex and violence? Doesn't every sexual relationship have a dominator (haha) and a "dominated"? I'm not trying to blow things out of proportion, but I really don't how a young female being assaulted into a submissive "role" could do anything but increase the odds of sexual emmission.

Let me stress that I'm not in any way saying that such tension was reciprocated (so maybe 'emmission' is the correct word), but there are still those subtle moments on Vittet's part (I believe). And again, my point is that a child can't fully separate their character from the world beyond the stage (or the world beyond the world). To be even more direct, if someone is primed for sexual exploration, it will likely show (in certain circumstances) even if--or especially if--they're trying to conceal it.

The Fall is sitting on top of my DVD player, waiting to go in. And I didn't read your reply until just now.

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

I'm sorry PV but I don't share your psychological ideas and so, I disagree with virtually everything you write.

Hope you enjoy The Fall.

To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal.

reply

[–] lanis_cupus 11 years ago

That's your prerogative to disagree, I was just looking for more information on how you arrived at the clear-cut father-daughter dynamic you asserted. At any rate, I think this individual covered the pertinent ground better than I did (though from a somewhat different angle).

"It's also probably not a coincidence that her dress is red: Red, the color of sexual excitation. Red as in little red riding hood, etc. She is on the cusp of sexual interest, which makes her attachment to One more interesting." -cableaddict
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112682/board/thread/101292679

The rest of it is just me crusading against children being cast in adult-themed films. Something that no one is going to change my mind on. (although COLC is one of the most benign cases)

reply

[–] jnathan 8 years ago

You completely miss the point here. The character One is basically a child in an grown man's body while Miette is a young teen girl who is far more mentally and emotionally mature. In reality she's the adult and he is the kid.

My vote history: http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=9354248

reply