MovieChat Forums > À ma soeur ! (2001) Discussion > Is this director crazy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Is this director crazy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

posted 19 years ago by hortonsgame
66 replies | jump to latest

I can't believe this director made a movie like this. I'm not talking about the actress that was naked in bed. I mean she played a 15 year old but in real life she was 19. What I'm talking about is the young girl. She was only 13 for crying out loud!!! What kind of person films a 13 year old nude?!?! I'm not talking about no typical little kid butt shot either. I'm talking about one of the most modest parts of a woman's body. Her breasts. And what really got to me was the fact that we had to see this young girl's breasts during the rape scene. Who the hell knows what the actor who played the rapist was really thinking while filming. He could've been a damn pedo in real life for all we know. God, sometimes these movies make me sick. No wonder this film is so controversial. That director should be ashamed of herself!!! Poor little girl!!!!

[–] pracad 19 years ago

You should only be concerned if you find the images of the girl sexually stimulating.
I wonder if people react so agressively because they feel guilty that they've witnessed something like this? and are not sure what to think about it?
You are reacting how you THINK you should.
"child nudity is wrong!! full stop!! "
Stop jumping on bandwagons.

If you don't find it sexually stimulating, like me, and nearly all the other people on here who watched this film and liked it, there is pretty much no problem.

There is of course a concern about if the child was forced into it, did she realise exactly what she was doing and how it would affect her life? Would she regret it in future? Millions of people could potentially see her naked. But I see you aren't even bringing up these things, you are just shouting and blabbering. (!)
Although, I wanted to say as a reply to the the question (that I brought up!!) that things ARE viewed differently in "Europe" as they say.
Nude beaches, nude in front of family members, even as teenagers. No problem. So perhaps the actress had no problem with the film, and won't in the future. It's just how their culture is.

I'm not dissing Americans or the maturity of people or whatever. It's just a fact. Some people don't find it sick and some people do. There are plenty Americans who are nudists.
Think more about WHY do you think it's sick next time, and write about that.

Quote by dalifemme:
And as to child nudity vs. adult nudity comment.
It really depends how you see them yourself.
I see a kid naked, I see just that. a kid naked.
So what? I used to run around butt naked too as
a kid. If the nudity is done in a way that is meant
to cause sexual arousal, yes, then it's definately
wrong, but surely any adult can tell the difference?

Exactly.
When I see a naked child I am not concerned because I am not a pervert...and if there is a pervert watching..there's not much you can do about it.

You can't stop people's thoughts, you can't KNOW what people are thinking.
That doesn't mean you should cover every child up.
Thoughts in themselves don't actually harm anyone anyway. It's only the (REAL, not acted) exploitation of children, and it's quite obvious this would not be allowed to be made into a film, and it's quite obvious that the film is not child porn. If you think it is -you are the one with the problem. Not the directors, not the parents, no one else.

And that's all i have to say about that. For now.

[–] cwhiteh2 19 years ago

Getting back to the original post and avoiding a "US vs. the World" argument...

I believe the op was expressing his dissatisfaction with the director for using an actual 13 year old in lieu of having an adult actor play the role (as in the case of the sister). If you want to blame anyone though, blame the girl's parents. There is absolutely no way I'd allow a child that I loved to experience being raped, even if simulated. I know in different cultures a 13 year old would be considered a woman and ready for sexuality, but this wasn't an expression of that either.

Rape isn't about nudity or sexual awakening. It's about power and control. The only reason I think it would be necessary to show the rape, would be to make us really feel the emotions being experienced by the rapist and more importantly, the victim. It might be appropriate to show a rape in a movie where the audience needs to hate the rapist (in the event the victim kills the rapist, or if the victim were to become a sexual predator themselves and needed the rape sequence to show their undoing.)

Overall, I feel sorry for the actress for having to feel the shame and guilt she felt (and will feel)...because she was "raped". According to the trivia, the actress was told her dog had died in order to induce her to cry on cue, thus demonstrating that she had to connect reality and fantasy to be able to play the role believably. Who can really say if psychological damage wasn't done to the actresses based on that scene?

Also I'm saddened that directors in this age are unable to reach our minds by using "suggested imagery / scenery". I didn't view the scene, but it sounds like it could have been done in a different way that would have forced the viewer to use their imagination to fill in the rape scenes and in doing so cause us to really identify and bare our fears and shame. Directors can't make us "experience" anymore without actually showing the event. In doing so it causes us to become desensitized and concentrate more on ripped panties and exposed breast than the murder of a child's innocence and the permanent disfigurement of her life and sexuality.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Skinsofourfathers 19 years ago

I completely agree. I know people who work in the Penal system and they have one on one contact with all kinds of cons and Pedophiles don't get aroused the same way normal people do. Since as a society we have come to understand that there must be a safe haven for children, that they must be protected and guarded from sickos. Then we have to understand the pathology of those same sickos. They secretly desire kids, but more importantly they get off on taking away the innocence that kids have. So for someone to say that we're all prudes because we're stepping up and stating that it's disturbing for a director to show a thirteen year olds breasts on film, maybe they should think about what it would be like if it was their daughter on the screen. Or better yet themselves at thirteen. I have two kids and I would never want them exposed for all the world to oggle. But does that mean that I'm against all nudity? Heck no I think that it's great! But there's an age and a self awareness that comes with reaching the age of majority so why rush it? I can't hide my kids from violence and reality but I can keep them safe from pedophiles. Whether it's art or not this director crossed a line that should be the responsibility of all adults. I apologize about my long rant it's over now.

[–] IMDb_is_crap 15 years ago

I'm not talking about the actress that was naked in bed. I mean she played a 15 year old but in real life she was 19. What I'm talking about is the young girl. She was only 13 for crying out loud!!! What kind of person films a 13 year old nude?!?!

So as long as they're past the sacred age of 18 nudity is fine? Most females are sexually developed by the age of 13. The fact she had breasts is proof that she was.

parts of a woman's body

Exactly. She was a woman, not a child.

Roman Polanski isn't a paedophile!

[–] dancetheghost1920 14 years ago

The girl was too young and had to be coaxed into nudity and the scene. I adore all the posts claiming it is no big deal, it is just breasts. Then why was it necessary to show them. I lol at brooke shields' exploitive film being used as an argument that pubescent sexualized nudity is healthy. Um. No.

[–] f2039 15 years ago

wow they are very humanist when a 13 y.o. is nude in a film.

do they show the same humanism when a 13 y.o. Iraqi girl is killed with American bombs?

[–] harveythepooka 14 years ago

I don't know why people are getting mad at the OP. The textbook definition of child pornography (well in the US anyway) includes nudity that is sexual in any way, breasts shown during intercourse would count in my book, but there were obvious exceptions made because this is a piece of art.

It honestly boggles my mind that people make comments about Americans being closed minded when the person making the comments is so obviously closed minded to people who hold different views than them and they can't respect other people have a different tolerance for what is sexually acceptable. Is it nudity? Sex? Orgies? BDSM? Swinging? Bestiality? Everyone will have a different reaction to all those things, based on culture, morals and personal experience. Don't judge others because they don't have the same views as you, no matter what your views are. So long as everyone is old enough to make mature decisions and consent to everything they participate in I don't care what other people do or don't do when I'm not looking. The OP saw a 13 year old child get "raped" and was offended. The director wanted it to be shocking and it was so, so yeah he/she is obviously way out of line getting offended . . . *eyeroll*

And those people saying that a 13 year old CHILD is actually a woman needs to do some research. Your body can be fully grown but your mind is still developing until your late teens, teens have different sleep patterns than adults, and have hormone shifts. There is a HELL of a lot more to being a woman than a pair of breasts.

[–] przgzr 10 years ago

Though I have different attitudes I am pleasantly surprised how tollerant you are when accepting the fact that other cultures have different traditions, points of view etc. And I could also be equally tollerant and ignore the fact that some country has its own different life style, tradition, attitudes, laws etc, if this country wouldn't be doing best it can to spread them all over the world replacing those old traditions in other countries. I have never experienced that any European culture (or Asian, African...) tried to influence the culture of any other country including yours. And I feel that you honestly believe that other cultures are free, unattacked, left for its people to keep them. But we who live out of your country can see how things are changing, how our old holidays become forgotten and neglected because new ones have been implemented without any previous traditions (e.g. St Valentine's Day, Halloween etc), ethnic and centuries old traditional music has been swept away within a generation because of being "obsolete", African tribes and nations had to change their rituals because somebody had found them "indecent" (do you thing Europeans found them indecent, or do you thing any European nation has the power to force them to change their rituals?), family relations and life goals suddenly have been radically changing, and - suprise? - all around the world simultaneously and in the same direction (same model...). I trust your honesty and tollerance, but there are things that you seem to be uninformed of...

And as for child/woman transformation... Surely, this is long lasting process, but you have some disputable arguments. Human body keeps changing till its end, so the sleeping pattern is also not the same in twenties, sixties or nineties. Hormons - I guess you are talking about sexual hormones - are silent in the earlier childhood, but are present before puberty (otherwise there would be no puberty) and yes, they change their blood level and interhormonal ratio, but they also change their blood level and ratio during pregnancy and again on the onset of menopause (in fact, before, otherwise there would be no menopause). So do you want to say that women on the onset of menopause already lose their womanhood and stop being women when the menopause is over? The mind is devoloping during teens but deteriorate slowly during adulthood, accelerating this process in senior years. Do these females have any right to be called WOMAN following your criteria? (And, don't forget that the intelligence peaks during adolescence; in no way does it mean that humans are most mature at that age, but you see how risky can some arguments be?)

[–] yourmakerawaits 14 years ago

Please allow me to clarify. That was a stun double. Her head was superimposed on it.

NOW. Let's all breath a heavy sigh of relief!

The spoiler is A HAPPY ENDING!

[–] tomislav888 14 years ago

lol wtf

[–] reziztor 14 years ago

Europeans and Canadians must think they are the center of the world. They call Americans prudish, but don't consider China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, all of islamic Africa, almost all of the middle-east and a lot of Central and South America. All of them have censorship on things like 13 year old tits. Get over yourselves white people, you are just a small weird corner of the Earth that loves to fap.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kur1su 13 years ago

Yet only Americans whine about a bit of nudity constantly in these forums.

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

Europeans and Canadians must think they are the center of the world. They call Americans prudish, but don't consider China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, all of islamic Africa, almost all of the middle-east and a lot of Central and South America. All of them have censorship on things like 13 year old tits. Get over yourselves white people, you are just a small weird corner of the Earth that loves to fap.

Exactly. The anti-American sentiment here is just a part of a juvenile fad.

BUGS

[–] iam_kathryn 14 years ago

It's called anatomy. human anatomy. Just because the religious community hates their bodies doesn't change the fact that it just natural human anatomy. Breasts. They are not sacred. They are skin and glands. Men can walk around shirtless. But women can't. hmm, wonder why....oh it's because of religious fanatics. American no less.

Also, Could you tell me the difference between a bra and panties compared to a two piece bikini? The bra and panties you wear under clothes and the two piece bikini you can wear outside. Although you can see more "cleavage" in the bikini. But it's socially acceptable. wonder why. makes no sense.

But I'm not gonna get anywhere with this, even though I made a good point. Just something to think about. Granted you can think and reason.