just saw the trailer and it said it got an R rating for "sexual content involving minors". I understand these kids are "actors" but c'mon, they turning 15 yet they have sexual scenes here? What happens in the movie? How bad is this sex scene?
shareThe movie was very well done and tasetful.It had some adult themes and violence and I enjoyed it very much.No sex was shown only the crush of a teen age girl for an older guy.All in all a very enjoyable movie.Get over the kids with sex paranoia.
shareWatched this over the weekend (on DVD)...
Adult themes but a VERY APPROPRIATE CAUTIONARY TALE FOR KIDS of about the age of the characters in the film.
As to the "sex scene": a Chinese-American girl who has turned 12 (or is on the cusp) has begun her period and is attracted to her therapist mother's (Annabella Sciorra) patient (Jeremy Renner)--of course, somewhat older and a working construction guy.
The scene in question (sex?) seems to be the one where she goes to his apartment and takes off her clothes (above the waste and back to the audience!) as a gesture of offering herself to him...Renner being the only smart and thoughtful adult in the film, he turns her down, offers her his coat and calls her mother to take her home.
This is a tough but thoughtful and thought-provoking dramedy about the difficult decisions that grief (tragedy hits home) and turning the age in question (12) can provoke in kids like these.
Incidently, I've never talked back at the screen (in my home) or slapped my forehead more in the course of such a short (94 min.) period of time before! These kids made one wrong decision after another, but I felt all the more connected because they were doing what they felt and not what makes sense or passes for good and sound judgement. Still, yeesh! Very good film! Cuesta's on a roll...
I agree with you, its well done and tasteful, you only ever see a girls bare back and even when she approaches Jeremy when he's naked earlier on, it is(to me) obvious that the shots where he's nude,and then the shots where she's in it, are two seperate shots.
I have to say to who ever said 'its only bad cos it looks for a sec like the mguy(jeremy) is considering it'...uhm...what film where you watching?
It didnt look to me like he considered it at all, note his eyes shooting skyward the second she takes her gown off, not his visible discomfort the entire time...to me his whole reaction is explained as both a) the revelation later about the little girl who died and b)his deciding the 'best' and gentlest way to basically break Maylee's heart.
And for all the people psychoanalyzing the nudity and fetizisation of youthful bodies, bear this in mind, THEY'RE LEGALLY NOT ALLOWED TO SHOW KIDS OF A CERTAIN AGE ENGAGED IN CERTAIN FORMS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR.
Duh.
Its not about making the kids body something to fantasise about, the fact is they're legally not allowed to show kids naked.
has any one ever seen the film 13?(and i imagine more than a few people here have?) Thirteen is a prime example of this, when Tracy *beep* whats her name?The other kid, when they try to seduce the older neighbour, they try to pull his pants off by grabbing the cuff of his leg rather than the waist of his pants.
This is one of the rules regarding underage sex scenes, they're just not allowed to show certain things, including the front of a young girls chest.
Admittedly any perverts watching this will probably still get their nasty ass jollies just watching the girls bare back, but then again, some creepoid perverts will find it *physically* impossible to 'enjoy' that scene without being able to see anything considered a sexual area; her actual chest.
Which is why the rules exist, simple as that.
Its not about fetishism its just about protecting the actors involved.
I can tell you now, when Maylee approaches a 'nude' Jeremy Renner, he'll have been wearing shorts or tracksuit bottoms or something.
And when 'naked' Maylee 'presents' her self to Jeremy, i can guarantee she'll have had some thing like...taped to her front, its the law.
For me, if some one is wondering about showing their 12 year old this film, i do feel that they should pay attention to the rating how ever haveing watched the film, i also believe that the rating isnt on this film more as guidance thant stating the fact '12 year olds shouldnt see this' its just letting parents know this isnt your avergae PG-13 or 12-A(the UK version of a PG=13)
I mean over here(in the UK) it has a 15 rating, and i've always thought an R translated to an 18 over here.
But as i was saying, if some one wanted to show their 12 year old this film, it WOULD depend on the maturity of the kid, but tbh, why not rent it early in the day, watch it yourself, and decide if its something you want your kids to see?
I mean bear in mind they're almost guaranteed to find some way to see it if they really want to, thats just what kids do.
For me the 'sex' isnt the issue in this film. My biggest concern with showing a kid(if i had one) this movie would be how its very simply a film that shows how for some kids, their childhood ends awfully abruptly.
I mean you could show it to them and say 'avoid stuff like this and be a kid as long as possible' or you could show it to them and say 'grow up fast because the world is a mean place'
iice137, sorry if this comes off like a rant at you, its not, lol, like i say i agree with you =)
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
they're just not allowed to show certain things, including the front of a young girls chest.
I'm fairly sure you're wrong.
They cant show a little girl naked, they could show her, if she's flat chested, like, topless but it would have to be very specifically contextual for example, the could show her topless full frontal if she's like, say in ER or a medical drama movie and being treated, but as soon as she has recognisable 'breasts' or a 'chest' to speak of, she'll be in vests, bras or training bras.
They couldnt, even in a film, show her fully naked in any context, same for a boy except obviously he doesnt have to worry about bras.
its to do with the Child Labour laws, its the same stuff that says you cant have them working after certain times, as i decribed, in the film Thirteen, when Tracy and the other girl are trying to get it on with the much older neighbour, they're, because of child labour laws, even though both where like, fifteen at the time, allowed to touch the waistband of his pants so had to pull at the bottom cuff of his shorts.
I'm sure you'll find that most films with underage nudity are within certain contexts like, its a moment of medical drama or they're harmlessly changing in front of a parent or friend.
Cases of say, back sides, boys mooning or skinny dipping and being seen, they're only ever seen from the back and usually very obviously have, practically pillows covering their front.
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
They cant show a little girl naked, they could show her, if she's flat chested, like, topless but it would have to be very specifically contextual for example, the could show her topless full frontal if she's like, say in ER or a medical drama movie and being treated, but as soon as she has recognisable 'breasts' or a 'chest' to speak of, she'll be in vests, bras or training bras.
They couldnt, even in a film, show her fully naked in any context, same for a boy except obviously he doesnt have to worry about bras.
wow, i stand...mostly corrected...i cant help but notice most of those films are from the early nineties and further back...(also that list repeats it self A LOT)
(have you seen the boys of St Vincent? IMO the child nudity in that was so far out of line that it made me sick to watch, regardless of what point they may have been trying to make,that was child exploitation to a massive degree)
Just,cos i havent seen Memoirs of a Geisha and a few of the other more recent ones, how old where the children in question who where 'nude'?(obviously, if you have seen it...)
Cos i mean...i personally wouldnt count for example, War of the Buttons(love that movie) because what you do see is either bums, or its so far distant in front of them that you cant see anything 'worth writing home about' if you'll excuse the expression, or in others the child in question is like, an infant, so apart from a very, very small minority of sick evil *beep* scum filth,(ahem) no one could find sexual context in the scene, which is usually the baby being bathed
Also, as revealing as that list is, you have to recall that that will count a little boy running round without a shirt on but with jeans on (for example) as child nudity, so if you take all of those out...
I mean you are right, the main issue is contact, and the context of the scene, the Brooke Shields example was, if i remember right, the source of a lot of controversy yes, no??
But what i'm talking about is more sexually themed scenes like the one in the movie...
In the scene that sparked this thread, the girl strips naked (or we're to believe she did) and 'presents' her self, sexually, to a much older man.
A scene like that...they wouldnt have shown her bare chest from the front because of the sexual context of the scene, and yeah, as you've pointed out, 'contact', when he embraces her she's wrapped in a jacket and has her arms crossed over her chest...
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
i cant help but notice most of those films are from the early nineties and further back
have you seen the boys of St Vincent
havent seen Memoirs of a Geisha and a few of the other more recent ones, how old where the children in question who where 'nude'?
) because what you do see is either bums,
no one could find sexual context in the scene
, very small minority of sick evil *beep* scum filth,(ahem) no one could find sexual context in the scene,
you have to recall that that will count a little boy running round without a shirt on but with jeans on (for example) as child nudity
the Brooke Shields example was, if i remember right, the source of a lot of controversy yes, no
In the scene that sparked this thread, the girl strips naked (or we're to believe she did) and 'presents' her self, sexually, to a much older man.
A scene like that...they wouldnt have shown her bare chest from the front because of the sexual context of the scene
I'd advise avoiding The Boys Of St Vincent if only because it's a damned difficult film to watch and not throw something at the screen, its a film about the sexual abuse of little boys in a catholic orphanage (its a true story) but the film its self seems to forget the point its trying to make, going so far as to have a priest watch the boys, none of them older than ten, in the shower, the director choosing to include a slow motion track down many of the boys wet bodies and full frontal shots.
Its immensely disturbing.
As for 'Geisha' ...hmm...given her age and what Geisha's did i suppose its possible the child was naked...but then again it might have been her bare back but of course, its included.
And oh of course nudity is nudity but i AM talking mainly about full frontal since thats what we're led to believe the man would have seen.
And see thats my point, is that alot of child nudity, which i think is a slightly flammatory term because it suggest full nudity, but yeah, most child nudity is not meant to be sexual, but there are sick people out there who will find it as such.
It's documented fact that paedophiles often have softer versions of their child porn images in more public places because its considered art, for example...a....holiday poster showing a bare chested boy on a beach, or a...print of children being put to bed by a parent for example, not because the context is sexual but because the child is bare skinned, or near a bed, or doing anything, at all, ever...
and ...could you find or send me a link where it details the child nudity scene regulations, i'm having trouble finding one my self.
I'm not saying you're wrong, please understand, i just have a hard time believing that in this day and age children can still be shown to certain...call it excessive ( i realise that little girl without a top on isnt actually excessive but for the sake of tis discussion) degrees of undress.
I suppose for realistic or artistic value showing kids in undress for what ever reason is as qualifiable as showing people smoking, drinking, swearing, farting etc ...and of course, seeing nude children on tv or in movies isnt going to make people paedophiles (although there's a british made one off TV drama that showed a photography analyst for the police who spends his days reveiwing child pornography images to deem whether they do indeed qualify as porn images, and starts molesting his young daughter; apparently its based on a true story so its an interesting argument about whether paedophiles are born or made but thats just a side bar) but it is possible that paedophiles and perverts watching such films or tv shows are going to derive a sick satisfaction from what they're seeing, even something as simple as a kid running around his house without his top on or a little girl dressed to look older to meet her friends.
its sad and awful but its the world we live in.
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
the director choosing to include a slow motion track down many of the boys wet bodies and full frontal shots.
Its immensely disturbing.
but i AM talking mainly about full frontal since thats what we're led to believe the man would have seen.
but there are sick people out there who will find it as such
It's documented fact that paedophiles often have softer versions of their child porn images in more public places because its considered art
for example...a....holiday poster showing a bare chested boy on a beach
...print of children being put to bed by a parent
could you find or send me a link where it details the child nudity scene regulations, i'm having trouble finding one my self.
i just have a hard time believing that in this day and age children can still be shown to certain
Im sorry but you're ignoring my point and not for the first time, im not saying I or indeed most other people would find a picture of a bare chested child on a beach or a child being put to bed or a mother in any way suggestive, pornographic or other wise, im saying that in the twisted minds of the sick paedophiles, something so innocent and innocuous can be found sexually exciting for the simple reason that children, generally, are considered sexually innocent and pure and from a psychological POV for most paedophiles their attraction to children is based on their accepted sexual innocence and purity.
FOR THIS REASON, the reason that paedophile can be titillated watching...i don know, the kids in The Sound Of Music up on stage singing, it amazes me that people are still willing to...essentially hand over such images to these people.
I suppose its possible though to argue that in this day and age there are so many different and unusual sexual attractions that its near impossible to make any kind of visual art work or presentation without 'pleasing' some one, i mean a...chick-flick shoe shopping montage could drive a shoe fetishist mental ...my point is that with children, they're not in a position to protect them selves...in fact if i'm honest i'm not sure what my point was.
i know what we both argue...but i cant recall the point i've been trying to make at all..
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
Im sorry but you're ignoring my point and not for the first time, im not saying I or indeed most other people would find a picture of a bare chested child on a beach or a child being put to bed or a mother in any way suggestive
are considered sexually innocent and pure and from a psychological POV for most paedophiles their attraction to children is based on their accepted sexual innocence and purity
I suppose its possible though to argue that in this day and age there are so many different and unusual sexual attractions
...my point is that with children, they're not in a position to protect them selves
just to skip over things, i dont consider paedophiles to be 'people' at all, its my personal belief that they cant be wholly human but thats just me.
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
Let's just make one thing perfectly clear noodle... A pedophile is a person that is exclusively attracted to children that haven't started puberty. There is a huge difference between someone that finds little kids attractive and someone that thinks teen girls are "hot".
I agree that pedophilia is a very unusual condition but it should still be treated like any other crime. To just blow them off as sickos that should all be killed is counter-productive and doesn't solve problems. We still need to examine the causes of it so that hopefully we can prevent it in the future. Although I don't think much can be done about it, its just a part of human sexuality and in the long run, can't be fully governed, it is still an issue that requires serious attention.
Ultimately, I think its imposible to govern human sexuality completely. History has taught us that its just a part of human nature. We do however need strong law enforcement for this type of behavoir but just exactly what kind of punishment should be dealt out is hard to say.
they're animals. simple as.
You can argue logic all you like, and this isnt intended as a rant at you or anything,this is simply fixed in my head as fact; If you touch a child in that way, regardless of yours or theirs race,creed, religion, gender preferance etc, you are subhuman and deserve painful punishment and execution.
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
I think its a really bad crime noodle and yes... call them animals if you want to but what good is it to just say kill'em all? It won't make this go away.
Unusual desires are just a part of human nature. And have been for thousands of years, even before recorded history, people were practicing unusual things. I think people that rape kids should go to jail but its not up to me to decide whether or not they should be executed. I'll actually leave this one up to our government.
i have tp tell you now, trying to change my mind on this is like trying to tell me not to breath.
hell yes kill em all.
Do you know the stats on paedophiles? How many kids they can abuse in a life time, stuff like that?
Kill em all and let me throw the switch.
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
You'll never be able to kill them all noodle. Pedophilia is just a part of human nature.
But again... the average pedo does not have homicidal tendencies. They just want to have a relationship with a little kid. Should it be illegal? Yes, I think it should be... but i'm not going to say they ALL deserve to die. Its a crime like any other.
see thats where we disagree, you used 'just' want to have relationships with little kids...im not saying this is the case but that seems like you'd class taking a life worse than raping a child.
Its not a crime like any other, its...just beyond.
*can i remind you real quick, this is of course a matter of opinion to each of us so is sort of a pointless discussion as nothing, ever, in the world, will make me change my mind*
See this is how i feel and my family all feel the same, i'm very close to my family, we'll stand up for each other when one of us is in crisis, we'll take care of each other, hell, if my sister or brothers or parents killed some one i'd naturally be WAY more willing to fight their corner and try to understand why they'd done it. but if one of my family members did...anything like that to a child. I COULD say i'd call the police my self, but i wouldnt , because i'd kill them my self.
But we've gone so far off topic now thats its silly.
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
im not saying this is the case but that seems like you'd class taking a life worse than raping a child.
Its not a crime like any other, its...just beyond.
nothing, ever, in the world, will make me change my mind
but if one of my family members did...anything like that to a child. I COULD say i'd call the police my self, but i wouldnt , because i'd kill them my self.
Do you know any rape victims? Of any age? Speaking as some one who does, they've told me they'd rather be dead than have that happen to them again.
and...when did i say i think paedophiles are murderers too?
I know they're not.
You're talking about it in legal terms, and actually, as a crime you get LESS time for raping a kid than you do for killing some one, thats one of the biggest problems with the legal system to day is that they dont seem to wholly understand exactly what to do with paedophiles.
and yes, yes i am, everyone should be.
And oh my effing GOD!thats a completely different situation!!!!
thats such a stupid, imbecilic question part of me doesnt want to answer it BUT, if a forty year old man rapes a ten year old, thats so many miles and miles awy from like, two ten year olds touching one another in a way that can be called sexual!
Or even two fifteen year olds or two six year olds or what ever!!!
with kids under...at least ten or eleven, they dont understand sex, they dont have sexual urges, if they're doing something sexual they're not getting anything out of it other than physical exploration of one anothers bodies and a growing knowledge of differences between boys and girls (if indeed its a boy and girl doing it). If i found two kids doing something sexual i'd sit them down and calmly answer any body questions they had and explain as best i could that they shouldnt do things like until they're older.
If i caught two fifteen year olds doing it, i'd bawl them out but at the very least make sure they where using condoms and where aware it was actually illegal.
Whereas, if i caught a forty year old man raping a ten year old child i'd beat his head in with a hammer because what HE is doing is a perversion, and you can go on 'oh its human nature' etc, which, no, being straight, being gay, those things are human nature, because you're looking upon partners of THE SAME AGE, as sexual partners, looking upon a CHILD as a sexual partner is evil, sub human, and invites death.
In my opinion, that is.
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
Do you know any rape victims? Of any age?
You're talking about it in legal terms, and actually, as a crime you get LESS time for raping a kid than you do for killing some one.
with kids under...at least ten or eleven, they dont understand sex, they dont have sexual urges
If i found two kids doing something sexual i'd sit them down and calmly answer any body questions they had
, i'd bawl them out but at the very least make sure they where using condoms and where aware it was actually illegal.
looking upon a CHILD as a sexual partner is evil, sub human, and invites death.
im sorry but, are you actually reading my messages or just certain lines?
You dont need to explain to me how rape victims feel, as i said, i know rape victims who have all said they'd prefer they'd been killed.
They're healthy now, dont get me wrong but thats how they feel.
And in case you havent noticed, i'm in britain so our laws our different not to mention that in what states can you get that long?
are you making some of this up?
and okay, but you have to keep in mind, its YOU, or indeed the parent who applies the label of 'sexual' to finding two kids touching each other in a certain way.
Kids simply dont think that way until they hit pubery and their brain and body chemistry changes so while a parent might even find their children naked together touching each other, that doesnt mean the kids are getting any sexual thrill from it, they're just playing or indeed mimicking something they've seen in a magazine, on TV or even sneaking in on their parents. The kids dont know that what they're mimicking is 'sex' they're just copying as kids are want to do.
and again, im in the UK , the legal age over here is 16 and its illegal and you can be arrested for doing it underage.
and ....once again, you're talking in LEGAL terms, i'm talking moralistically.
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
are you making some of this up?
i'm in britain so our laws our different
Kids simply dont think that way until they hit pubery and their brain and body chemistry changes
once again, you're talking in LEGAL terms, i'm talking moralistically
aye and me, we've gone off topic and we're clearly going in circles any way, either way, interesting discussion, good luck with life, toodle ooh
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
Americans. HUHUHUHUHUHUH.
share.....pardon?
'Take what ya can, give nothin'back'
I can take dark stories, in fact I like them. They inspire me to write my own.
Ok, reading more, I am finding a lot of people are too extreme.
Ok, we have to realize that there is middle ground between telling kids "No Sex because I say so" and handing out the condoms and saying "Have a good time." Also, I don't feel we have to shelter our children from ANYTHING. Most people shelter their kids from something. Some from the bad, but more people shelter their children from the GOOD. I say shelter your children from NOTHING. Let them get the whole story. AlAnother thing, you don't encourage them to have premarital sex. You maybe explain them the consequences of such actions so they can decide if they really want to do it. Usually it's because kids didn't get the whole story that they end up having sex prematurely. Sometimes because they were simply told not to for no reasons, but for others, it's because they had the illusion that they were safe. Unless you give your kids the WHOLE story, you're only hurting them. And so far, it seems like both sides are keeping some of the story from their kids.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with innocent nudity. The human body doesn't always have to be sexual.(This part is for fellow Christians) Remember, Adam and Eve were naked when they were created, and God saw that what he had created was good. So the human body is only sexualized if it is made that way. I think it'd be great if we can look at nudity without it becoming sexual. Perhaps we need to find some middleground. It doesn't have to be everyone covering up every piece or skin or flaunting it all during the whole movie.
Personally, I have yet to hear a good reasons as to why somebody should have sex before their marriage. Instead of telling the children NO, you give them ALL of the facts and then if they still do it, at least you as parent know that they knew what they were in for when they did it and you did not encourage their behavior.
I plan to shelter my children from NOTHING. Sheltering them completely from the bad leaves them unprepared to handle it when they enter the real world. Sheltering them from the good will give them no alternative to the bad. Maybe if we let them see some of BOTH sides, they might be able to make better decisions. You can't just say "Go have sex" or "You cannot have sex."
As for this movie, I find it funny how people are getting really picky over a scene that shows nothing on the minor and only shows a butt on a guy. Those scenes probably wouldn't even be edited out on network television broadcast.
Personally, I'd be more concearned with the violence/dark content of the story. The profanity I'd be a little concearned about but most kids probably hear that language at school every day, I know I did, and that was a Christian school. But the violence, that is something I might be concearned about regarding this film. It's not necessarily the violence itself but the context in which it occurs.
However, I've seen plenty of movies that have been worse than this. I'd say anyone 12 and older should probably be able to handle this film in today's day and age.
This movie has no sexual value compared to many other flicks over the years containing underage "taboo" scenes. Remember Laura? And that movie called KIDS I think. Kids doing drugs and each other spreading HIV.
That seems a little extreme but its not far from reality. I live in KY which has been the butt end of many jokes. But its true about being inbred and kids getting pregnant. The past 25 years there has been at least 3 girls in 7th and 8th grade that have gotten knocked up. Do I make a point? If I did I would have to say that its sad how in such a technological, intelligent age we still have a large group of religious fanatics who still choose to be close-minded over young people having sex. Its been a reality all around the world since the beginning of time. But ideologies manufactured the idea that sex is shameful and harmful and our "kids" need to be protected. But the fact is that as soon as they turn 12 or 13 they go looking for it. Those who deny it are blind.
Sex and love is what you make of it. To turn away due to fear just postpones the inevitable and increases the chances of getting hurt anyway.
Just cause they go looking for it doesn't mean they should get it, and it also doesn't mean they are ready for it. Sure, they may be physically ready for it, but emotionally? No. I can't believe in our intellectual society, we still have fanatics who believe that kids should be given whatever their heart (or other parts of the body if you get my point) desires.
share[deleted]
There is no sex scene, just a bunch of kids coming of age and one slightly indelicate scene involvng a lonely 12-year-old girl and a distraught ex-fireman 20 years her senior and whom she adores.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
This whole "describe it" stuff sounds really perverted.
There's no sex in this film.
This is an excellent film about people and their feelings and how kids deal with major issues.
"even if it does have a sex scene, and it is graphic, who cares?
kids have to know what sex is, and if in fact you are doing a good job as a parent, then that sex scene wont affect them like you think it will, and they will actually learn not to do things "
You're a moron. Why do you think films have ratings? Why do you think kids can't enter legal contracts? You sound like a complete idiot to be spouting stuff about how you should (!!!) expose your child to all sorts of graphic sex because they need to know about sex. That's how pedophiles think! You're a sick person.
Kids need to be kids. Leave them out of your sick twisted little fantasies.
Don't threaten ME with a dead fish!
reg: 4/4/00 | posts: 1895
There is no sex scene involving minors. A young girl (age 12) comes on to an adult male and takes her clothes off. The camera shows nothing and the adult male puts a jacket around her and call her mom. It's the implication that is R-rated not the actual content.
It's a very good movie, you should see it.