What does it matter how many adults were exploiting her? Does that matter? Oh, she had done this before, therefore it's okay for someone else to do it to her as well? No, it's not. Wrong is wrong, doesn't matter how many times someone does it, it's still wrong. If some woman gets raped and another guy comes along and rapes her too, is he okay because someone had done it to her before? Sorry, that logic is faulty.
Who cares if she has breasts? What does that matter? Does a child suddenly become an adult simply because they sprout breasts? Does it suddenly become okay for an adult to film a child nude and having simulated sex because she grows breasts? That is your logic? The moment a child grows some breasts, it's okay to start putting her in nudie films? I know a little girl who is eight-years-old and she already has big breasts. Is she fair game? Can we put her in nudie films because she has breasts? Please. Again, faulty logic.
No one said a person should be ashamed of their body. No one said that we teach a child her body is "dirty". How absurd!
That is your logic, there is only two ways, either expose a child's nudity on film, or teach her that her body is "dirty" and "evil"? Sorry, there are other choices than that. One can teach their child that their body is beautiful, that there is nothing wrong with being nude, in the right circumstances and still not allow them to be filmed nude having simulated sex. Is nudity appropriate in all circumstances? Do we take our children to a funeral nude so we can teach them their body isn't "dirty"? No, sorry. Quit trying to pretend like there are only two choices, either put kids in nudie films or teach them their bodies are "dirty". Wrong. There are other, more healthy choices than that.
Oh, I see, since there is only "eight minutes" of simulated sex, that is just fine. Uh, how many minutes makes it not "fine"? Huh? Twenty minutes? Thirty? As long as we keep the simulated sex between twelve-year-olds to under eight minutes, everything is fine? Haha. If something is wrong, it's wrong even for a few seconds. It doesn't suddenly become okay because you only do it for eight minutes. "Oh, officer, I was only raping her for a minute or so". Again, utterly faulty logic.
I could care less whether you were sexually aroused, and I never accused you of being sexually aroused. The point is, certain sick men find this film arousing and when you combine that with the fact that it is wrong *anyway*, it is a foregone conclusion that it is indefensible.
No, I was not "aroused". Are those your tactics? Ad hominem attacks? Call me a pervert by suggesting I was aroused? That won't work, sorry. You'll have to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of the film, attacking me or suggesting I was "aroused" won't make this film okay.
I love foreign films, which is how I found out about this film. A friend loaned me this film and a few others because he knew I was a fan of foreign cinema. I watched some of it and was appalled and I told him so. Just because the film may be well-made, just because the film may have a good story, just because the film was well-directed, and just because the woman in the film didn't commit suicide does NOT mean there is any justification for the film. If there was an excellent film that was made that featured the rape of an infant, would it be "okay" because the film was good? No. Sorry, again, faulty logic. Doesn't matter how good a film is, if it features children having sex, it is wrong and should be condemned as such.
This is what many people do when they defend garbage like this. They try to point out the following:
1. It's a good film.
2. Nudity isn't bad.
3. We shouldn't teach children their body's are "dirty".
4. The people in the film turned out okay.
5. The kids in the film had done it before.
NONE of that is an excuse for showing children having sex in films. None of it. Again, if someone made a film where they featured the actual rape of a child, would that film be okay because it was good? Would it be okay because nudity isn't "bad"? Would it be okay because we shouldn't teach children their body's are "dirty"? Would it be okay if the child in the film grew up to be an actress? Would it be okay if someone had done it to her before? No. None of these argument justifies adults filming children nude and having simulated sex. None of it. All of those arguments could easily be labeled as the logical fallacies they are. I won't do that, because this post is already too long, but anyone who took a Logic 101 class could do that.
The film is indefensible, it's that simple.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
reply
share
Falconeer
15 years ago
I don't know what to say to you. The people involved in the making of this film were professional actors. It seems like the young performers had an understandiong of human sexuality, and that they were guided/protected by adults who were loooking out for them. There are no rapes. There is no violence against children. There is simply a theatrical performance, a staging of overly dramatized theatrics about teenage bullying and the politcs of sexual violence among younger children. I just cannot see this as exploitation. This is a legitimate film in every way, and I do not believe for a second that anyone was in the least bit harmed during the production. I honestly believe that the girls involved had a basic understanding of human sexuality, and understood at all times that this was just a movie. If it were anything more, i would not defend it. Pretentious maybe, but still this is obviously an art film designed to raise controversy. Would I let my own kids star in a film like this? Not unless they begged for this kind of attention. Honestly, can you imagine the feeling of power that these two girls felt, playing seductive roles like this, at their age? I imagine that they might have had great fun toying with their new-found sexual power. Eva Ionesco in particular appeared like she was having alot of fun playing the mean spirited Sylvia. Give these young people more credit. They understand this sort of thing more than you think. Children are only as innocent as we believe them to be. But they are made of flesh and bone like us, and they have their own sexual desires, which begin as soon as puberty hits. Why ignore it? it is fascinating and a part of human existence. To deny this is unhealthy. I am tired of defending this film, which I believe to be legitimate, and not exploitation. There is no reason to make another film like this, but I am glad that somebody had the nerve to make this brutally honest film about what it is like to be a young teen on the threshold of adulthood. The film is tasteful and does not exploit the young actors in any way, and that is my opinion. In fact I think it shows respect for younger people, by portraying them as real people, with genuine physical feelings, rather than dumb, clueless kids drifting through life. People this age are a bit more intelligent, and a bit stronger than you might think. Give them a little credit. They can handle it... it is human nature.
reply
share