MovieChat Forums > The Genesis Children (1972) Discussion > DearJohnny is correct in his review

DearJohnny is correct in his review

posted 14 years ago by skinnyjoeymerlino
16 replies | jump to latest

The Genesis Children really was made for gay pedophiles. Lyric Productions put out magazines and 8mm films with titles like "Naked Boyhood". The "Lyric Boys" were publisher Billy Byars Jr's foster kids. Director Anthony Aikman tried to direct the original script which was based on a poem by Black lesbian activist Barbara Smith. Aikman was out of the country when the film premiered and was confused by critics writing scathing reviews saying it didn't make any sense. Years later he finally saw the Genesis Children and realized it had been re-edited by Byars to more prominently feature the naked boys. I haven't posted this info in a review because I can't bring myself to watch it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] space_invader64 14 years ago

I can't say I could agree with this. Yes there is nudity in the film. But not sexual nudity. Most nudity in art isn't sexual. Sex isn't even a topic related to this movie.

It is an art film that celebrates a free spirit attitude. A moment in time. Nothing perverted at all about it.

Now might people look at this nonsexual movie in an improper manor? Sure. Anything can be looked at in that way. But that shouldn't dictate what kinds of art films can be made.

[–] construct 14 years ago

I wasn't aware of this information about the editing. I'd love to see a source.

space_invader64 is correct in his description of the film. I'd strongly recommend you see it. The only possible reference to sex is a snippet of dialog which I reproduced in another thread. It implies that one of the older boys has been engaging in some sort of sex play with one of the younger boys. I don't think there is anything particularly distressing about the film . . . unless you are put off by naked teenage boys or teenage boys generally. I mean, they are pretty childish sometimes.

[–] skinnyjoeymerlino 14 years ago

Here's the link where I got the info. The info on the editing is towards the bottom.

http://thegenesischildren.wordpress.com/billy-byars-jr-and-lyric-productions/

It's a fascinating story, but I was attracted to the whole thing out of sheer morbid curiousity years ago. "The Genesis Children" was listed in the Movies Unlimited 1990 catalog under the art film section. It puzzled me as to what kind of circumstances a movie like this could be made under. A few years later I saw it in a gay run Mom-and-Pop (Pop and Pop?) video rental store but never rented it. Recently I googled the title in one of those instances when you recall something from the pre-Internet past and want to find out more about it. Until then I still assumed it was an art film that happened to feature some young male nudity, but the whole history of Lyric opened my eyes.

[–] construct 14 years ago

I had looked over the blog and quickly read the passage to which you refer. I had missed the sections on the fostering relationship between Byars and some of the boys. I had taken the relationships to be much less formal. I had also forgotten the last two paragraphs about the conflict over editing and Aikins's reaction to the finished product.

Nevertheless, I recommend you see the film. You will find that this film is pretty much as the blog describss its intention. "The story was supposed to be a modern day version of “Lord of the Flies” where young people discover the truth about the nature of mankind." The truth that they discover is that most young men acquiesce to social pressures toward conformity. The film is a fable about the conflict between individually discovered values and the prevailing norms.

It is also, as I have said elsewhere, not a particularly good film. Still, I don't think any reasonable person would confuse the film with pornography. Simply stated, the film is not indecent and is not erotic on its face. Again, I would encourage you to see the film so you would at least know the artifact itself.

By the way, I have seen the uncropped versions of many of the pictures on that site. I don't remember any with a dog, but I do remember a couple with a big snake. There may have also been one with an iguana. I'm not sure.

Obviously, I have not seen any with overt sexual content.

[–] ofumalow 12 years ago

The link to that Word Press article no longer works. Any idea where it can be found? I'd be really curious to know more about the background of this film, who made it and why, how widely it was distributed, etc.

[–] peteypoison 14 years ago

Honestly I found the nudity rather laughable and disconnected from much of the main focus of the film since there's just no point, then again a lot of movies in the 1970's had rather lengthy scenes with no real point to them, besides the obvious hippy idealism. I think the disconnection had to do with the drugs, which leaked its sorry way into the world of movies as less of a drug-use thing and more as a trend.

I've watched Du Er Ikke Alene, another controversial 1970's film which is viewed my American paranoia enthusiasts as "child pornography" when in fact, it only contains situational nudity of 2 boys in a shower.

And I own Ciao! Manhattan which stars Edie Sedgwick, not to mention The Who's "Tommy" and various other 1970's films which included drug-type disconnection at some point or another in them, or just scenes of "yay, let's be happy and run through a field and be free".

1970's was probably the most open era before the censorship crunch of the last quarter of the century.

Freedom is an important thing. Obviously many things need to be regulated, but so long as there is no sexuality about it, child nudity isn't one of them.

[–] DearJohnny 14 years ago

Ah, yes. Some folks seem to have been doing a lot of shoveling.

At any rate, as the gent who claims to have seen the film when it was first released certainly knows, there was very little overt sexuality in Gay porn from the 60's. Homosexuality was still technically illegal and pornographers were very careful to know the exact letter of the law and what they could and could not get away with.

To review: Lyric Studios specialized in photographing nude boys between the ages of ten and sixteen for pederestic porn magazines and selling movies of said boys to customers of same. No matter how frantically one dances around it, yes, it was kiddie porn.

[–] skinnyjoeymerlino 14 years ago

Actually, a documentary about the Genesis Children could make for an interesting film. I'd like to know what happened to the boys, who the hell owns the rights to the movie, and where Billy Byars Jr is today. I'm not holding my breath for that movie to be produced, though.

[–] construct 12 years ago

I would take issue with your characterization of gay porn from this period. You say that there was little overt sexuality in gay porn in the 60s and that homosexuality was still illegal.

I would note that this film was made in 1972, and there are at least a few examples of hardcore gay pornography made before then. Examples include Boys in the Sand and Seven in a Barn both released in 1971.

Also three states repealed their sodomy laws before 1972:

Connecticut 1971
Illinois 1962
Utah 1971

Granted that's not much of a market for hardcore gay pornography, but it wasn't non-existent, and gay pornographic films was shown publicly at least in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco where sodomy laws were still in place. Of course, there would also be obscenity laws that would pose a problem as well.

One member of the MPAA rating board has been quoted as saying at the time that there was some debate as to how to rate The Genesis Children but that they decided on an X because of the extent of the nudity. He did not say it was because they were concerned that it might be child-pornography. The very fact that it was submitted for a rating at all indicates that the film-makers did not think it was child-pornography, and it was rated G in Quebec.

[–] Falconeer 9 years ago

Again, what does this movie have to do with gay porn, or any kind of pornography?? Did I watch the same movie as everyone else? This movie has NO sex, or even a suggestion of anything sexual at all. I remember an extended sequence in the beginning that showed the kids running naked on a beach. The scene just made me wish that I could have the freedom to run naked on a beach. After this intro, the actors are almost always fully clothed, and exploring caves and walking around Rome, or breaking into farmhouses to steal food. And there is the great scene where they set the hippie van on fire. What the hell does any of this have to do with gay porn?? I'm sincerely confused about the comparison. Also, I agree with Canadian G rating. As I mentioned in another post, "Genesis Children" is very similar to those "Pippi Longstocking movies from the 60's. The nudity is a bit odd, but I don't see anyone being harmed by looking at it..this film doesn't even have any violence or strong language.

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] construct 9 years ago

I agree with you, Pinku. In reading over my reply from three years ago, I see that I was taking issue with placing the film in the context of gay porn in the 60s. My argument was that it should be interpreted slightly later in that period of rapid change. One might be able to talk about it as being "pornographic" by 1965 standards, but one could not possibly describe it as pornographic in 1972--not with all that had happened in the intervening years.

My point is that no child pornographer in his right mind would submit his film to the MPAA in the first place, and the MPAA didn't know what to do with it when they reviewed it. Whatever the film was, it was not pornography. If it were, the MPAA would have slapped the X on it, and nothing more would have ever been said about their decision.

Quebec's standards are very different from the MPAA's. By their standards, there is no question that this film should ever be anything but G.

[–] Falconeer 9 years ago

The thing is, "Genesis Children" is neither "porn," nor "gay." Both terms imply sexual content, or at least, sexual suggestion. This movie has neither. Just because a film has some male nudity in it doesn't mean it's "gay." It was just the 70's, and many filmmakers were enjoying the freedom of finally being able to show natural beauty in the nude form, just like the painters who created images of nude Botticelli angels. "Genesis Children" is more like "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" or "Jungle Book" than erotica. Sorry but anybody who sees a movie like this as a "sex film" should have their name on some FBI list. If you want to see an example of what COULD be considered 'child porn,' look at the Italian film "Maladolescenza." That film shows nude children in very sexual context, and will make anybody who watches it feel uncomfortable. But "Genesis Children" is as innocent as they come.

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] construct 9 years ago

Point well taken. I think we have reached agreement. I certainly agree with everything you have said in your two posts above. I wish others would see what we are seeing and let the film stand or fall on its own merits. As a work of entertainment art, it certainly doesn't deserve the kind of relentless, moralistic lambasting that it has received over the years.

[–] Falconeer 9 years ago

Since you're so fond of doing research, I suggest you google the definition of "pornography." Because it has nothing to do with THIS film, even if the creators of it provided photos for erotic magazines on the side. If you consider this stuff pornography, than you must also see diaper commercials where they show babies in diapers, porn as well. And if so, that makes you one twisted freak.. By the way, when I was the age of the actors in this movie, I also swam naked with my friends at the beach. None of us ever thought twice about it, until we got older and suddenly became shy about nudity; and then we put on bathing suits. What does that say about me? Was I a child whore hoping to be butt raped by a passerby? Your way of thinking is ridiculous, and a bit disturbing.

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] Falconeer 9 years ago

This really pisses me off. You say all this crap about the film...and you haven't watched it? Coming from someone who HAS seen the film, I can tell you that there is nothing "gay" about it whatsoever. There is not one frame of "Genesis Children" that remotely suggests ANY sexuality among any of the actors. They play on the beach and swim naked in a couple scenes; big freaking deal. Those nude scenes account for maybe 15 percent of the films running time. This is basically an adventure film, that might be appropriate for kids to watch if it wasn't for the nudity that for some reason makes people so uncomfortable. If "Genesis Children" can be compared to any movie, I would say it reminded me of the Swedish children's "Pippi Longstocking" movies! Seriously, it's just another film that deals with kids who don't have any adult responsibilities, who spend their time exploring the forest and playing fantasy games by the sea. Again, there is nothing sexual about this film; in fact it's one of the most innocent movies I have ever seen. If you're gonna call the director of this movie a pedophile, than you should call Ingmar Bergman a pedophile too, for directing "Fanny and Alexander.." because that was another movie about children. People who see sexuality in some nude kids playing on a beach, are the ones that I am most suspicious of..because THAT is really creepy.

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'