Am I the only person in the world who thinks this scene was a bit TOO real? Its like I was watching a porn or something....I mean seriously.....I wasn't expecting it at all!!!...And she was like what...15? and he's gotta be in his mid or early 20's ...RAPE!!!! I say!!!! lol....but very good movie none the less...
shareI think the sex scene was done very tastefully. I agree it was very realistic but was not that the point of the entire movie.
"You find the shame is like the pain, you only feel it once"
Not to bash your post but isn't sex scenes suppose to be as real as possible (of course without the penetrating)?
Favorite actor: Ed Norton
Favorite actress: Ellen Page
Seriously, before you go and make stupid posts inform yourself on the person in questions. She is 21 now, making her 18 during the filming of this movie.
shareJust like most of you probably called people perverts for finding her attractive in "Hard Candy" when she was probably 18 in it as well. LOL
share[deleted]
Realistic and emotional scenes is what made this movie so brilliant. Do you realize how stupid your comment sounds?
shareFYI, Ellen was 16 when MOUTH TO MOUTH was shot in 2003. Because the movie was shot on location in Europe, she had to be accompanied by a "chaperone"/tutor, a requirement she was most irritated by....
shareHow was it rape? She didnt try to stop the dude.
shareSo I haven't seen the film yet, nor do I have any concrete idea as to what the plot is, but IF her character is a minor and the guy she's having sex with is obviously legal, then it's statutory rape, even if the sex is consensual.
share16 is the legal age in most European countries anyway. And christ, it's a film.
When I hit a wall, I look up at the sky.
Well said Leb,
Don't people just love to throw that word "rape" around, even when we're talking about the simulation of (consensual) sex during the filming of a movie. Which dilutes the meaning and impact of real rape cases. That's what so-called "political correctness" does for society, when non-sins become sins. And real sins become trivial statistics.
And while I agree that there should be some kind of a limit as to what is not acceptable when it comes to the issue of adults having sex with minors, I find it curious that people are so fixated with the age-number. As if one commits rape in one's mind when finding a girl attractive when still 15 years and 364 days old (in the case of Europe, 17 years in the US), but the day when she turns 16, then bing! suddenly it's OK and all legal to look at that person with interest. Like flicking a switch.
Teenagers mature and become ready for sex in different ways, and different stages. We're definitely not robotic in that sense. Or, in any sense.
And it's sad how the politically correct crowd have effectively eliminated the meaning of the word, "consensual". Nope, it's only about numbers to them. And they're most happy when they can spin the numbers to put someone in jail, thus ruining a person's life. Then they believe themselves to be the compassionate, humane ones.
The age of consent varies by state. The most common age is 16 but some states set it at 17 or 18. California's age of consent is 18.
share"Although the age of consent is stipulated at 14 in Portugal, the legality of sexual acts with a minor between 14 and 16 is open to legal interpretation since the law states that it is illegal to perform a sexual act with an adolescent between 14 and 16 years old "by taking advantage of their inexperience."
If she seemed aroused/actually wanting to have sex with this man, and was not in a vulnerable state I would think differently. She was a virgin, also! Here, I think she was most definitely taken advantage of because of her age/inexperience not to mention vulnerable state and circumstances. This wasn't just someone of the age of consent happily having a 'kinky night' with someone a few years older. She kissed him and didn't push him away, that much is true. But I am looking at all of the circumstances meshed together.
Excuse the tangent. It was a great movie, and the scene really added to the intensity of the movie. I am not talking about the age of the actors by the way, only what was portrayed by the characters. I see where you are coming from and for the most part agree, I just think scenes like this illustrate (part of) why statutory rape laws exist in the first place.
Aside from the concerns about her age, the scene was meant to mean a few things:
1. Page's character's desire to feel part of the group which he reciprocates with sex. She wanted to feel like she mattered to him as part of the group, wanted to feel close to him. If you watch his hands around the back of her neck, he is the one who makes the first move and kisses her.
2. The Leader breaks his own rule of abstinence. Later on, he only blames and punishes her for that action. Yet, he does not take any punishment himself.
The scene was consensual as she was didn't stop him and there were hints earlier that she was attracted to him. He was her ideal, being the leader of SPARK, of what she wanted to be as a person. When she felt that she was constantly not living up to that expectation, she
3. It also shows Page's character realizing sooner than the other more devout SPARK members that the Leader is a self serving hypocrite lost in the image of his own ego. Instead of joining her with the group, it divides her further.
I'm sure by now that if there were any lawsuits about what took place during the filming of the scene, they would have been filed in a court.
Aside from the concerns about her age, the scene was meant to mean a few things:
1. Page's character's desire to feel part of the group which he reciprocates with sex. She wanted to feel like she mattered to him as part of the group, wanted to feel close to him. If you watch his hands around the back of her neck, he is the one who makes the first move and kisses her.
2. The Leader breaks his own rule of abstinence. Later on, he only blames and punishes her for that action. Yet, he does not take any punishment himself.
The scene was consensual as she was didn't stop him and there were hints earlier that she was attracted to him. He was her ideal, being the leader of SPARK, of what she wanted to be as a person. When she felt that she was constantly not living up to that expectation, she
3. It also shows Page's character realizing sooner than the other more devout SPARK members that the Leader is a self serving hypocrite lost in the image of his own ego. Instead of joining her with the group, it divides her further.
I'm sure by now that if there were any lawsuits about what took place during the filming of the scene, they would have been filed in a court.
Actually, whether it is statutory rape or not depends on the jurisdiction. Even in the US, not every state's age of consent is 18. Among Western nations (i.e. Europe and the US) the age of consent varies from 14 to 18. The age of consent for pornography in Europe and the US, however, is fairly uniform. Men and women can't legally participate in porn if they are under 18. In one famous case, an Indiana police officer was prosecuted, not for illegally having sex with a 16 year old girl, b/c she was over the age of consent, but b/c it was filmed as a pornographic act, which was not legal in that state.
AHAHAH! King you Dirtbag
shareIf she was below the age of consent having sex with an adult, then it was rape.
shareLegally, maybe, but I wouldn't in all cases call it rape in all other senses otherwise. In this movie, ... well, it's a bit of a spoiler in a sense, but the guy was definitely using her, and all in all it seems kind of close to rape. But definitely not (just) for the reason suggested by OP.
---
My vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=13037287
ya i thought that was a little disturbing. lol
every situation god has a plan. i guess im still trying to figure out what that plan was.
Some spoilers ahead::..::..
I think the thing is - she almost always looks like she's 12 or 13. Plus, the dude in this movie looks like he's in his 30's - and he's an a**hole because he just leaves her naked laying in an alley when he's done.
I was introduced to Ellen Page (like a lot of people) through the movie 'Juno'. Great flick, loved her and the characters and the writing and everything. But 'Juno' was a 'sweet' movie. After viewing a number of other movies Page has been in, she hasn't done many 'sweet' movies either before or since. There's 'Hard Candy' - no rapes or sex scenes but she does catch a pedophile murderer in part by faking his castration, then kills him (sort of).
'Mouth to Mouth' - losing her virginity to a creepy guy twice her age then being thrown into a pit for doing it.
'Tracey Fragments' - Nearly being raped by a 400 pound dude, then actually getting raped by a guy she dreams about who dumps her out of his car by the side of the road and drives away.
'An American Crime' - Netflix is delivering it tomorrow but it sounds like a barrel of laugh: The true story of suburban housewife Gertrude Baniszewski, who kept a teenage girl locked in the basement of her Indiana home during the 1960s
'Juno' - no rape but she did have a kid - while in HS.
'Smart People' - once again no rape, but she did fall for her creepy uncle - and the movie sucked.
'Peacock' - I think she was sort of raped (can't really tell) by Cillian Murphy's character (who's a total mental case), and has a kid by him.
She's a great actress but I can't imagine how all of these heavy indie movies aren't messing up her head.
I'll be glad when (if) 'Super' comes out and she get's to play a part for total laughs. James Gunn is an amazingly funny writer - I hope she doesn't get pregnant in the movie.
Next time you should mention that you will write spoilers for other movies as well, not just Mouth to mouth. You ruined Hard Candy for me goddamnit.
shareSorry, I figured the movie is 5 years old and most people had seen it. Second, when I write 'some spoilers ahead' that means...that there's spoilers ahead. If you thought there were any spoilers for other movies you hadn't seen you would've quit reading when you saw the spoilers warning, but evidently you just kept on reading.....
share[deleted]
To be honest, I agree with blissfulvision, it'd probably been better if you'd been clearer about the spoilers to other movies. It's a pretty fair assumption that "spoilers ahead" refers to spoilers for the movie the thread is about. They probably kept reading because they had already seen Mouth to Mouth and so didn't care about spoilers about that movie, assuming there may be other movies mentioned but no spoilers to them if there were. They didn't have to have "kept on reading", because the first time you mentioned Hard Candy was already with a spoiler.
I don't mean to be too confrontative, I just wanted to defend blissfulvision, and to suggest you're a bit clearer about what your spoilers are about next time.
---
My vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=13037287
To be honest, I agree with blissfulvision, it'd probably been better if you'd been clearer about the spoilers to other movies. It's a pretty fair assumption that "spoilers ahead" refers to spoilers for the movie the thread is about. They probably kept reading because they had already seen Mouth to Mouth and so didn't care about spoilers about that movie, assuming there may be other movies mentioned but no spoilers to them if there were. They didn't have to have "kept on reading", because the first time you mentioned Hard Candy was already with a spoiler.
I don't mean to be too confrontative, I just wanted to defend blissfulvision, and to suggest you're a bit clearer about what your spoilers are about next time.
yeah, congrats on ruining all the movies you just mentioned to people who haven't seen them. and you're reading way too much into it.
also, don't make up things, if you haven't seen some of those movies you've mentioned, just to have a point.
Wow, you really are an idiot aren't you. Read the first line I wrote on my review "some spoilers ahead". I don't think I can be more clear than that. As far as making things up, WTF are you talking about? The only one of those movies I hadn't seen at the time I wrote that comment was the one called 'An American Tragedy' in which I quoted what the review on Netflix said. Since then I have seen the movie and I would review it for you but
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS (is that warning enough?)
I had to FF thru most of the flick because it was too depraved even for me to watch. See, that's not even a spoiler, except I said it was depraved. I actually liked Keener and James Franco in the movie, made it more interesting.
you fast-forwarded through 'an american crime?' :( i mean it's really sad and disturbing, but who does that? it's still a good movie. one of her best performances if you ask me.
as for the 'mouth to mouth' scene in question, i just wanted to say that guy's big jiggly behind was pretty disgusting. and...yeah that was messed up. not romantic. definitely rapey.
Hahaha! dorisblake can read!
The poster you were arguing with said An American Tragedy, you uptight wanker.
Debt and debt and debt and debt and debt and then All will be enslaved.
[deleted]
I'm not sure just traveling to a country where sex is okay at like 12 or 13 makes it okay if you're American. Like, you can't travel to another country and have sex with underage people. You're still a US citizen and are bound by the laws of the US.
I am in a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly falling snow.
"You're still a US citizen and are bound by the laws of the US. "
Not true, I think, because the laws of a country, such as the USA (perhaps not for some Islamic states), are not the codes by which it's citizens must live by; the USA is not a theocracy. The laws of a US state are ratified by that state's legislature and are only valid and apply with in that state's jurisdiction, i.e. a person who lives in a state without gambling may still go to a Indian Reservation or to another state where gambling is legal and gamble, or one can travel to Nevada and hire a prostitute, where they are legal. Many US state laws are in conflict with other US state laws. Likewise federal US laws only CAN apply and be valid within it's jurisdiction, i.e. if one travels to Amsterdam and smokes marijuana one LEGALLY cannot be prosecuted upon return to the US. This doesn't only apply to some laws and not others; this principal is based upon the structure OF THE LAW. If it were legal to kill people in a foreign country, then one could travel there, kill however many people WHO IT WAS LEGAL TO KILL, and then return to the US without fear of prosecution.
Reviewing my profile after some time and I came across this post, which I would like to correct. While it applies to nearly ALL situations, it does NOT apply to this subject. You are correct, it IS illegal to travel to another country and engage in underage sex. This is a special situation, which does not apply to most situations or activities.
I'm glad you corrected yourself because I was about to. LOL. It is legal to travel to another state to have sex with a 16 year old (about 30 states btw) but it is not legal to travel to a different country to have sex with someone under 18. It is called sexual tourism. I know its kinda weird considering the age of consent in most states but that's the way it is.
teens having sex OH NOES!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ Why does Canada need a queen?
[deleted]
[deleted]