MovieChat Forums > Pretty Baby (1978) Discussion > You are all sick and pathetic

You are all sick and pathetic

posted 12 years ago by causewayking
21 replies | jump to latest

Yea I heard about this movie from work. I come on this site enough, so I looked it up to see what people would say about it. I have read a bunch of post and NOT ONE OF THEM HATED ON THIS MOVIE. You get more hate on a Prometheus board than this.

What is wrong with you people. So its ok to look at a 12 year old naked? Clearly her mother had issues and was looking to cash in. If this was ok to do this then why werent more parents doing this.

You should all be reported in my opinion for endorsing this. Even if this was ok early on... to be supporting this now just speaks to how you feel about looking at 12 year olds nude. If You see a girl standing there nude in playboy... is that not porn, This is the same thing. You say its a bad movie but the nude parts OF A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL IS ARTISTIC. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

[–] TheAnimalMother 12 years ago

What is WRONG with YOU?

There is nothing unreasonable about seeing a young person naked, it's perfectly natural. Haven't you ever been to a public swimming pool, or gone to a busy beach on a really nice day? I've seen many nude kids at the beach, and you know what, as far as I've seen, not one person has ever turned into a nut job and asked why the kid is going around all porno on the beach. No one cares, it's normal, it's natural. Perhaps you should think about crawling out from under that rock you live under, and actually get outside once in a while and see the world. Even the police don't give a damn as long as a kid is supervised.

Brooke is not naked in a sexual way in the film, but the nudity is definitely there to challenge how the viewer feels about this young person being involved in such a place. And that is exactly why the nudity in this film really is artistic, it challenges, it relays something to the viewer in terms of story, and it's definitely not sexual. In fact there really is no distasteful nudity in this film at all. Sure, it's a film about an ol' south whore house, however there is very minimal sexual nudity in the film at all. One small part with Susan Sarandon, and it is very tame and also specifically adds to the story.

Why don't you take a look in the mirror before you go around slamming others? You're here slamming others for enjoying a film that you basically describe as sick, yet you have obviously never even seen it. I'm not sure how you can even think to call anyone else pathetic given your own ignorance and stupidity. The parents guide advisory area for this film really overstates the amount of actual nudity in this film, and makes it sound much worse than it really is. This is a pretty authentic period piece.

Prometheus probably deserves more hate.

And no, a nude woman standing in Playboy is not porn. Not by any reasonable or lawful definition.

Pretty Baby was actually written by a woman who's Father was a judge.

And by the way, many other Mother's have let their young daughter's do artistic nudity on film. Keira Knightlely, Throa Birch, Nastassja Kinski are just a few others who have done under 18 nudity on film. I suppose you are now going to try to tell us that they are child porn stars of some sort? Lol! Get a grip.

The reason there is not much hate for this film in this forum is because extreme nut jobs like yourself are thankfully fairly rare in the world.

Lastly, why are you so afraid of seeing a young persons nude body? Shame, fear, what exactly is your malfunction?

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

[–] causewayking 12 years ago

So I am the nutjob for disaproving showing a 12 year old who grew up in a whorehouse and was auctioned off for her virginity naked. Yet you seem to be fairly up to date on movies that show underage kids naked. Interesting. People dont make money off a nude kid at the beach. Do you feel its ok to sell nude pictures of kids at the beach. That would be pretty similar would it not.

[–] stonewaspknight 12 years ago

they are all sick

the plague of this world. You scumbag pedophile Sh*t bags

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheAnimalMother 12 years ago

Yes, I feel you're the nutjob. Stuff like this did happen in reality. In fact, hello, it still happens in many places around the world today. This is a very authentic feeling film, and not at all one that glorifies anything sexual. Your criticism is waaaaay off base. The film is meant to shock, and meant to make us think about how unnatural it is for young people to be around such a sexual setting as in this film. The film is a worthy film for sure. If we do not look at our past and the world around us and meditate on it, what progress will we ever make? That's exactly what this film is, a meditation on the situation of young people being involved in the sex industry. It's something that needs to be talked about and dealt with. It's not something we should sweep under the rug. This film hits home, it certainly did for me. The nudity in the film was nothing really, not a big deal at all. What was uncomfortable and shocking to me however, was how comfortable Brooke's young character was around the topic of sex, and in talking about it and prostitution. That felt very wrong to me, it was easy to see that much of her young life was stolen from her just by growing up around prostitution. Before she even becomes involved in it, she has already become very cunning.

Fact check...she was not auctioned off naked in the film.

Lol, I'm fairly up to date on almost everything movies. You seem to be over reactive when it comes to young nude people in film. Are you sure you're not a closet pedophile?

"People dont make money off a nude kid at the beach. Do you feel its ok to sell nude pictures of kids at the beach. That would be pretty similar would it not."

To a sane person, no, that would not be very similar at all. However go to Google right now(World's most popular search engine) and just type in 'beach bum' with your filter on strict of course. :p
In my country at least, on the very first image page results for Google 'beach bum' there are two different pictures of little kids nude butts at the beach. Just on the first page! One is a painting, one a photo. I suppose now you are going to accuse Google of being a child porn factory. This is not a big deal, it's normal, it's natural, and no, it's not porn you idiot.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

[–] TheAnimalMother 12 years ago

And I'd also like to repeat...no, a nude woman standing in Playboy is not porn. Not by any reasonable or lawful definition.

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

[–] przgzr 12 years ago

If this was ok to do this then why werent more parents doing this.

First, there have been more parents doing this all around the world; but this is not the important thing that I'd like to say.

The important thing is how many good actors or actresses have been available, how many able to play the part - any character, in this movie it was Violet, but don't you think that directors first think about the ability of an actor/actress of any age to do what the authors expect them to, to fulfill the task, to enable the movie to look as the writers, directors, even producers imagined. Just look at the number of children that take part in auditions, brought by their parents. And only a few of them get the role. More parents would be doing this - whatever "this" means, but their kids aren't actors good enough.

[–] shalise-begum 11 years ago

I am amazed how this movie was even made. I get it they tried to tell a story, but OMG. All those men staring and touching a child like that'? That is sick. I am open minded but wow.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ridge-m-1 11 years ago

The OP is a very sad commentary on just how repressed our society has become with all of the reborn Jesus Freaks and their own perverted view of Christianity which they desperately attempt to foist on those of us that are more moral as well as much more intelligent. More people have died because of the likes of individuals such as causewaythecrazyking than the society represented by the old-fashioned Southern house of prostitution presented in this film.

[–] SataiDelen 9 years ago

Ridge, you hit the nail on the head. This country (America) is very quickly heading back into the Dark Ages. Between being OVERLY PC, to the Bible Belt Freaks, thinking that THEIR morals and values should be EVERYONE'S morals and values, we're sinking in quicksand.

At any rate, no one here is going to make the OP understand why this movie is not porn or child prostitution. The OP is convinced that they know best, and has a very closed mind, which means they're not going to engage their brain and THINK. They're just going to regurgitate the UBER-Christian spiel they've been force-fed from birth. Getting this person to think for themself is not going to happen.

EMOTICONS ARE BACK! YAY!   

[–] josella14-1 10 years ago

I think what some people here are missing is the fact that while some people are happy to call this film "art", there *are* others who are going to be titilated by it, whether the nude scenes are "sexual" or not. I suspect that a paedophile doesn't need a child to be naked to be attracted to them, so for a film to show as much nudity as this one does is just extra provocation for them. I'm not usually a wowser, and I don't believe in general censorship, but when I saw this film, I *did* think "How is this not child porn?" Yes, I think Brooke was exploited. And not just in this film.

[–] fnj2002 10 years ago

I know there are many nutjobs who are hung-up about their own nude body, let alone somebody else's. Just how do they think babies are born? In full attire? I'm not saying I don't have my own hangups, but thinking that makes any sense whatsoever is NOT one of them.

There is a pretty clear line between the U.S. and (very generally speaking) Europeans. The latter just can't understand how so many people of the U.S. persuasion are so horrified and feel such repressed sexual feelings about seeing the human form in its natural state.

Guys, it's not normal. Get over thinking it's normal.

As for this particular film, child porn? Are you freaking kidding me? That thought is just sick.

[–] barcham_99 10 years ago

It is not 'child porn' because there is nothing at all pornographic about the film. No sex acts are being shown, even between adults. Nudity does not equal pornography and I feel sorry for anyone who believes it does.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

... there is nothing at all pornographic about the film. No sex acts are being shown, even between adults.

Agreed! It's laughably ironic that the moronic OP can come on to a forum such as this and lambast viewers of a 36 year old legitimate film, he hasn't even seen himself. Such stuff is only likely to give red-necks a bad name.🐭

[–] kategriffin0 10 years ago

its a movie nutjob

[–] dragonsex12 10 years ago

I agree with both sides, but I'd like to point out that at 13 years old I'm sure Brooke had very little say in anything. For that reason it is disturbing. 13 is far too young to give someone consent to film you naked.
However, if Brooke had been 18 at the time then I would be able to see past the nudituy to the true art. I just feel so sorry for
her, that had such a mature role. That could do serious damage to a young girl.

[–] tammytkspr 10 years ago

I think it's sick that this crap is allowed to happen, and then they hide behind that it's "art". I'm seeing the same thing with the new Sia video. It's just disturbing. I really think the FBI should investigate everyone who actually approves of this crap.

[–] krypton_son 9 years ago

Overreact much causewayking? Get over it, it was appropriate and necessary for the plot of the movie. Grow up. Maybe you were watching this with perverted eyes, but most people accept it for what it is; an accurate period piece.