MovieChat Forums > Pretty Baby (1978) Discussion > kiddie porn or not

kiddie porn or not

posted 18 years ago by wonderlover69
109 replies | jump to latest

well what do you guys think?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] governess98 18 years ago

Not.

reply

[–] wonderlover69 18 years ago

"Clearly it isn't child porn. If it was you wouldn't be able to buy it in stores, at Amazon.com, or anywhere online."

that's a poor defence in my mind.
while it may not be _classified_ as child porn. It still can _be_ child porn, if you get my drift.
The olson twins any who?

reply

[–] dyrkt 18 years ago

Nudity does NOT equal pornography.Don't let the government tell you it does.So a strong NO it is NOT pornography.

reply

[–] wonderlover69 18 years ago

i'm not trying to say that it does.
but i do wonder what was going througth the director's when s/he make this flim.
was it to get people off? if so it's porn in my books...

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wonderlover69 18 years ago

well Schindler's List never had underage nudity did it?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lupinemadness 18 years ago

you have a point, schindler's list is certainly graphic and disturbing and is applauded for being so. However, I guess the fine line is that the violence in schindler's list is staged, whereas the child nudity in pretty baby is very very real.

What does God need with a starship?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lupinemadness 18 years ago

umm...she's 12?

What does God need with a starship?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

Violence? He said underaged nudity in Schinlder's List.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ledhed 17 years ago

That is a very, very weak definition of porn. Do you realize all the whacked out things people get off on? Everything in the world would be porn by your definition.

reply

[–] moneybags65-1 15 years ago

Can we all agree on the simple fact that a pervert or child molester who watches anything with children, no matter if they are fully dressed or nude, will get off regardless of the film's message. This movie is to expose child prostitution in 1917, and in someways reflects what is still going on. No, it is not pornography. If you or someone else gets off on it, that's an issue or cultural preference (some places in the world still marry children),that's you. Don't blame a brilliant director for your own insecurities, and don't dismiss a wonderfer portrayal of the birthplace of Jazz as something for some basement hermit to get off on. The is the movie that matches key songs like House of the Rising Sun, not something dirty.

reply

[–] harveythepooka 17 years ago

But according to the US law nudity doesn't necessarily not equal pornography either . . . nude picture of children have to be taken into context, I would assume a picture of 2 naked girls having a pillow fight in the middle of an orgy would be considered porn by a judge.

But no this movie isn't pornography being none of the nudity is sexual at all.

reply

[–] pgrass13 16 years ago

someone brought up a good point about how if the court found out you had stills from a movie like this you would be considered a pedaphile pretty much. Also, though, any nudity can become porn to certain people.

Same thing we do every night try to take over the world

reply

[–] Peach_Braxton 18 years ago

No, I don't get your drift. Many movies show children undressed for whatever the scene calls for. The Blue Lagoon had little naked kids running around a beach, and nobody saw a problem with that.

If it's because the movie is about a 12-year-old prostitute, well, get over it. Things like that were real in New Orleans at the turn of the century. It doesn't actually show Brooke doing anything sexual, so it's not porn.
--
Tara

Come on Jimmy
Come on Jimmy
Suck it down for Sally
- Reefer Madness

reply

[–] ntscuser 17 years ago

People in the English-speaking world have been jailed for having less explicit pictures than these on a PC. If for example you were caught with several still images from this movie on your hard drive you could have a great deal of explaining to do. You could argue they were just scenes from a generally available mainstream movie but the prosectution could claim you were using the images for sexual gratification.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just pointing out the absurdity of the legal situation.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ykollector 17 years ago

And why is it a question? It's like asking are family nudist videos family porn movies?

porn would have to involve sexual contact or actions.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tj-phillips 17 years ago

She is saying it is child porn to those who take something and use it for sexual gratification.

I never would have thought this movie would be on the pedophiles top movies list, the nudity was not meant to be arousing, just thought provoking etc etc. But apparently some sick minds have gotten turned on by certain scenes in this movie.

To enjoy the movie is one thing, to get turned on is a completely different matter.

There is for most people a clear line between right and wrong. I don't think most people would need it explained to them what is appropriate and inappropriate when it comes to how you think towards children.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] raymondoz2007 (2098) 2 years ago

Like robert Deniro and Julitte Lewis in Cape Fear

reply

[–] cd_boy_33 18 years ago

NO it is not

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chouse1020 15 years ago

Nah no worries about me... check out that psycho's posting history. Is clearly a pedo.

It's a shame that artists aren't free to do their thing because sick pedos will shall we say "use it for inspiration".

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MikeAnsaraFan 17 years ago

I dont think that the nudity in itself was porn, but the part where the madam brings the guy into the bathroom and he ogles the naked body of Violet really is despite it getting through the censors.

reply

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

So watching is the activity that makes a movie pornographic? That's quite a new and innovative definition.

If we accept the idea, than anyone who watches any nudity becomes a participant in a pornography. If you watch e.g. Titanic, you are involved in porn yourself.

reply

[–] MikeAnsaraFan 17 years ago

Certainly not. Im talking about an adult looking at a child's body with lust.

reply

[–] MeenaHeartsong 17 years ago

In the STORY her character was being considered a sexual object. In the productions of this movie, Brooke Shields was not being advertised as a sexual object. And those that can't see that are a little confused, disturbed, or just overanalyzing.
The laws about child nudity and movies/photography are that the kids can't be shown in a "lascivious manner" they leave it vague on purpose like most moral issue sex laws.
If anyone was sexually aroused by the content of chld prostitution or a naked 12-yr old who looks far enough from physical sexual maturity to be considered a child, they have some hard thinking to do, but the movie addressed the character's innocence, circumstance and sexuality so that's obviously what we we're supposed to be considering, nothing more nothing less.

reply

[–] mikeclaw 17 years ago

Of course not.

Not all nudity is porn.

reply

[–] zappa333 17 years ago

Your question is nonsense.

reply

[–] zerohero84 17 years ago

I haven't seen the movie. Are you guys saying that the movie actually shows her nude? Or is it implied, and the cameras don't show it? If it does, what does it show and for how long? (chest, butt, full frontal...)

I am not asking to be a pervert. I am asking because if it shows these things, then I may refrain from ever watching it. I hope I get some straight answers...

thanks

reply

[–] xenophile2002 17 years ago

I haven't seen the movie.

I have, but it's been a long time.

Are you guys saying that the movie actually shows her nude?

Yes, yes it does.*

Or is it implied, and the cameras don't show it?

No, you actually see Brooke naked as a jay bird on the Fourth of July. Sex is what's implied but not shown.

If it does, what does it show and for how long?

Longer than you might think. I remember Scander almost turned handsprings over the "stands up in the tub" scene.

chest,

Yes.

butt,

Yes.

full frontal

Yes.

I am not asking to be a pervert. I am asking because if it shows these things, then I may refrain from ever watching it.

I guess this post will cause you to avoid it for ever and ever amen. Which is fine. While beautifully made, the story is kind of a downer.

I hope I get some straight answers...

I've tried to give exactly that.

thanks

You are welcome. There are a lot of movies I have never seen, but I'm glad to be able to help with those that I have.

_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.

* By "her" I assume you mean twelve year old Brooke Shields, and not poor Susan Sarandon, whom everybody seems to have forgotten is also seen nude.

reply

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

You see her chest a lot, you see her buns at least once (when she is thrown out of a room and tries to get back in), and you see her full-frontal twice, once during a bath scene when she stands up to grab a towel, and again lying sideways on a couch being photographed by Belloq.

reply

[–] seeairuhh 16 years ago

It is. It showed a 12 year old girl naked. If a guy has pictures of 12 year old kids naked on his computer that would probably be considered kiddie porn.

reply

[–] xenophile2002 16 years ago

"Kiddie porn" is a slang term for "child pornography," which is a legal term. Pretty Baby is not child pornography, and the proof is that you can legally buy, sell, own, and view it.

_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.

reply

[–] digiscript34 16 years ago

MeenaHeartsong makes a good point, alot of people in general Society are way overanalytic and they freak at subject matter like what a movie like Pretty Baby may generate in their minds.

I still attest that even though the storyline may be an important one for a movie of its time and targeted audiences but I'm afraid we find ourselves in a new Victorian age where people are quick to be judgemental and accusive toward any certain subject matters that raise an eyebrow.

I also still attest that a movie like PB could not be made or remade today simply because of the difference in the way we as a moviegoing society feel about it and would react to even the idea as opposed to back when this movie was made.

Also due to the mere content, not so much the subject matter, I could not put PB on the air even if I edited it. It would be foolhearty for any terrestrial broadcaster within the US to take a chance with PB and I'm not going to be the first to try either, not in this century anyway.

I don't oppose the afforementioned controversial content in PB simply because it was done in context of the story, I just think its a shame that Society has to get wrought up and hellbent when they merely hear about something like this, quick to pass judgement before evaluating the facts.

reply

[–] beseme_ahora 16 years ago

whilst the movie shows a child nude, it is not porn in any matter. it is more considered art for the matter it was taken. just because a book or poster has a naked person on it does not make it porn. it's called art, look at Michael, people debate over it all the time. to me it's a beautiful statue that people just over analyze. for Michael and this film were created not to arouse but to be enjoyed for their creativity and artistic qualities. now if someone gets off on it though, it's not the creators fault....

reply

[–] digiscript34 16 years ago

Have fun telling the overpolitically correct powers-that-be that.

On the otherhand the primairy reason people oppose to anything that represents subject matter pertaining to children having been placed into adults-only situations is because of what the news has been broadcasting day after day about children being exploited, abused or molested by adults. That's enough to get anyone's dander up as it should but unfortunately thanks to the rash of molestation and child abduction/killing cases being blasted at us by the Media, people are in a mode where they can no longer differentiate the difference between a situation where a child subject was actually harmed and a situation where a child was not only never harmed but well-protected in the production of something that was meant to be perceived as tasteful and beautiful art.

I don't think for a moment that Miley Cyrus was ever in harm's way when she posed for those shots anymore than I'd be inclined to believe Brooke was ever being imposed on or ever in harm's way during the production of PB.

It's amazing though, that even today in an era where this kind of subject matter is so under fire by the politically correct that a movie having content controversial as PB is still considered legal.

Like I said before, at least until the smoke clears and the politically corect powers-that-be gain some sense and can discern the difference between material like PB and actual porn I'm going to steer clear of PB and similar movies simply by choice. At least here in the U.S. of Bagdad.

reply

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

Except in this case any prosecution would effectively implicate the producers, distributors and sellers, which includes huge corporations that would be obliged to defend their reputations and would have to come to the defense of the person being prosecuted - and they could afford lawyers that would rip the prosecutors a new one. There's no way in hell those companies would lose the case.

reply

[–] jminn1000 15 years ago

It is not porn this movie was done in good taste.

reply

[–] dj-anon 15 years ago

The nudity by Brooke Shields was not intended, at any time, to directly arouse the viewer, so it's NOT child porn.

---
When all of your wishes are granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed.

reply

[–] cntryblueeye 15 years ago

I believe it falls on a thin line of porn. Today that would never be allowed to be filmed. I actually dated a guy that went out of his way to go online and purchase the movie because of Brooke in it. Let's just say-I'm not with him anymore!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cntryblueeye 15 years ago

Because most men-especially 32 yr old men going out of their way to buy the movie because of Brooke is for one reason only. Let's not be stupid here! Most men would never watch that movie unless she was in it and in the nude. Let's just be truthful here, ok?

reply

[–] xenophile2002 15 years ago

Despite all the threads here going on and on about it, there is more to this movie than nekkid Brooke. The girl does a great job, yes, even when she has her clothes on.

Also, if you are a fan of a particular actress, you want every movie that actress has been in. You want Wanda Nevada and Just You and Me Kid and Tilt and The Blue Lagoon and...

And you want Pretty Baby, because the actress you're a fan of is in it. In fact, not that long ago we had a young woman posting that she wanted to see Pretty Baby just because it was the only Susan Sarandon movie she hadn't seen yet. She didn't want the movie because she wanted to see Sarandons boobs (which she will) but because she's a Susan Sarandon fan.

I don't know your ex-boyfriend. Maybe for him it was just "huh huh, huh huh, naked twelve-year-old, that's hot!" But there are other reasons to watch the movie.

- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.

reply

[–] cntryblueeye 15 years ago

Ya and you were the same one that posted the wallpaper of her naked bodys pics from the movie. You know what audience is gonna be saving that to their comp and yet you posted it. I like how you like to play dumb like I'd fall for it. I don't know you but I just go by what you have said and the things you've posted including that wallpaper set of pics.

reply

[–] xenophile2002 15 years ago

I remember when that was posted, and I think I commented, but I wasn't the one who posted it.

If you are going to say these things, you need to be able to back them up.

- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.

reply

[–] cntryblueeye 15 years ago

I thought I just did that. I thought I remembered your name so I checked your history and there you were-a on same board about same subject and you had posted that picture up. Right in link form. Check your history-it's there!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078111/board/thread/88231691?d=95721321&p=1#95721321

reply

[–] xenophile2002 15 years ago

Ah, thanks. Somebody else put it up, and I made it clickable. You'll notice that all the other posts in that thread were deleted.

OK, if you wanna call that me putting up the link, fine. I did repeat it, so maybe that counts.

- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.

reply

[–] podipod 15 years ago

Are you still posting comments on this board? (and other's, you know what Im talking about)I remember debating *beep* with you on this over two years ago My god man! you must be getting sick of being branded a pedophile - I just hope your still not oblivious as to why.

reply

[–] xenophile2002 15 years ago

You see, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. I know that cntryblueeye might be a bit annoying, but I have no reason to believe that she's a pedophile. Really, people need to stop throwing that word around as the "trendy insult." It has a meaning.

- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.

reply

1
2
3