MovieChat Forums > Palindromes (2025) Discussion > Advocating Pedophilia via Child Pornogra...

Advocating Pedophilia via Child Pornography


i wonder how could he get the papers needed for the CHILDREN to participate in this disgust...

this thing is not a movie. even not a "b movie". not a work of art. it is nothing but "advocating pedophilia via child pornography" covered up as an "art movie".

on the other hand i see that people who criticize the film are "molested" by "partizans" of the director by easily putting "you didn't understand" etc... i reaaly wonder when and how could Todd Solondz "supporters" monopolize the ability of "understanding a film"

if Todd Solondz was such a "successful" director as put forward by his "fanatics" then there should have never been this much people who "couldn't understand". if a work of art is a medium of communication then the composer of the work is assessed via the work's "communicablity". if vast majority even almost all of the people who "suffered this thing" point out that this "thing" is nothing but a piece of disgusting pornabd eventually "labeled" as "didn't understand" then the "advocates" of Todd Solondz should -at least- question the capabilities of Todd Solondz.

it deserves less than ZERO. not even 1/10

*******************
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=15227539

reply

I'm interested by your definition of "advocates". Does the movie depict pedophilia/hebephilia in the character of Earl/Joe/Bob? To some extent. But when in the movie is he portrayed in a positive light? Aviva falls in "love" with him because she is young, confused, and possibly (probably) in need of mental help, so I don't think even her love could be taken as justification.

There are no good characters in this movie, per se; no one that stands out to be the "moral compass" of the movie whose beliefs we should share. In that sense, the movie advocated nothing.

Also, child pornography? The only sex I saw involved the man shifting up and down awkwardly under blankets. No nudity, certainly no penetration.

I didn't enjoy this movie, but even I can tell that accusing it of glorifying pedophilia and child pornography is nothing short of, well, silly.

reply

jesus film makers cant just tell STORIES anymore.

learn what advocate means idiot.

reply

[deleted]

Advcating stupidity via your post. well done. WIllful inorance has got you so far.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

I did not see where this film advocated anything like pedophilia, child pornography, or immature interest in sex (the main theme, IMHO).
elephantoats' comment is closest to my opinion.
Certainly sex with young teen and adult males was 'shown'(maybe not pornography, though others may think differently), though participants were nearly fully clothed or under blankets.
I thought it was a fairly honest portrayal of immature, consensual sex. "Gross", inappropriate, awkward, disgusting - all can apply based on your tastes. I felt it had the opposite of advocacy.

reply

I haven't watched the film nor any of Todd Solandz others. However, I feel obliged to reply to you for one statement you made in particular.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if Todd Solondz was such a "successful" director as put forward by his "fanatics" then there should have never been this much people who "couldn't understand". if a work of art is a medium of communication then the composer of the work is assessed via the work's "communicablity".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go read Ulysses by James Joyce, or infact anything written by him, and get back to me. ;) It's regarded as the greatest novel of all time due to it's incomprehensibility.


-----------
Tread lightly, I am about to knock.

reply

Make sure you never watch the french movie Innocence, thats all I'm going to say!










Ashmi any question

reply