We send the kids to school. Well, it's the law, but do they really want it? Yes, it is for their own good and for progress and future of mankind, but most kids don't realize that, it looks like force to them. We want kids to learn languages, play piano or violin, go to ballet or play tennis, join literary groups or scouts etc. How many of them like it? And, unlike school work, most of them will never be dancers, sportists, poets. Isn't that force? Don't we force them to clean their rooms because we, adults, have an idea how their room should look like?
And, back to movies. Every scene in every movie (more or less) is in the script, so everyone can have objections in advance. Movies contain numerous scenes that can be considered unpleasant to someone, frightening, dangerous. We may sometimes refuse to see it, but in kid's eyes they may look different. What about a kid ashamed of his voice that has a singing role? Maybe it's a comedy and kid with such a voice is chosen on purpose - but does he/she like to be laughed at? How do you know they are not forced? Or does every kid in every Lassie-type of movie really like dogs? Do you know how many kids are afraid of dogs? How can people be sure what were the actor's feeling while making such a scene? Or making a scene on the top of a building if someone suffers from acrophobia? And think a little, what kind of the roles are given to fat kids that are often target of jokes or even bullying in real life? What can they expect when they come back to their classrooms, kindergartens, playgrounds, streets?
Yes, I agree that noone, at any age, should be forced. But why do you limit it only on some particular situations?
After all... How do you define force?
reply
share
Clarissa76
18 years ago
Hi Przgzr,
I realize that you're trying to open up the field and question the assumptions on which my post is made, but I honestly don't see that the analogies are synonymous, similar, or relevant.
I'm not limiting it in some particular situations. I made a comment with regard to *one* particular scenario. As for force, the definition of it varies from situation to situation; for most people possessing commonsense, the definition of it is fairly plain. Most people would say that a child should be "forced" to go to school (barring any significant mental/physical/emotional problem), but most would not say that a child should be forced to act with dogs if afraid of them.
But more to the point, I don't believe that force should be an issue at all. This was the underlying point I was trying to make earlier. I don't believe in photographing unclothed children, period. Force or no force, consent or no consent. They are children, they do not have the ability or authority to consent to such a thing. This is instituted to protect them.
reply
share
przgzr
18 years ago
Hi Clarissa!
The examples I've made were made on purpose to show a range of possible forces we use not only on movies, but in everyday life. From one ridiculous example as school is, because we all know that children have to go to school and our civilisations depends on it, to the other extreme like arachnophobia, and I didn't mention (afraid my post might be too long and you'll give up reading) even more extreme example like making dangerous scenes that might lead to injuries and death like two kids that were killed together with Vic Morrow by a helicopter during making a film scene.
So, yes, there is a commonsense distinction between these extremes, but there are many, many situations between them. How can you be sure that a child is or isn't afraid of dogs? He/she would tell? He/she would be able to consent? How do we know that the child wasn't ordered by his parents (hoping their kid will make a career) to say that he/she liked dogs? But if we know that the family has dogs in the house, the child plays and goes for a walk with them, we could feel safer the kid wasn't forced to do the scene. So, my point is that it is often hard to be sure if "force" (and it is a rather hard word, I'd even include word "pushing" or "influence") has been used, and also that one thing might be inaproppriate for one child and completely different thing for another one.
reply
share
Clarissa76
18 years ago
I remember when those two children were killed; it was a horrible tragedy. I also think that it goes toward proving the point I was making: that children, b/c they aren't capable of making informed consent for every issue, are given protections that adults aren't given. Those children never should have been in the position that they could have been injured. If an adult wants to put himself in that position, then that is his call.
Same goes with nudity. Children aren't able to give informed consent, so it simply should not be permitted, period. If it's not permitted under any circumstance, then the issue of force will never be an issue.
I understand what you're saying about force and the differences between children, but in the interest of protecting all children, general guidelines need to be established. We can't start making distinctions between one child being able to handle it and not another child. What a child thinks she can handle at 13, and what she really can handle, are not always going to be the same.
reply
share
przgzr
18 years ago
Regarding nudity... I don't think it is the same as life threatening situation. It depends on culture, tradition and family. There are tribes where nudity is normal, their traditional dances and ceremonies in traditional clothing sometimes include certain nudity (and topless is quite often for any age). I don't see any forcing or any traumas this child can have. Similar is situation with children in naturist families. Neither they feel uncomfortable, used to be nude among others, nor other people's nudity bothers them (at least till too many people try to interfere in their life style). So - except life danger on black side and school on the opposite - there are many grey zones.
Imagine a movie with a plot placed in the boat in the ocean. A person of any age who grew up in a seaside town, good swimmer, maybe with some experiences in sailing, won't have a problem with that. But bring an actor from Alps or Gobi or Arizona who has never seen more water than a brook... would it be the same?
reply
share
Clarissa76
18 years ago
Hi again,
The issue of cultural differences is a valid, and frankly, I wasn't even thinking of them when making my points. I was focused more in the Western tradition in which people are clothed, and in particular on the Western tradition of photographing nude (for any reason).
In that Western tradition, excepting perhaps instances of documentaries involving naturists, I don't feel it's right. How does one judge when nudity is acceptable and when it is not? How does one manuever through the "gray zone"? There are simply SO many opportunities for "art" to be twisted for salacious purposes, and so many clever ways that people are willing to do it for the sake of money. The director's and producers' assurances aren't enough, for that reason. Parental permission isn't enough--sadly, some parents are willing to exploit their children for money, or for other reasons. The children aren't able to make those assurances, for the reason that they can't give informed consent.
reply
share
przgzr
18 years ago
Hi, I'm glad we're still here!
I agree with you, but there are (as I explained before) many other items in the grey zone, and our Western tradition is so focused on sexuality that all other possible doubtful situations stay unnoticed or neglected. It is the same civilisation that made a famous king kill his wives so he can marry again, not to mention countless men and women that have lost their lives because their religious husbands and wives were raised in belief it is a smaller sin to kill them than to divorce or have an affair.
What about children smoking in movies? Are they already heavy smokers and noone was taught how to smoke for the movie? And, talking about money, doesn't tobacco industry have interest in showing kids smoking so a number of consumers in new generation (that identifies with the characters) can be increased? What do you find more damaging for the kids, having a cigarette or having a shower?
And while countless boards were written about Thora Birch's breast in 'American Beauty' (was she or wasn't underage) and similar scenes, I haven't read so far a single objection about language of child actors. It is "cleaned" in sitcoms and tipical family movies, but elsewhere it is very different. And even in sitcoms (let alone teen comedies and B-movies) you can hear kids of all age talking about things that could provoke a heart attack in someone who believes in childhood innocence and lack of knowledge; not to mention sexual allusions that are often climax jokes of the movie or serial. So, either the kids don't know what they are talking about (could you believe it?), or they are being forced and abused, or they already know everything, so they are well informed (and in a world like ours I don't know how could they not be), so the informed consent must be looked from a slightly different angle (not forgetting all that you've correctly pointed out!).
reply
share
latinoreheat-1
17 years ago
Everyone needs to go and see 'Innocence', a french film featuring alot of naked children, all of which are under 14 at the most. It recieved a 15 age rating in the UK for it's DVD release and features no sexual content at all. Like the title of the film, it's all innocent. It's also an excellent and haunting film!
reply
share