American Beauty Nudity (SPOILERS)
gjw
There should be laws to protect minors from this sort of thing, but
apparently there are not, or if there are, the laws are not enforced.
If you think this example is bad, take a look at "Pretty Baby", in
which Brook Shields, at 12 years old, did a lengthy scene in which she
was totally nude in the room with an older man. And in the movie she
was playing a child prostitute living in a whorehouse, whose virginity
is auctioned off to the highest bidder...
If they didn't toss her mother (or the director) in jail for that one
back in 1978, I doubt that you're going to see anyone get in trouble
over a 17-year old doing a topless scene in 1999.
Ghost of KalElFan
one partial nudity scene that I think qualifies as a spoiler,
but about other important elements of the movie.
First, I think the movie's great. Kevin Spacey gives perhaps
the best performance I've ever seen, and I predict is a deserved
lock for Best Actor. There are about four or five points in the
movie where he does something -- maybe just a facial reaction
for example, or the way he delivers some line -- where I just
silently shook my head and couldn't believe what he did, how
good it was. I think this guy moves ahead of Jack Nicholson,
Nicholas Cage or any other best-actor-in-the-world candidate
with this movie. The material he's working with here is quite
good most of the time, but he still elevates it and turns the
so-so stuff into good-to-great stuff.
In fact this movie could conceivably win all six or seven major
awards. Admittedly we haven't seen several other movies yet,
but I'll predict this has actor, picture, director, and screenplay
for starters. Annette Bening gets a best actress nom for sure,
Wes Bentley a nom for supporting actor I think, and Thora
Birch a nom for supporting actress. Others in the cast are
good too, but I'd single out those mentioned.
I think the movie will defy the conventional wisdom that it
won't have popular appeal because of its dark tone at times
and ending. There are a number of things they've done here
which I think soften that. Spacey is an actor people want
to see right about now. He's about to become a big draw.
There are also some good laughs, so in a way the movie
does deliver on that comedy impression people may have
of it. We pretty much know the dark ending (that the
Spacey character will be dying) near the beginning. His
narrative is actually post-death, and that and the movie's
message are arguably uplifting in the end. Then there's
this partial nudity thing...
The teenage vamp character baring her breasts near the end
didn't surprise me, because the movie's publicity (the rose
petals strategically placed) suggested it might happen. I also
assumed the actress was older than the age (16 or whatever)
that she was playing. There was rear nudity for Spacey and
a few other scenes of partially nude characters, or full nudity
but shot strategically. Again no big deal.
But the most surprising scene to me was the daughter taking
her blouse off and then her bra. Tha actress looked under 18,
and although the context of the scene was her being technically
alone in her room, the guy with the camera across the street is
shooting her and she knows it. It's a fairly close shot through
the window, very much a voyeur context and/or her seducing
him.
I hadn't read anything about this scene and assumed that an
under-18 actress wouldn't be able to do it. In fact as the scene
progressed and she took the blouse off, I was thinking no way
she would take off the bra. Or she'd turn around quickly like
that scene in Something About Mary. I think others may have
the same reaction, figuring we won't really see it, thus the
surprise when she does take it off, and the shot lasts maybe
three to five seconds with her topless. She, and they, looked
very very nice by the way, :-), so I'm not complaining in the
least, but...
Sure enough there was an older lady about two rows back and
to my right who was grumbling to her (also older female) friend
a moment later about it being disgusting. Presumably the idea
that this was a 15 or 16 year old being portrayed, and the actress
looked the part, and the context, all made it disgusting for her.
I assumed the actress was just older than she looked.
Anyway, I was curious enough to check because I'd seen the
actress before but didn't know who she was. She's the
aforementioned Thora Birch, and I guess I recognized her
as Jack Ryan's daughter from Patriot Games and the other
movie. I wouldn't have seen her in the TV shows she's done.
According to the Internet Movie Data Base she turned 17
in March, which would presumably have meant 16 when
the movie was made.
A Deja News search revealed there was some discussion of
this on alt.fan.teen.starlets a few weeks ago, a few people
claiming she couldn't have done the scene, it's against the
law, it must have been a double, yadda yadda. But apparently
Thora Birch did an interview confirming she did the scenel (a
post or two referred to it). Some pointed out that under-18 nudity
per se is not illegal, as long as it isn't sexual. But that point
is arguable here, when you have the voyeurism and videotape
context, the camera guy around that time becomes her boy-
friend and a sexual scene (with rear nudity by him) is strongly
suggested between the two of them a few scenes later even
though we hadn't seen any sex.
I think the topless scene will titillate the male audience as did
Kate Winslet's scene in Titanic, only this movie may have more
to gain in terms of upside. I can see it getting press and perhaps
some controversy. Yes, you can stretch it and make an artistic
explanation that this movie invites us to "look closer" (great
tag line for this movie by the way), peel back the onion of
American Beauty and The American Dream and probably
Life, and be surprised and shocked. But if Calvin Klein tried
this stunt even for a Playboy ad, or a porno producer disguised
a Sweet Sixteen video series with no matter how much in the
way of art trappings, they'd get crucified.
Anyway, the movie's great and I think it will have people and
the press talking about it a lot in a few weeks if not before then.
Muhlyssa
>Nicholas Cage or any other best-actor-in-the-world candidate
My god, I would never trust anyone who thought Cage was a best actor candidate.
Melissa
Skink
> There should be laws to protect minors from this sort of thing, but
> apparently there are not, or if there are, the laws are not enforced.
Hmm. Let me see if I can get this straight.
Naked newborn on TV's "ER."
VERDICT: Okay.
Naked seventeen-year-old girl in Roeg's WALKABOUT.
VERDICT: Okay.
Topless seventeen-year-old girl in AMERICAN BEAUTY.
VERDICT: Burn them!
Americans are weird.
Moriarty
MAJOR SPOILERS below and in this thread,
not just about one partial nudity scene that I think
qualifies as a spoiler, but about other important
elements of the movie.
First, I think the movie's great. Kevin Spacey gives
perhaps the best performance I've ever seen,
and I predict is a deserved lock for Best Actor.
There are about four or five points in the movie
where he does something -- maybe just a facial
reaction for example, or the way he delivers
some line -- where I just silently shook my head
and couldn't believe what he did, how good it was.
I think this guy moves ahead of Jack Nicholson,
Nicholas Cage or any other best-actor-in-the-world
candidate with this movie. The material he's
working with here is quite good most of the time,
but he still elevates it and turns the so-so stuff
into good-to-great stuff.
I think Spacey's work here is remarkable. When I first read Alan Ball's
script last year, I didn't like Lester. I thought that as a character he
was weak, uninteresting, and I couldn't imagine following him through a
whole film and caring about him in any way. Fifteen minutes into this film,
watching Spacey, I got it. There's no way you can be anything but
empathetic towards Lester. He's so achingly real, so wide open. His
internal transformation over the course of the picture is more impressive
than his physical one. I've seen the film twice now, and both times I've
been moved to tears when Mena Suvari asks him how he is, and he considers it
for a long moment before answering honestly, simply, "I'm fine." It's such
a beautiful place for Lester to reach, such a Zen conclusion to his year of
change.
In fact this movie could conceivably win all six
or seven major awards. Admittedly we haven't
seen several other movies yet, but I'll predict this
has actor, picture, director, and screenplay
for starters. Annette Bening gets a best actress
nom for sure, Wes Bentley a nom for supporting actor
I think, and Thora Birch a nom for supporting actress.
Others in the cast are good too, but I'd single out
those mentioned.
Remember 1986? Remember Dennis Hopper's amazing work as Frank Booth in BLUE
VELVET? Now, do you remember the character he played in HOOSIERS? No? Me,
neither, but that's who he got nominated for playing. I think that Bening
and Spacey will be nominated, but I think that the supporting actor
nomination will go to Chris Cooper for OCTOBER SKY, even though it's his
AMERICAN BEAUTY work that merits the notice. I think Birch has a shot if
it's a thin year, but if there's a lot of competition right at year's end
for supporting actress, she'll get bumped.
I think the movie will defy the conventional wisdom
that it won't have popular appeal because of its dark
tone at times and ending. There are a number
of things they've done here which I think soften that.
Spacey is an actor people want to see right about now.
He's about to become a big draw. There are also
some good laughs, so in a way the movie does deliver
on that comedy impression people may have of it.
We pretty much know the dark ending (that the Spacey
character will be dying) near the beginning. His narrative
is actually post-death, and that and the movie's message
are arguably uplifting in the end. Then there's this
partial
nudity thing...
Heh heh heh... I know what you're going to ask.
The teenage vamp character baring her breasts
near the end didn't surprise me, because the movie's
publicity (the rose petals strategically placed)
suggested it might happen. I also assumed the
actress was older than the age (16 or whatever)
that she was playing.
Mena Suvari is indeed 19 years old, 18 when the film was shooting.
You are correct, sir. I interviewed Thora, Mena, and Wes Bentley last week,
and this question came up. I wanted to know if it was a special effect shot
(there's a convenient window frame that could have been used to do a digital
composite), and both she and Sam Mendes confirmed that it was indeed her.
She wanted to do the scene and felt it was important for Jane and for her.
A Deja News search revealed there was some
discussion of this on alt.fan.teen.starlets a few
weeks ago, a few people claiming she couldn't
have done the scene, it's against the law, it must
have been a double, yadda yadda. But apparently
Thora Birch did an interview confirming she did
the scenel (a post or two referred to it). Some
pointed out that under-18 nudity per se is not illegal,
as long as it isn't sexual. But that point is arguable
here, when you have the voyeurism and videotape
context, the camera guy around that time becomes
her boyfriend and a sexual scene (with rear nudity
by him) is strongly suggested between the two
of them a few scenes later even
It's all in a dramatic context, though. I think it would be next to
impossible to prove to any court in this country that AMERICAN BEAUTY is
pornography. Thora Birch is an actor. She and her parents had to have
signed off on the scene. There's really no controversy here.
I think the topless scene will titillate the male
audience as did Kate Winslet's scene in
Titanic, only this movie may have more to gain
in terms of upside. I can see it getting press
and perhaps some controversy. Yes, you can
stretch it and make an artistic explanation that
this movie invites us to "look closer" (great
tag line for this movie by the way), peel back
the onion of American Beauty and The American
Dream and probably Life, and be surprised
and shocked. But if Calvin Klein tried this stunt
even for a Playboy ad, or a porno producer
disguised a Sweet Sixteen video series
with no matter how much in the way of art
trappings, they'd get crucified.
In an ad, it would be inappropriate, and if it were a porno producer, it
would be very easy to watch and tell what the purpose of the special was.
David Hamilton is a photographer who's had beaucoup trouble because of the
nature of his work, and it's because it walks a fine line between art and
titillation. Context does count.
>Anyway, the movie's great and I think it will have people and
>the press talking about it a lot in a few weeks if not before then.
"Moriarty" out.
Bryant Frazer
: According to the Internet Movie Data Base she turned 17
: in March, which would presumably have meant 16 when
: the movie was made.
Congratulations; you've just sold another few dozen tickets to AMERICAN
BEAUTY.
: Some pointed out that under-18 nudity
: per se is not illegal, as long as it isn't sexual. But that point
: is arguable here, when you have the voyeurism and videotape
: context, the camera guy around that time becomes her boy-
: friend and a sexual scene (with rear nudity by him) is strongly
: suggested between the two of them a few scenes later even
: though we hadn't seen any sex.
What's illegal is for an under-18 performer -- or an over-18 performer
*portraying* an under-18 character -- to engage in a simulated sex act
on-screen. If no sex act appears on-screen, there's no violation.
This is why the editing of LOLITA was considered such a touchy matter a
few years ago -- even though a body double was used in any scenes in which
Dominique Swain and Jeremy Irons were to have sexual contact, the mere
depiction of such contact, whether or not Swain was actually involved, is
prohibited by the letter of the law. I have a theory that this is also why
other movies involving sexually active high-schoolers (such as WILD
THINGS) have gone out of their way to identify the characters as 18 years
old.
A similar law (at the state, not the federal level) was invoked in
Oklahoma City a couple of years ago, with the result that police actually
visited the homes of private citizens to confiscate rented copies of
Oscar-winning Volker Schlondorff film THE TIN DRUM, after having
Blockbuster turn over customer rental records. The film includes a scene
where a young boy (who is meant to be an older person stuck in a young
boy's body) has oral sex with a grown woman. No nudity, but in theory a
violation of the law. I haven't followed the case all the way through, but
I seem to remember that it was dismissed at some point.
While it is uncommon, especially in this age of hysteria over "protecting
our children", for minors to appear naked in mainstream movies, it does
occur. Uma Thurman, for example, was under 18 when she appeared in both
THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN and DANGEROUS LIAISONS. It's more
common in European movies, where the ingenues seem to start their careers
fairly early.
-bf-
DEEP FOCUS (Movie Reviews)
http://www.panix.com/~bfrazer/flicker/
"Do you think there's a really *angry* way I could say I'm sorry?"
Mason Barge
>per se is not illegal, as long as it isn't sexual. But that point
>is arguable here,
Child porno is the last stand of decency and sexual morality on the frontier of
the First Amendment, and Manifest Destiny is about to put it onto a reservation
in Utah somewhere. One great problem is that it is impossible to define a
statute that is not subjective. You really can't pass a law that would make it
illegal for parents to have pictures of their naked three-year-old romping at
the beach, so you really can't have a law forbidding nude depictions of 9 or
15-year-old children.
Then you have the First-Amendment hysterics, the kind of people who would
lionize Larry Flynt into anything but a scumbag.
If you find this disturbing, well, at least 16-year-old girls are actually old
enough to have sexual encounters without complete traumatization of their
psyches, and I will point out, acceptance of sexual activity in people this age
is increasingly accepted by parents as "inevitable".
But no, you'd have to say it would be just about impossible to prosecute a
studio for showing a child naked, unless she were actually having sex or, like
Annette Bening in "Grifters", spread-eagled on a bed trying to get a man to
nail her in lieu of rent.
"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what God put us on earth to rise above.."
-- Rose Sayer
Mason Barge
>which Brook Shields, at 12 years old, did a lengthy scene in which she
>was totally nude in the room with an older man.
This presents another problem of legal definition. Is there anything sexual
about a prepubescent girl's uncovered chest.
The Frency, I should point out, have always been enormously fond of the sex
lives of teenage girls.
LoAndEd
>This presents another problem of legal >definition. Is there anything sexual
>about a prepubescent girl's uncovered >chest.
To violate the federal "child pornography" laws, there must be a dipiction of
minors engaged in "sexually explicit conduct," which is defined to mean "actual
or simulated -
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between
persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any
person."
Haven't seen AB, but from the descriptions on this thread, the definition
wouldn't appear to be satisfied.
By the way, an article in today's NYTimes on Birch/Suvari reads, in part, as
follows:
"Ms. Birch, who is still under the 18-year-old bar [not identified which bar
that might be], . . . had her own big erotic moment. 'I'm stripping in the
window,' Ms. Birch said of a scene in which she flashes an admirer holding a
video camera, though no real nudity was shown."
Queries:
Who's holding the camera -- the flasher or the flashee?!
If the descriptions on this thread are accurate, what does "no real nudity"
mean?
Ed
Steve Kraus
> My god, I would never trust anyone who thought Cage was a best actor candidate.
What planet are you on, Melissa? Did you SEE
"Leaving Las Vegas," the movie Nicholas Cage
was not only nominated for but WON the Academy
Award for Best Actor? Cage is one of the best
actors working in film today.
Steve Kraus
> If they didn't toss her mother (or the director) in jail for that one
> back in 1978, I doubt that you're going to see anyone get in trouble
> over a 17-year old doing a topless scene in 1999.
Unfortunately for freedom of expression, the laws have
changed. There is a highly unconstitutional (in my opinion)
item known as the "Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996"
which criminalizes even simulated depictions of sex by minors.
The prior laws against kiddie porn carved out an exception to
First Amendment freedoms because REAL kids were being harmed.
(Of course one notes that the actual abuse is well covered by
other laws but recognizing the difficulty in catching the
makers the laws attempt to thwart them by outlawing their
product. It's a rare case where the evidence of a crime is
itself a crime.) What the more recent law does is to criminalize
material where no actual child abuse has taken place--indeed
even where no minors are involved whatsoever.
This is a perfect example of why Free Speech proponents get
riled up when ANY exceptions are created: It really is the thin
edge of the wedge and the 1996 statute (which had police in
Oklahoma City knocking on peoples' doors late at night demanding
their rented copies of "The Tin Drum" not to mention severe
problems in editing "Lolita") is a perfect example because it
took the original idea of protecting REAL children and
extrapolated it into forbidding IDEAS. Welcome to the age
of THOUGHT CRIME.
As for "American Beauty" no sex is depicted so not a problem
but technically "American Pie" could be targeted and would be
if it wasn't a big studio film.
Steve Kraus
> If the descriptions on this thread are accurate, what does "no real nudity"
> mean?
Yes, they are accurate. Thora Birch bares her chest through
the window to the boy videotaping her next door. And Mena
Suvari's bare breasts are revealed in the clinches with Kevin
Spacey. (She's not a minor but one presumes her character
may be.) Therefore, I presume that "no real nudity" in the
NYT refers to the fact that neither their butts or genitals
are visible. If I recall, bare breasts are legal in NY--or
maybe that case only applied specifically to the NYC subway. ;)
John Strieder
Moriarty wrote:
I don't think there's a controversy here, either. But that doesn't mean we won't
have to hear about it ad nauseum from our fellow Americans.
Remember "The Tin Drum" in Oklahoma City? That was only a year or so ago.
jps
alex crouvier
Skink <a32...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:a32768-1909...@sdn-ar-001txdallp300.dialsprint.net...
I know!! But you should have been here, dude. It's even ...weirder/
Ghost of KalElFan
**** Remember, major SPOILERS below and in the thread... ****
In article <7s23pt$nhc$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Moriarty"
<tf...@earthlink.net> writes:
>I've seen the film twice now, and both times I've
>been moved to tears when Mena Suvari asks him how he is,
>and he considers it for a long moment before answering
>honestly, simply, "I'm fine." It's such a beautiful place for
>Lester to reach, such a Zen conclusion to his year of
>change.
Yes that was very good, but remember why he's fine. He
found out his daughter is in love, and that's really the moment
where I think Spacey gives the best reaction shot in the movie.
He realizes that she's being honest and true to herself and what
she wants, and he's probably especially happy because that
suggests she'll avoid making the kind of mistakes he made
over the last 20 years. The daughter is a key character here,
because in a way she's gone down his same path of realization,
but at an age he should have or wished he had.
Which brings us back to that partial nudity scene. It's then
that she takes the final step over into honesty with herself.
Her boyfriend is the most honest character in the movie from
the start. He lies to his father to keep him pacified, but he's
true to himself and what he wants. She initially has the
reaction she's "supposed" to have -- he's weird -- but is very
quickly impressed with how confidently and brutally honest
he is. He doesn't have an ounce of guilt about the video taping
or hash selling or anything else. She starts this journey to
come to the same point that he's at. Her journey is completed
with this topless scene where she accepts his voyeurism (and
in a way seduces him), and confimed later when she says yes
she'll go with him to New York.
In a direct way the audience is challenged to be honest in that
scene as well. It's a test almost, call it the Colonel Fitts test
but the heterosexual under-18 version. She's 16 or whatever,
she's obviously become a sexual being. She knows it and she
wants to be. The male audience will be titillated by this. As
the other poster said, we've sold a dozen tickets to the movie.
I'd say more like 10,000 times that, minimum, if this becomes
a bigger story. Teens won't admit it to their parents, men may
not admit it to their wives or girlfriends, but there are very few
guys who don't want to see the bra come off in that scene.
You're not supposed to say that of course. We have society
and the older lady a few rows back thinking this is disgusting.
You have to be brutally honest to ask, as Lester might by now,
"Why is this wrong?" That's what the movie does in a way. If
you're against 16-year-olds baring their breasts in a very direct,
titillating way, this movie is daring you to come out and either
be a Fitts-like hypocrite, or make your case.
If it gets covered more widely in the press, I think it'll be a
challenge certain folks will find nearly impossible to resist. It
really does put them on the spot. You *know* they would
love to create a big brouhaha about this, but the movie itself
has already made a powerful case and it would be difficult.
If they don't answer, they lose. If they do answer, they may
still lose and bring the movie more publicity in any event. But
to not answer such a direct challenge, I can't imagine that.
I also can't believe that the makers of the film didn't know
what they were doing here. I think they expect the scene
to get press and create controversy, and to attract males.
I think they kept it under wraps figuring it would become
a story at a time the publicity generated would be the most
help, yet no one will be able to accuse them of hyping it
up themselves because they never said a word about it.
The audience discovers it and starts talking about it, and
for males it's a bonus incentive to go see a movie that
people say may be best picture. Not to mention the push
it gives the movie on repeat business, and video later.
By the way, thanks for confirming the information on age
and genuineness of the scenes.
Ghost of KalElFan
a32...@excite.com (Skink) writes:
>Naked newborn on TV's "ER."
>VERDICT: Okay.
>
>Naked seventeen-year-old girl in Roeg's WALKABOUT.
>VERDICT: Okay.
>
>Topless seventeen-year-old girl in AMERICAN BEAUTY.
>VERDICT: Burn them!
>
>Americans are weird.
I think some of them are very, very hung up on sex. They feel
they have to protect teenagers from it, especially their own
teenage girls and especially from partners more than, say,
two or three years older.
She wasn't 17, she was 16 it's been confirmed by Moriarty,
and so I think this could generate a controversy because
of the nature of the scene. It's a very honest scene that in
a way addresses this issue we're talking about head-on,
as I describe in the other post just now.
Ghost of KalElFan
>There should be laws to protect minors from this sort of thing, but
>apparently there are not, or if there are, the laws are not enforced.
>
>If you think this example is bad, take a look at "Pretty Baby"...
The Pretty Baby example was also mentioned in that thread
I referred to. I can't comment because I haven't seen it, but I
think a lot of hypocrisy has built up on this issue in the last
20 years. On the one hand, Hollywood, the media, advertising,
and so on have clearly portrayed under-18s as sexual beings,
which of course in many cases they are. On the other hand,
you have protective parents, conservatives, the law and/or
law enforcement in some jurisdictions wanting to treat any
meeting of sex and under-18s as child pornography, abuse,
molestation, rape, or other violation of law. I think it's become
more of a hot button issue for *some* people than it was twenty
years ago, not less of an issue.
From what I know of the law, the age of consent is almost
invariably no higher than 16, sometimes 14. People often
note that Romeo and Juliet were young teens, and that this
idea that 18 is a magic number of some sort is a peculiar,
mainly Western, biology-denying idea that's emerged in
(again) *some* people's heads the last few hundred years.
But nevertheless it's there. I was reading the other day of a
14- or 16-year-old in Western Canada who was willingly living
with a gang of four or five guys. Her parents and a federal
Member of Parliament actually kidnapped her and placed
her in some reprogramming/detention centre type of place
in another city far away. (She was over the age of consent,
and the police said they couldn't do anything legally.)
Roman Polanski had the big issue with the 14-year old was
it? And we saw what happened to that teacher who had the
kid (and then another) with the teenage boy -- she went
to jail. She may be a very disturbed individual, but when the
story broke the teenage boy wasn't the one complaining.
It's a segment of society -- I think more so rather than less
so nowadays -- that's just very sensitive to this. In that
boy's case it was probably the image of the same thing
happening with a male teacher and female student that
had everyone especially freaked out. Many guys were
recalling how they would liked to have had an affair with a
teacher they were attracted to when they were in high
school, but to not prosecute gets you a double-standard
that society just isn't willing to (at least formally) accept.
You also have the relatively new law on depiction of this
kind of thing, that the other poster referred to. I'm just
not sure I agree with his interpretation that there has to
be a sexual act of some sort, and that nudity is okay.
Does this mean that pornography mogul can have soft-
core tapes of topless 16- or 14-year olds? My guess is
no.
If you're back to the artistic content and context,
then that's very subjective. As I've said, this scene is
arguably *directly* taking this issue on. It's depicting a
16-year-old stripping to the waist for her boyfriend's voyeur
video. It may symbolize a final achievement of honesty or
say something about the beauty of that happening, or how-
ever you want to characterize it. But why can't anyone then
do a series of tapes that supposedly say the same thing,
Girl of the Week Being Honest (or whatever the rationale
that -- nudge nudge, wink, wink -- makes American
Beauty art when it comes to this particular scene.)
To be clear again as I was earlier on, I'm playing Devil's
Advocate here. I have no problem with the scene, in fact
I enjoyed it (As did most males I think, although some may
not admit they liked seeing the bra come off). She's
beautiful, her breasts are beautiful.
But I was surprised they did it, I reported the reaction a few
rows back of me, and I just sense a controversy here. Frankly,
I'd be interested to watch it unfold, because I think it would
be one of the more pure discussions you could have of
this. The scene and movie get right to the heart of it.
Ghost of KalElFan
muhl...@aol.comnojunk (Muhlyssa) writes:
>My god, I would never trust anyone who thought Cage was a best
>actor candidate.
>
>Melissa
Another poster already responded to you on this Melissa, but I'd
written the following before that so here it is...
There are some who don't like Cage or his movies. They think
he has a whiny voice, or that he's had too many weird roles or
movies, or makes too much commercial dreck. There were
a number of female Lois & Clark fans who worked themselves
up into a dislike for him when he was announced for Superman
(they were big Dean Cain fans).
But the fact remains that in 1995 Cage wasn't just a candidate,
he was a Best Actor winner at the Oscars. He's made a lot
of different movies including some risky choices, and I think
has been good in everything including what some consider
the commercial dreck. Jack Nicholson was no greatest actor
in Mars Attacks!, nor Kevin Spacey in The Negotiator, but
they were (and are) both better than their material, consistently
better. Same with Cage, Anthony Hopkins, Gene Hackman.
Someone like Tom Hanks might be on many lists, and he'd
be in my top 10, but I wouldn't put him in the same category
as the others I mentioned because I think when he's been
very good he's been blessed with great material. In some
cases the material was arguably as good or better than he
was.
Others might mention Dustin Hoffman or Robert De Niro
or Marlon Brando, but I don't think any of them have done
anything or enough recently to be on my list. I might put
Geoffrey Rush there though, because based on the little
I've seen of him I think he's very good and meets my test --
he was much better than the material even in something
like Mystery Men, a bad movie.
But I wouldn't say I'd never trust someone if they put an
Oscar winner or other good actor on their list that I didn't
like. That'd only reflect badly on me, eh? :-)
holef...@webtv.net
>>If you think this example is bad, take a
>>look at "Pretty Baby", in which Brook
>>Shields, at 12 years old, did a lengthy
>>scene in which she was totally nude in the
>>room with an older man.
>This presents another problem of legal
>definition. Is there anything sexual about a
>prepubescent girl's uncovered chest.
Of course there is! There are people that are sexually stimulate by
children.
Within weeks of "American Beauty" being released you`ll probably be
able to find shots of Thora Birch`s topless scene on the internet. Guys
will be using that nude scene to masturbate.
I`m not coming(1) out against this particular scene, but my opinion of
Birch`s parents that signed any wavers that allowed the scene to be
filmed is deeply diminished.
>The Frency, I should point out, have
>always been enormously fond of the sex
>lives of teenage girls.
(1). No pun intended.
Mr. Hole
This post may cause DROWSINESS, ALCOHOL may intensify this effect, use
care when operating dangerous machinery.
After decades of telepaths who look like they are trying to fart
silently, Virginia Hey finally shows them how it should be
done.-alt.tv.farscape
How's your hole..........family?
sulfanilamide
Mason Barge
>From what I know of the law, the age of consent is almost
>invariably no higher than 16, sometimes 14.
I'm going to try not to further confuse this completely confused thread with
further observations, but I'll add a factual clarification.
The "age of consent" is almost universally 18. This is the age at which no
crime can be committed by having a consensual (non-monetary) sexual
relationship with the person.
Most states do have some differentiation for teenagers who have reached sexual
maturity, and sometimes two different ones. Usually, an adult man having
sexual relations with a girl or boy under a certain age (say 13) commits the
felony of child molestation, with extremely severe penalties. The same act
with a girl of 14-17 would be less severely punished, but the degree of this
crime varies widely from state to state: something like "contributing to the
delinquincy of a minor" at the low end, or "statutory rape" at the high end --
but always less severely punished than child molestation.
Many jurisdictions also contain a differentiation based on the age of the
adult, i.e. an 18-year-old having sexual relations with a 17-year-old would not
be guilty of statutory rape in most places, especially those that would be
comparatively severe with a 25-year-old in the same situation.
Ghost of KalElFan
mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge) writes:
>I'm going to try not to further confuse this completely confused
>thread with further observations, but I'll add a factual clarification.
>
>The "age of consent" is almost universally 18.
Well, see below when I talk about the term, but this just doesn't
mesh with everything I've read. I cited the Alberta story, I've read
numerous times that teenagers can get married at ages as young
as 14 with parental consent and 16 without consent in at least
some places, and we all know teenagers are having sex under 18.
So if indeed 18 is the universal consensual-sex age, then
there's massive lawbreaking going on that isn't being enforced.
For starters, every father of a child borne by a girl under 18
should have a criminal record. Stop teen pregnancy in its
tracks by simply enforcing the existing laws! Hey kids, let's
start an ad campaign -- "Don't drink and drive, stay away
from guns and gangs, and oh yeah whatever you do don't
have sex until you're 18" [jail door clangs, pitiful new father
says "don't end up like me, don't have sex.] It's like something
out of a bad Saturday Night Live skit.
I concede that it would be very stupid for a, say, over-21-year-old
to have casual sex with a person who was 16, because there may
be those delinquency of a minor type charges if it goes sour and
for whatever reason gets reported. If they're genuinely in love,
though, I find it hard to believe that there are any universal
age-18 laws that would get in their way. If what I've read about
16 being the age of consent for marriage in some places is
correct, then they could even get married on their own.
Anyway, maybe "age of consent" as a term is the confusing
or misunderstood thing here. I don't even know that the term
ever appears in any statute anywhere. Maybe it's just a
layman's term that people have come to use to describe a
wide variety of things. We'd have to ask "consent to do
what with whom of what age under what circumstances, etc."
and I'm sure that would get very convoluted. All we're really
interested in here is the topless 16-year-old in this scene,
and how that fits in terms of law and people's perception of
the law. I think most people would assume that wouldn't be
allowed, especially in the context of that voyeur video scene,
because they probably do know that 18 is the age to appear
in Playboy or adult movies and so on. (I read Playboy got
its hand slapped years ago for being tricked with fake ID on
a girl who they thought was 18 but was 16 or 17, but the point
is people do know that 18 is the age for things like that, and
it will raise a question in their minds about this particular
scene, assuming the issue is given coverage.)
Mason Barge
>numerous times that teenagers can get married at ages as young
>as 14 with parental consent and 16 without consent in at least
>some places,
That's exactly true, and it is often different for boys and girls, and even
weirder, lower if the girl is pregnant (as young as 12 in some states)!
And yes, the prospective husband in such a marriage would be chargeable with a
crime (and, in the case of a 12 or 13-year-old, an extremely serious one) for
having committed the act which got her pregnant. But when the marriage occurs,
the crime is expunged. This is an historic practice giving legal sanction to
shotgun weddings.
>
>So if indeed 18 is the universal consensual-sex age, then
>there's massive lawbreaking going on that isn't being enforced.
Not much doubt about this one.
>
>For starters, every father of a child borne by a girl under 18
>should have a criminal record
You're confusing the age of consent for a nonmarital sexual act with the age at
which marriage is allowed with and without parental consent. These ages are
almost universally different.
>I concede that it would be very stupid for a, say, over-21-year-old
>to have casual sex with a person who was 16
This would be a felony in almost any state in the US.
>Anyway, maybe "age of consent" as a term is the confusing
>or misunderstood thing here. I don't even know that the term
>ever appears in any statute anywhere
It certainly appears in the decisional law, and I would bet you a dollar I
could find it in a statute. Anyway, it's generally used to describe the
statutory age at which a person can give knowledgeable and free consent to a
sexual act outside of wedlock.
Anway, you sound frustrated and I know why. Young lawyers learn quickly that
their first obligation is to find out what the law actually is, not what they
think it is, much less what they think would make sense. The archaic and
confusing mass of laws about sexual activity and age is a trap that has snared
many an unwary victim.
Paul Hager
>In article <37e51695...@news.earthlink.net>, g...@loop.com wrote:
>> There should be laws to protect minors from this sort of thing, but
>> apparently there are not, or if there are, the laws are not enforced.
>Hmm. Let me see if I can get this straight.
>Naked newborn on TV's "ER."
>VERDICT: Okay.
>Naked seventeen-year-old girl in Roeg's WALKABOUT.
>VERDICT: Okay.
>Topless seventeen-year-old girl in AMERICAN BEAUTY.
>VERDICT: Burn them!
>Americans are weird.
True enough -- but all cultures are weird in their own way.
In any case, I'm wondering if anyone knows how old Pamela Franklin
was in THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE? Franklin had done some Disney
prior to this role -- looked like she was being groomed to be the
next Haley Mills. Her performance in BRODIE was brilliant but my
recollection is that much of the discussion was about her nude
scene, which was very controversial. Franklin was playing a character
who was supposed to be about 16.
--
paul hager hag...@cs.indiana.edu
"I would give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."
--from A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS by Robert Bolt
John H
>In any case, I'm wondering if anyone knows how old Pamela Franklin
>was in THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE? Franklin had done some Disney
>prior to this role -- looked like she was being groomed to be the
>next Haley Mills. Her performance in BRODIE was brilliant but my
>recollection is that much of the discussion was about her nude
>scene, which was very controversial. Franklin was playing a character
>who was supposed to be about 16.
>
Pamela Franklin was born in 1950, so she was probably 18 at the time
of the filming.
John Harkness
Mortis
<4037-37...@newsd-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, in which
holef...@webtv.net typed:
>Within weeks of "American Beauty" being released you`ll probably be
>able to find shots of Thora Birch`s topless scene on the internet. Guys
>will be using that nude scene to masturbate.
>
>I`m not coming(1) out against this particular scene, but my opinion of
>Birch`s parents that signed any wavers that allowed the scene to be
>filmed is deeply diminished.
Ummm... not that I want to become embroiled in a discussion of morals,
but isn't Thora Birch 18? As in, adult-type-age?
Mortis
Master of the Unknown, KPS
Nebulosis Defunctus
"'Sorry about this everyone. Goddy why are you looking at this strange man
this way.' the strange man cried out. 'By the way,' he said turning around
to face Buffy and her friends, 'my name is Steve Martin Jr. This is Godzilla
she left our island a week ago and well got lost.'"
-Dan Tropea
holef...@webtv.net
>I used my telepathic powers to read
><4037-37...@newsd-102.iap.brya
>t.webtv.net>, in which
>holef...@webtv.net typed:
>>Within weeks of "American Beauty" being
>>released you`ll probably be able to find
>>shots of Thora Birch`s topless scene on
>>the internet. Guys will be using that nude
>>scene to masturbate.
>>I`m not coming(1) out against this
>>particular scene, but my opinion of Birch`s
>>parents that signed any wavers that
>>allowed the scene to be filmed is deeply
>>diminished.
>Ummm... not that I want to become
>embroiled in a discussion of morals, but
>isn't Thora Birch 18? As in,
>adult-type-age?
Previous posters to this thread say Birch was only 16 when the nude
scene was shot.
Steve Kraus
> >I concede that it would be very stupid for a, say, over-21-year-old
> >to have casual sex with a person who was 16
> This would be a felony in almost any state in the US.
Why are you making things up and passing them off as facts?
Here are the ages of legal consent (for non-married,
consenting couples) in a few states:
New Hampshire - 16 (18 if older person is in a position
of authority over the younger)
Mississippi - 14 "
Maine - 14 "
California - 14
Pennsylvania - 16
New York - 17
Georgia - 16
Michigan - 16
Naturally, I don't have the actual state criminal code
volumes for each state but this information is gathered
from internet references which cite the entire statutes
(some are quite lengthy and convoluted). Many states do
indeed have 18 as the age of consent but judging from my
informal survey there are just as many that do not.
Steve Kraus
> I`m not coming(1) out against this particular scene, but my opinion of
> Birch`s parents that signed any wavers that allowed the scene to be
> filmed is deeply diminished.
Geez. Breasts. What a bunch of prudes we
have in America. Only Americans would make
a 2 year old wear a top on a beach. Um...it's
the human body...get over it already!
Steve Kraus
> The "age of consent" is almost universally 18.
This statement is nonsense. See my reply to your
other post where I cite state after state with
lower ages of consent.
Steve Kraus
> Ummm... not that I want to become embroiled in a discussion of morals,
> but isn't Thora Birch 18? As in, adult-type-age?
No, she turned 17 last March so perhaps she
was 16 during the shoot.
Sergey Bukhman
Mortis wrote:
>
> I used my telepathic powers to read <37E6C8...@BLOCKERgovst.edu>,
> in which Steve Kraus <sf-k...@BLOCKERgovst.edu> typed:
> >Geez. Breasts.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Um...it's
> >the human body...get over it already!
>
> I agree completely.
>
> (IYKWIM)
>
> (GIHLDST)
>
If she doesn't, I'll e-mail it to her.
You're toast, buddy
--
Sergey
Did I mention MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA?
Moriarty
Mortis wrote in message <37e8b536...@news.mindspring.com>...
>Ummm... not that I want to become embroiled in a discussion of morals,
>but isn't Thora Birch 18? As in, adult-type-age?
Nope. She's 17 right now (as of last week, anyway), and she was 16 when
they shot the film.
This really isn't an issue, though.
"Moriarty" out.
Mortis
holef...@webtv.net typed:
>Previous posters to this thread say Birch was only 16 when the nude
>scene was shot.
Ah.
Mortis
in which Steve Kraus <sf-k...@BLOCKERgovst.edu> typed:
>Geez. Breasts.
[snip]
>Um...it's
>the human body...get over it already!
I agree completely.
(IYKWIM)
(GIHLDST)
Mortis
John H
>I used my telepathic powers to read
><4037-37...@newsd-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, in which
>holef...@webtv.net typed:
>>Within weeks of "American Beauty" being released you`ll probably be
>>able to find shots of Thora Birch`s topless scene on the internet. Guys
>>will be using that nude scene to masturbate.
>>
>>I`m not coming(1) out against this particular scene, but my opinion of
>>Birch`s parents that signed any wavers that allowed the scene to be
>>filmed is deeply diminished.
>
>Ummm... not that I want to become embroiled in a discussion of morals,
>but isn't Thora Birch 18? As in, adult-type-age?
>
>Mortis
According to the IMDB, born March 11, 1982, which means she turns
eighteen next year.
John Harkness
Ghost of KalElFan
and then at the end I invite you to comment on the topic of the
thread, i.e., the scene in the movie we've described.
In article <19990920154808...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge) writes:
>>[I wrote:]
>>Anyway, maybe "age of consent" as a term is the confusing
>>or misunderstood thing here. I don't even know that the term
>>ever appears in any statute anywhere
>
>It certainly appears in the decisional law, and I would bet you a
>dollar I could find it in a statute. Anyway, it's generally used to
>describe the statutory age at which a person can give
>knowledgeable and free consent to a sexual act outside of
>wedlock.
>
>Anway, you sound frustrated and I know why. Young lawyers
>learn quickly that their first obligation is to find out what the
>law actually is, not what they think it is, much less what they
>think would make sense. The archaic and confusing mass
>of laws about sexual activity and age is a trap that has snared
>many an unwary victim.
I'm not frustrated Mason. Annoyed at getting off-track into a
legal discussion with you on a term you now admit you're
not even sure appears in a statute, yes. But I knew from an
earlier discussion that you have a habit of thinking you have
the right answer and making absolute statements, which is
the mark of a lawyer I would never want to hire. I'm not a
lawyer by the way, but I play one in Usenet threads. :-)
I don't doubt there may be archaic laws on the books, but
we're talking reality. You seem frustrated, :-), that the
reality of the law and how it's applied are unaffected by
your I-have-the-right-legal-answer-and-that's-a-fact posts
on Usenet. I'm not convinced that this 16-year-olds can't
have sex prohibition exists anywhere (again, much less
universally), but if it does it's in the most typical cases
(e.g., 16 and 17 year olds having sex together) about as
relevant as the laws governing horse and buggy operation.
Here's what I think you should have done in response to
my point, which was I concede too absolute and too legal-
sounding to folk like yourself. Say something like "There
are no universal truths here. There are all kinds of archaic
sexual laws on the books. As a practical matter, sixteen
and seventeen year olds can have sex with each other
anywhere in the U.S. and not end up charged [or else cite
several cases where this has happened in the last, say, 20
years]. And if a 16-year-old marries a 25 year old, which
the 16-year-old can do in some/many jurisdictions without
consent, they can have all the sex they want. If they're
engaged and have sex before the wedding night, the cops
could technically under an archaic law charge the 25-year-old,
and then get hauled on the carpet by their superiors for
Gross Stupidity and waste of taxpayer dollars, before the
judge throws it out. And that gang in Alberta the 16-year-
old was living with, well maybe there isn't even an archaic
law in Alberta and it really is 16, or maybe as could happen
here there's just no way to enforce the archaic law."
And then you could describe how the archaic laws might
be enforceable in other 16-year-old cases, like the lecherous
35-year-old seducing the 16-year-old virgin and her parents
raising hell or whatever -- but that it might come under
delinquency of a minor charge, etc., and there would be a
trial where the 25-year-old could produce love letters from
the 16-year-old and a copy of the fake ID she showed him,
and he never even met her parents, and in short it all depends
on the scenario you can't make assumptions and expect
they'll hold up. An 18-year-old whose birthday was yesterday
could be charged for having sex with a seventeen-year-old
whose birthday is tomorrow, but it's not likely, and round
and round you could go.
That way, everyone is suitably informed that my statement
was too absolute-sounding, without getting the impression
as they would from your post that 16 or 17 year olds can't
have sex, at least with each other, without risking jail. (And
if your I-have-the-right-answer mentality won't allow you to do
that, at least put the right-answer-disclaimer that you're talking
about laws that are for all practical purposes unenforceable in
such a situation, assuming anyone had ever tried to enforce
them since Nixon was president.)
Since I've spent all this time trashing your absolute-right-
answer approach, I might as well ask what your right
answer is in this movie case. :-) Feel free to dodge it if
you're frustrated with me. The IMDB says the movie
was filmed in Los Angeles. Does the movie defend on
the basis that it's art? Does it not need to defend because
it's okay for sixteen year-olds to appear topless in voyeur
video scenes with/without parental consent? If the latter,
could the pornographers then do this too? No, because
pornography (statutorily defined as intercouse, oral sex,
masturbation, and titillating material would also be caught,
yadda yadda yadda), is a special exception? Doesn't that
mean we're back to subjective classification of art?
See, I'd much rather have been wasting my time on these
legal discussions if it actually related to the topic and maybe
enlightened us on this movie scene. Can you give us the right
answer? (From the description given, because granted you
may not have seen the movie yet, I don't know.)
JudeSchall
or not, but I'm pretty positive that those are *not* Thora Birch's breasts in
that scene. Yes, there was the Time Out NY piece in which she talked about the
nudity, but she didn't discuss it in depth, and I've seen other interviews
which have and she's been quite evasive. More importantly, yes, she was 16
during shooting, and AB *is* a Dreamworks film, so you can bet it is most
likely it wasn't her. Then, of course, comes the biggest proof (for me -- not
factual) that there is a windowpane bisecting her neck from her chest, and that
upon seeing the film for the second time, i am now certain that below the
windowpane (i.e. her chest) is digital, and above is not, therefore a body
double below, and her head above. If Thora really did do this nudity, I'd have
to admit it would make me a little uncomfortable, if only because I remember
her when she was 8.
Anyway.
Ghost of KalElFan
and how it fits into that part of the movie. This is my last long
(but dazzlingly insightful) post on this because I've analyzed it
as much as I care to. [Cut out the wild cheering, eh? :-)] The big
thing now is to see if it becomes an issue that gets prominent
coverage.
In article <7s74db$q9s$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Moriarty"
<tf...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Mortis wrote in message <37e8b536...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>>Ummm... not that I want to become embroiled in a discussion of
>>morals but isn't Thora Birch 18? As in, adult-type-age?
>
>Nope. She's 17 right now (as of last week, anyway), and she was 16
>when they shot the film.
>
>This really isn't an issue, though.
Well, it's an issue in this thread, and in the few places it's been
mentioned even though the movie hasn't opened wide yet. It
was never mentioned in any of the advance publicity, so no one
knew. It takes time for it to achieve wider public awareness.
But within this sphere, we're talking about it, you knew I was
going to mention it and you had asked about it in your interview
so you know it's controversial, that lady two rows back of me
noticed and so did the theater as a whole as I describe later
(you may have had the same awareness at your showings).
So I think this could be an issue Mo. :-)
I understand you may mean it isn't an issue because they
would have made absolutely sure they were covered, i.e.
clearly allowed to do this. But it can still be an issue if it
becomes a controversy and people talk about it, which I
think they will if this movie becomes a box office hit as
well as the big critical success it already is.
It probably will become a big hit by the way. In limited
release (New York, LA, Toronto I think), it pulled in $50,000+
per screen, and won the People's Choice Toronto Film Festival
award. So it has more than just art appeal. This could be a
$200M+ domestic art-turned-mainstream movie that people
are talking about for the rest of the year. Not only could this
scene be an issue, but it and talk about it could contribute
(not insignificantly) to the movie's success. It could keep
some away too, but I think they're the type who probably
wouldn't see the movie anyway.
If you experience the scene cognizant of how it fits into that
part of the movie, and how the audience responds to it, and
you do so without all the spoiling we've done to it in this thread
(be warned more to come here and in the next few paragraphs),
you may be more likely to think it's an issue. It really is a
pivotal moment. It's very complex, and you could make a
case that they're saying a lot of things here. It's not the
first time the movie tries to shock you in it's "quiet" way. I
would say it does that right upfront with Lester jacking off
in the shower and explaining in the voice-over that that's
the highlight of his day. When I saw that, I assumed I was
into a movie that was *aggressively* intent on *not* being a
mainstream, high-box-office movie. It wasn't treating that
early scene the way an American Pie type of movie would,
aimed at the gross-out youth market. "So who's gonna
want to see this?" I thought.
But the movie very quickly *engrosses* you, draws you into
all these characters and the story (they practically hand
you the ending up front), and you really can't help but
watch. "Look closer" should win the award of the century
for tag line, I think you may agree by the time this movie
is over. And this scene in question as the voyeur video
is going, you can feel the silence in the theater as she
takes off the top and you see the bra. The character
has crossed over in the sense that she thought the video
taping was weird before, but has bought into it now. So
it's significant in that way and the audience realizes it.
But everyone's mostly thinking the same thing. They're
figuratively on the edge of their seats wondering if she'll
(or they'll -- the moviemakers) stop there or keep going.
They keep going, and there's a kind of pseudo-break in
the silence you can feel, which is collective surprise that
they did keep going (and I think a recognizion that she
looks good too, and maybe some shock/disgust from
a few). But it isn't a loud break in the silence by any
means, again you feel it more than anything. It's barely
discernible. Nevertheless, I can tell you with 100%
certainty that the very-good-filmmakers here fully knew
that this would be the reaction at this point in the movie.
Because here's the way they *JARRINGLY* break the
silence: the marine colonel father breaks open the door
and storms into the boy's room. It's a big shock, and
the audience knows "oh-oh, this kid's been found out
and he's gonna get his ass whooped now."
This snippet is the one that appears in the trailer if you've
seen that. And if you've *only* seen that, you might now
be thinking "Ah, that makes sense, his father caught him
in the act in that "There are rules, boy!" scene I saw in
the trailer. The topless voyeur scene you're all talking
about in this thread came right before that," which indeed
it did.
But "Look closer" as the tag line says. The marine colonel
is oblivious to the voyeurism (another twist does come later
though). He's ticked off about the boy breaking into his gun
collection case (he did so earlier to show his girlfriend his
father's Nazi plate collectible). And it's a great scene that
really throws the audience, draws them into these characters
even more. They've just experienced the voyeurism, and
absolutely bought into the guilt surrounding that, but as is
so often the case in this movie things aren't as they first
seem. You have to look closer, and closer, and closer.
Brilliant, brilliant film.
Anyway, for the scene to become a really big issue, it'll have
to get front page feature treatment at least in sections of major
newspapers, or cover stories. Nobody knows about this
aspect of the movie yet. We do here, but we're a fraction
of a percent of even the moviegoing population. If the
average moviegoer reads that the then-16-year-old, playing
a 16-year-old in this movie, does a strip-to-topless scene
in her bedroom for the voyeur video being shot by her
on-screen boyfriend across the street, I think the reaction
of 90% of the population is surprise, and therefore interest
in reading the story. Reaction may range from "Wow, I
must see that!" to "Oh, they can do that with a 16-year-old?"
to "I can't believe they can do that! That's terrible! They
shouldn't be allowed to do that.", etc.
Which is to say I think it's the kind of story that could get
coverage by a big outfit and then create a brouhaha. It'll
sell papers. The movie will be a hit by the time it gets the
coverage (hit movies get coverage because they sell papers,
and since it's already a hit editors don't have to resist for
fear they're being used to promote it into a hit or that
people can credibly accuse them of that). Sex is a hit
:-) and sells papers. Issues are a hit and what-the-heck-is-
our-society-doing-with-its-youth-these-days is a biggie
lately. You could have the Internet pirated captures floating
around in the binaries groups by then, and in the same
circles police look for child porn and the like. So I think
this could have all the elements and be too hard to resist
coverage.
I could be wrong though, because this is a "freedom-of"
type issue in a lot of ways, and the press is loathe to stir
up censorship-mongering for example. Editors may not
think that the public would on average find this much
more of an issue than they would. Editors might be the
the same as some of the sophisticated film fans here
who don't think it's a big deal because they've seen it
all in movies. Anyway, we'll see...
Ghost of KalElFan
(JudeSchall) writes:
Well, this is a very interesting post and we have to go back to
Moriarty to ask whether his interview was very specific about
Thora Birch actually doing this, or whether he thinks they might
be misleading us here. I've only seen the movie once, and
Jude is right there is the window pane which could facilitate
faking it. If the scene had been continuous, I'd say no because
it was just too seamless as she moved around the bedroom a
bit earlier. But there may have been a cut (I can't remember)
and then the straight-on shot as she takes the bra off, with
an extremely good digital sleight-of-hand. I just can't recall.
If it is fake, there's still the issue of this portraying a 16-year-old,
but I don't think that's anywhere near as sexy an issue in
terms of getting coverage and becoming controversial. I still
tend to think it's real, and your reaction tends to confirm my
prediction in the other post that people will be very surprised.
I hadn't thought about the Dreamworks-could-be-hurt-by-this
angle (I hadn't noticed it was Dreamworks actually). I don't
think it would hurt them. They're not Disney. Speilberg is
pretty immune I think, Giffen is openly gay. People don't
expect them to be as family-entertainment oriented. They
expect adult-oriented movies at least some of the time.
So I still think it's a real scene, but over to Moriarty or anyone
else who thinks they know for sure. Somebody get a firm
on the record quote! :-)
Mason Barge
>windowpane (i.e. her chest) is digital, and above is not, therefore a body
>double below, and her head above. If Thora really did do this nudity,
Now, there is a conundrum! Assuming (for the sake of argument) that it is
somehow illegal for a studio to show a 16-year-old girl barechested in a
sexually provocative situation, would it be any different to show her face with
digitally-imposed breasts? How about showing an actor having pretend sex with
a digital child, with a real child's head juxtaposed on top?
I kind of doubt, at least legally, that there's any difference, except possibly
that you couldn't be charged with having done something wrong on the set
itself, i.e. there's no naked 16-year-old on the soundstage. Another question,
though -- could she stop the depiction with a no-nudity clause in her contract?
Mason Barge
>
>Here are the ages of legal consent (for non-married,
>consenting couples) in a few states:
>
>Georgia - 16
>
What, are you getting this out of some almanac or something? In Georgia, 16 is
the age at which the statutory rape statute is no longer applicable. However:
O.C.G.A. Section 16-12-100, "Sexual exploitation of children":
(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Minor" means any person under
the age of 18 years.
Helen & Bob
Skink wrote:
> In article <37e51695...@news.earthlink.net>, g...@loop.com wrote:
>
> > There should be laws to protect minors from this sort of thing, but
> > apparently there are not, or if there are, the laws are not enforced.
>
> Hmm. Let me see if I can get this straight.
>
> Naked newborn on TV's "ER."
> VERDICT: Okay.
>
> Naked seventeen-year-old girl in Roeg's WALKABOUT.
> VERDICT: Okay.
>
> Topless seventeen-year-old girl in AMERICAN BEAUTY.
> VERDICT: Burn them!
>
> Americans are weird.
So, you now define 230 million people by one idiot on a newsgroup. And you
call AMERICANS weird. You do have some problems, don't you.
Bob
Steve Kraus
> I can't right now read through the 36 posts to see if someone said this already
> or not, but I'm pretty positive that those are *not* Thora Birch's breasts in
> that scene.
I don't believe that unless someone offers compelling
evidence to that end. Nudity or photography thereof
is not per se illegal at any age. The person who takes
pictures of kids playing at the nude beach is not
violating any law (unless he/she zooms in on the naughty
bits--under the Knox case the Supreme Court upheld a
kiddie porn conviction for photographing fully clothed
children because of how Mr. Knox pointed his camera).
Therefore it would not be the baring of breasts that
would be the problem but the erotica aspects and that
would be very subjective. Given that there is no
lascivious conduct or posing--it's really all in the
mind of the viewer--I don't know that they would need
to take such precautions. Of course that doesn't mean
they didn't either.
Steve Kraus
> What, are you getting this out of some almanac or something?
Um...were you unable to understand the part of my post where I explained
that this was from a reading of the actual statutes, such as is
available
online?
> In Georgia, 16 is
> the age at which the statutory rape statute is no longer applicable. However:
>
> O.C.G.A. Section 16-12-100, "Sexual exploitation of children":
> (a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Minor" means any person under
> the age of 18 years.
You seem to be going out of your way to mislead people just
to try to prove yourself right. As you very well know my
post was in response to your post which proclaimed 18 as
an almost universal legal age of consent. Age of consent,
as the phrase is commonly used, refers to the age at which
an individual can legally have sex. In Georgia, the statutory
rape law is the relevant statute. Ancient fornication laws
not withstanding (which criminalize ALL non-marital sex), the
minimum age at which a person may have sex legally in Georgia
is 16.
The statute you cite pertains to the production of pornography
or similar erotic performance. That might be relevant in the
overall discussion of "American Beauty" but has nothing to do
with general age of consent as that phrase is generally understood
by the public which is what my post---in reply to your post--
was about.
Ghost of KalElFan
mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge) writes:
>Now, there is a conundrum! Assuming (for the sake of argument) that it is
>somehow illegal for a studio to show a 16-year-old girl barechested in a
>sexually provocative situation, would it be any different to show her face
>with digitally-imposed breasts?
Practically in terms of the brouhaha it would create, absolutely. In
the digital case, it becomes a Leno joke and nothing more. It
just isn't anywhere near as serious an issue. It's like those head
over fake body carnival stunts.
There will probably be virtual reality software 25 years from now,
maybe sooner, that can take any scenario you write, heck even
imagine, and make it happen in your virtual reality helmut/suit.
User-friendly. You just plug in "Blonde", "38-24-36", "16", "[So-
and-so] lookalike" and the rest of your scenario and it happens.
Better than any movie any pornographer could make, because
it's tailored to your tastes. Not quite a Star Trek holosuite, but
moving in that direction.
No one's going to support a law against imagination, and at some
point that's what attempts to outlaw digital-anything becomes. You
could outlaw something in public showings, but by then it's a moot
point. When adult films moved to video, it killed adult theaters.
People would much rather experience their fantasies in private.
Ghost of KalElFan
the earlier posts, a shorter follow-up to Mason is warranted.]
In article <19990921091554...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
mason...@aol.comnospam (Mason Barge) writes in response
to another poster:
>What, are you getting this out of some almanac or something?
>In Georgia, 16 is the age at which the statutory rape statute is
>no longer applicable.
I did some research as well and the poster was right.
Just about 2/3 of states have ages of consent under 18,
in most cases 16 but there are few 14 as well. In Britain
it's 16, some other European countries as low as 14,
here in Canada 14 although there's perpetual talk of
upping it to 16.
Statutory rape statutes are what define age of consent. In
Georgia, if you have sex with a 15 year old, the statute
deems it rape even if it was consensual. At 16, no such
charge could be laid because 16 is the *age_of_consent*.
This is the whole point.
You cite a sexual exploitation statute, but we're not talking
about sexual exploitation, we're talking about consensual sex
and the age at which you can engage in it. In Canada you
can't pay anyone under 18 for sex, I imagine the Georgia
exploitation statute says under 18s can't be in adult videos
or have nude pictures taken of them (at least not for sale),
or dance as strippers and so on. So the case of the lecherous
35-year-old trying to turn the 14-year-old into a prostitute or
porn star is covered, as would similar exploitation.
Put another way, the age of consent to legally be a prostitute
(where that isn't otherwise banned) or porn star or sex worker
of any kind may be almost universally 18, but you said it
yourself age of consent refers to the age you can consent
to have unmarried sex.
Although I don't expect an answer, for the record I'll ask
basically the same kind of question the other poster did.
Why were you posting dead-wrong information like you
knew it for a fact? I can imagine only one half-decent
reason, and a few less flattering ones, but I think those
who've been reading this are probably curious. You come
off like a smart guy, and I've seen your AOL profile. So
why would you have made that universally-18 post?
Mason Barge
>> What, are you getting this out of some almanac or something?
>
>that this was from a reading of the actual statutes,
No, I missed that, sorry.
>
>You seem to be going out of your way to mislead people just
>to try to prove yourself right.
Not true.
> As you very well know my
>post was in response to your post which proclaimed 18 as
>an almost universal legal age of consent.
. . . .
>
>The statute you cite pertains to the production of pornography
>or similar erotic performance. That might be relevant in the
>overall discussion of "American Beauty"
I apologize for sounding dogmatic and harsh. Let us just say that a
17-year-old cannot give consent to appear nude in a film. As far as I know,
this is true in just about every state as well as nationally, i.e. in
interstate commerce.
If I'm going to get into a flame war, I suppose I should at least do so on
topic.
John H
wrote:
Actually, Mason, you were, if not misleading, linguistically
imprecise:
You wrote --
'The "age of consent" is almost universally 18. This is the age at
which no crime can be committed by having a consensual (non-monetary)
sexual relationship with the person. '
And that is demonstrably not true.
The age at which a person can commit to a contract -- which is the
real issue in a film appearance -- is almost universally 18, and
something quite different from "the age of consent", which through
long-term usage means sexual consent.
John Harkness
Steve Kraus
>>You seem to be going out of your way to mislead people just
>>to try to prove yourself right.
...by saying:
> Not true.
I think the fact that you spoke specifically about age of
consent and even defined it for us (as being about sex)
and now try to wiggle out of that by inferring that you
actually meant all along consenting to appear nude in a
film supports the above charge.
> I apologize for sounding dogmatic and harsh. Let us just say that a
> 17-year-old cannot give consent to appear nude in a film. As far as I know,
> this is true in just about every state as well as nationally, i.e. in
> interstate commerce.
As Mr. Harness points out in his post technically a 17 year
old cannot legally consent to appear in ANY film--they cannot
independently contract to do anything. But if you are saying
that they cannot appear nude period (regardless of who gives
consent) that is simply not so. The laws--and that includes
that Georgia statute you cited recently--talk about lascivious
display of genitalia, sexual acts, and so forth. Simple
nudity is not generally proscribed.
Mason Barge
>that they cannot appear nude period (regardless of who gives
>consent) that is simply not so. The laws--and that includes
>that Georgia statute you cited recently--talk about lascivious
>display of genitalia, sexual acts, and so forth. Simple
>nudity is not generally proscribed.
I specifically said:
> You really can't pass a law that would make it
>illegal for parents to have pictures of their >naked three-year-old romping at
>the beach, so you really can't have a law >forbidding nude depictions of 9 or
>15-year-old children.
Steve Kraus
> I specifically said:
> You really can't pass a law that would make it
> illegal for parents to have pictures of their >naked three-year-old romping at
> the beach, so you really can't have a law >forbidding nude depictions of 9 or
> 15-year-old children.
This is getting to be unbelievable with you. The
post of yours that I was replying to was quoted
right there within my reply. So "correcting" me
by saying "I specifically said..." and pulling
up some other post is just another example of you
trying to mislead people. I don't know whether
to be annoyed or amused as you make yourself look
utterly ridiculous.
Let us review: You post something. Someone replies,
quoting your statement. You respond saying that that
is not what you said, even though what you said is
right there in black and white.
Once again, you said:
> Let us just say that a 17-year-old cannot give consent to
> appear nude in a film. As far as I know, this is true in
> just about every state as well as nationally, i.e. in
> interstate commerce.
And the essence of my reply was that while a minor
cannot themselves contract or consent to *anything*
the laws generally do not forbid non-sexual nudity.
KudlyKatie
>Okay, Mason, last post on the irrelevant legal arguments here
>and then at the end I invite you to comment on the topic of the
>thread, i.e., the scene in the movie we've described.
>
Thank God. I wish you people (not you kalspirit) would just shut up about
wshoe right and whose wrong. Nobody gives a shit. This is the biggest waste
of bankdwidth since "Is the Phantom Menace too subtle".
And if they want to show a sixteen year olds naked chest being videotaped by a
horny guy, well, it doesn't rag me out. Just another step in the Decline and
fall of the American Empire.
Ghost of KalElFan
modified opinion.
In article <19990921051746...@ng-ci1.aol.com>, judes...@aol.com
(JudeSchall) writes:
>I can't right now read through the 36 posts to see if someone
>said this already or not, but I'm pretty positive that those are
>*not* Thora Birch's breasts in that scene.
I saw the movie again a second time this afternoon, and I agree
with you. The shots seem so carefully done, the movement so
slow and deliberate, and she seems very careful not to move her
head. If it had been just her in a simple shot, there'd be no need
to have it appear that way. I think this was almost certainly a
case of each panel (above the neck, below the neck) being shot
separately and then put together. So very good call Jude, at
least I think it is. :-)
It's something you would never pick up except on a second
viewing, and even then you have to be looking for it, which is
to say *not* looking for and then at her breasts. First time
through, everyone naturally does.
Wanna know what else? If you look closely, the Mena Suvari
scene at the end could also have been faked. There's a dark
area around her neck, and her head is at an angle of at least
30 degrees or so to her body. Below the neck her arms are
stretched out straight to the side (at least in the latter shot -- I
think there are two showing her topless). The overall look is
a bit awkward -- there's an above the neck, below the neck
distinction that I sensed and that I think was more than my
imagination -- and I don't think we see much movement to
speak of below the neck. I wasn't really looking for this to
be fake, but it just struck me as once again an overly careful
shot.
There was then a quick cut to a shot of what was definitely
just her, re-buttoning her blouse. I missed whether you can
see her breasts in that shot, but in any case it may no longer
be considered a sexual situation at that point if this was their
concern. Maybe Mena Suvari was not 18 at the time this was
made, or maybe the fact she was portraying an under-18 was
the problem. Near as I could tell, Angela and Jane are supposed
to be in grade 11. Angela talks about knowing Ricky in grade 9
when he disappeared, which was for two years and the story
says he was 15 at the time. Assuming grade 1 is at age 6,
one would assume a ninth grader would be 14 (maybe Ricky
repeated a grade) and an eleventh grader 16.
The producers may have wanted to be extra cautious and ensure
that they had the best defense possible in any jurisdiction, or put
another way the least likelihood of having a controversy, and so
they faked both scenes involving these 16-year-old characters
regardless of the age of the actresses.
As to what the implications of this are if we're right, well I guess
Dreamworks won't be in any public relations difficulty over 16-
year-old topless actresses. On the other hand, it appears that
the press has been at least Clintoned in those interviews where
this issue was asked about, and I don't think that's ever a good
thing. Not wanting to spoil movie magic may be a great general
principle, but there's a specific issue here that I think the press
and moviegoers have good reason to want an answer to. For
them to have, let's face it, knowingly deceived will raise questions
as to their motivation. Did they / do they hope this deception will
sell more tickets? Or did/does the prospect of late night talk
show jokes worry them, or people not taking this legitimate Oscar
contender as seriously if the head-over-body jokes overshadow
everything else? Ridicule is a very bad thing for a movie that
wants to be taken seriously.
Anyway, like you I'll be clear that this isn't a 100% fact by any
means. Others who are better judges of these things should
be relied on more. But I did have the very same and very strong
suspicion you did after looking closely at that first scene. The
Mena scene I'm less certain about and wasn't really looking for
closely, but it looked a bit suspicious.
I'm starting another thread on other impressions after a second
viewing. Meantime, can't one of you critic- or reporter-types
get us an official word on this? Call up Spielberg's office, asking
him to put his reputation on the line with an answer. :-) Enquiring
minds want to know, eh?
Osmo Ronkanen
>
>There should be laws to protect minors from this sort of thing, but
>apparently there are not, or if there are, the laws are not enforced.
>
>which Brook Shields, at 12 years old, did a lengthy scene in which she
>was totally nude in the room with an older man. And in the movie she
>was playing a child prostitute living in a whorehouse, whose virginity
>is auctioned off to the highest bidder...
>
>If they didn't toss her mother (or the director) in jail for that one
>back in 1978, I doubt that you're going to see anyone get in trouble
>over a 17-year old doing a topless scene in 1999.
>
What is it with nudity that cscares you Americans? Here one can se nude
children in sauna adds.
Now if they had real intercourses with children that would be different.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Ghost of KalElFan <kals...@aol.com> wrote:
>She wasn't 17, she was 16 it's been confirmed by Moriarty,
>and so I think this could generate a controversy because
>of the nature of the scene.
But if she was murdered in the movie there would be no controversy.
After all murder is natural and not dirty like nudity.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
>>
>>From what I know of the law, the age of consent is almost
>>invariably no higher than 16, sometimes 14.
>
>I'm going to try not to further confuse this completely confused thread with
>further observations, but I'll add a factual clarification.
>
>The "age of consent" is almost universally 18. This is the age at which no
>crime can be committed by having a consensual (non-monetary) sexual
>relationship with the person.
Pardon, but in Europe it under that. Here it is 16, in Sweden 15 in many
other countries 14. There are some exceptions for clearly coerced
relations, like if a teacher coerces an underage child to sex. Also
buying sexual services from someone under 18 is a crime here.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
>Georgia, if you have sex with a 15 year old, the statute
>deems it rape even if it was consensual. At 16, no such
>charge could be laid because 16 is the *age_of_consent*.
>This is the whole point.
That may be the case in the US but here it is a different crime. Here we
do not view it as a consent issue, it is a child protection issue. If
the act was also a rape then I think additional charge of rape could be
given (or alternatively it could be understood as aggravated sexual
abuse of a child). Maybe in some very young children (like under 5) one
could view it always rape.
I think viewing it as a 15-year-old is comparable to someone who is in
coma is insulting the child.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> You really can't pass a law that would make it
>illegal for parents to have pictures of their naked three-year-old romping at
>the beach, so you really can't have a law forbidding nude depictions of 9 or
>15-year-old children.
One could ban making such pictures for commercial gain or for
distribution. Not that I support such a law, I just point that one can
make a difference between commercial films and parent's photographs.
Osmo
Helen & Bob
Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
Osmo, its not ALL 250 million americans that feel that way. Just those that
think that their morality is what you should live by. And I am as guilty of that
as most people.
Bob
JPM
kals...@aol.com (Ghost of KalElFan) wrote:
>To be clear again as I was earlier on, I'm playing Devil's
>Advocate here. I have no problem with the scene, in fact
>I enjoyed it (As did most males I think, although some may
>not admit they liked seeing the bra come off). She's
>beautiful, her breasts are beautiful.
>
>But I was surprised they did it, I reported the reaction a few
>rows back of me, and I just sense a controversy here. Frankly,
>I'd be interested to watch it unfold, because I think it would
>be one of the more pure discussions you could have of
>this. The scene and movie get right to the heart of it.
So let me add to the discussion instead of quibbling about laws most of us
know nothing about.
It really doesn't matter what the precise age of consent is, what matters
is the lack of discretion shown by the writer. producer and director to
show what didn't have to be seen.
Just like we didn't have to see Spacy's brain actually blown from his
skull, we also didn't have to see the 16 year olds breasts. We could have
seen a body doubles' image on the young man's video monitor thru the
window. We didn't have to see the blond girls breasts, we merely had to
see the look on Spacy's face. This is video, anything is possible. For
reasons of his own, the director chose to show what he could have withheld
to possibly greater effect, and I think those were questionable choice.
Nudity on stage in legitimate theatres has the same problem; you're so
taken back by the novelty of seeing someone in the same room naked and
pretending you're not seeing her that for a moment you've lost the
suspension of reality that allows you to be caught up in the action of the
play. Although a movie is less intimate, all I could think of while the
young girls were baring themselves was, "oh, no, I can't believe they're
doing that, is she even 18?" Just like that, I'm taken out of the movie
and become someone sitting in a movie theater being embarrassed. It's not
a smart way to present a narrative in my opinion.
I'm not all that sorry for the specific girls who exposed themselves, they
knew what they were doing and had their reasons for doing it. But I am
sorry for all female actors in general whose dignity have now become
negotiable. Not only do they have to have training, talent and dedication
they must now be willing to expose themselves to get a part in a film.
Imagine the now mandatory line on their resume: "pert natural 34-Cs,
frontal nudity negotiable..."
The bar is getting lower folks and we all suffer as a culture for it,
selling the beauty and innocence of our daughters flesh for the crude
enjoyment of the anonymous masses. Prudish, I grant you, but I wouldn't
want a daughter (if I had one) selling her dignity that way.
This is not new, it's just sad that the age where it's ok for a female
actor to bare her breast for us to watch has dropped to an awkward low,
that professional moviemakers aren't even embarrased about presenting
these scenes for commercial gain and that we as movie viewers titter about
it and then commend ourselves for being modern enought to not have a
problem with it. . .
gjw
<sf-k...@BLOCKERgovst.edu> wrote:
>Here are the ages of legal consent (for non-married,
>consenting couples) in a few states:
>
>New Hampshire - 16 (18 if older person is in a position
> of authority over the younger)
>Mississippi - 14 "
>
>Maine - 14 "
>
>California - 14
>
>Pennsylvania - 16
You are wrong.
The age of consent in California is 18, not 14.
The age of consent in Maine is 16, not 14.
The age of consent in Mississippi is 16, not 14.
(For other states, see http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm )
Steve Kraus
> Just like we didn't have to see Spacy's brain actually blown from his
> skull, we also didn't have to see the 16 year olds breasts. We could have
> seen a body doubles' image on the young man's video monitor thru the
> window. We didn't have to see the blond girls breasts, we merely had to
> see the look on Spacy's face.
That you would make such a comparison AT ALL
says a lot about what is wrong with our society
not to mention being lame beyond belief. Watching
someone get their brains blown out is not a pleasant
sight to behold. I see nothing wrong with the human
body, especially an attractive one. Prude!
Richard Thurston
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
> In article <19990919211129...@ngol02.aol.com>,
> >and so I think this could generate a controversy because
> >of the nature of the scene.
>
> But if she was murdered in the movie there would be no controversy.
> After all murder is natural and not dirty like nudity.
>
> Osmo
>
>
name escapes me right now unfortunately) said this (or something very
like it) about motion picture ratings re; breasts.
"Chop them off and you'll get a PG (rating), actually show a pair of
naked breasts and you'll get an R."
Richard Thurston
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patman
>
>In article <7s23pt$nhc$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Moriarty"
><tf...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>I've seen the film twice now, and both times I've
>>been moved to tears when Mena Suvari asks him how he is,
>>and he considers it for a long moment before answering
>>honestly, simply, "I'm fine." It's such a beautiful place for
>>Lester to reach, such a Zen conclusion to his year of
>>change.
Actually, he says, "I'm great."
--
************** A random quote from Heathers: ************
"People love you, but *I* know you."
*** My WWW home page: http://www.io.com/~patman/ *****
Osmo Ronkanen
Richard Thurston <richard...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>You're closer to the truth than you think. A very bright fellow (his
>name escapes me right now unfortunately) said this (or something very
>like it) about motion picture ratings re; breasts.
>
>
>"Chop them off and you'll get a PG (rating), actually show a pair of
>naked breasts and you'll get an R."
Here a movie does not get any rating just for having nudity. If it has
strong sexuality like acted intercourses it could get banned from
children under 14. Of course since SPR also got that rating one could
wonder why. It is funny to see some movies that in the US get R rating
and yet here are permitted for all. (here the rating is based on age, not
on parental control).
Here the greatest problem to movie censors recently was 8mm. I have
heard that some of the censors actually wanted to ban it completely. It
originally got K-18 but was before the premiere lowered to K-16. Here
the censors seem to have a view that violence in form of war or
accidents is more tolerated that violence in form of crime. The former
typically get K-14 when the latter K-16. It seems as if they are not
really protecting children but protecting others from children who they
think might emulate the violence in the movies.
Osmo
David Homerick
Richard Thurston wrote:
>
> In article <7siqu7$26b$1...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>,
> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
> > In article <19990919211129...@ngol02.aol.com>,
> > But if she was murdered in the movie there would be no controversy.
> > After all murder is natural and not dirty like nudity.
> > Osmo
> >
> You're closer to the truth than you think. A very bright fellow (his
> name escapes me right now unfortunately) said this (or something very
> like it) about motion picture ratings re; breasts.
>
> "Chop them off and you'll get a PG (rating), actually show a pair of
> naked breasts and you'll get an R."
Showing female breasts will get you a PG-13. Showing her breasts being
cut off, on the other hand, will probably land you an NC-17.
-- David
jpm
content, but technique. A skilled director can lead you to any conclusion
he wants you to draw. A hack will simply show you, an artist will let you
figure it out. . .
Sure, I'd rather see an attractive naked woman over brains splattered on
the wall, it's just I'd rather she not be a child. . .
In article <37ED9E...@BLOCKERgovst.edu>, Steve Kraus
<sf-k...@BLOCKERgovst.edu> wrote:
--
Build a better dongle and the world will beat a path to your door.
jpm
kals...@aol.com (Ghost of KalElFan) wrote:
> Remember, massive spoilers in the thread and this post...
>
> JPM from Atlanta wrote:
>
> A lot! Most of it was along this line:
>
> >It really doesn't matter what the precise age of consent is, what
> >matters is the lack of discretion shown by the writer, producer
> >and director to show what didn't have to be seen.
>
> That's an interesting way of looking at the issue. My first
> thought when I saw the masturbation scene right at the
> beginning was that this could not be a mainstream movie,
> and my next was that it wouldn't stand the test of time.
Funny, I'd forgotten that. Althought I was slightly shocked and amused by
it at first, I accepted it with no qualms whatsoever as it was perfectly
in context to what Lester was saying about his life. And after all we
didn't really see it did we? It was merely implied by the motion of his
arm. Notice how the director was able to imply something without actually
showing it? Hmmm.
As fas as nudity and violence prohibiting a movie from "standing the test
of time", it seems to me that movies are a reflection of the times they
were made. For example, Clockwork Orange had both and will probably still
be studied 100 years from now. Too soon for me to say if American Beauty
will, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet.
> snip<
>> "But if she was murdered in the movie there would be no
>> controversy. After all murder is natural and not dirty like
>> nudity." <unknown post>
I hate these type of arguments. She wasn't murdered in the movie so who's
to say what controversy would arise? To say "murder is natural and not
dirty like nudity" implies that everyone agrees with what is obviously not
true. Watch "Saving Private Ryan" and tell me murder is natural. Watch the
couple rutting on the driveway in "Boogie Nights" while 8 people watch and
tell me nudity isn't dirty. Glib generalizations like that make me nuts. .
.
Ghost of KalElFan
obvious...@bogus.com (jpm) writes:
>For example, Clockwork Orange had both and will probably still
>be studied 100 years from now.
Yes, but emphasis on "studied". It's a film buff's or critic's top ten
movie, but you'll find it on very few mainstream movie fans' lists.
You may say "well, that's because they haven't seen it," but I
don't think so and it's a chicken and egg thing anyway. Not being
able to get them in the door to admire the art suggests it doesn't
have the mainstream appeal to get on their top ten list.
American Beauty may break that trend, in fact I think it will.
>>> "But if she was murdered in the movie there would be no
>>> controversy. After all murder is natural and not dirty like
>>> nudity." <unknown post>
>
>I hate these type of arguments. She wasn't murdered in the movie
>so who's to say what controversy would arise?
Well, anyone who knows about Scream or I Know What You Did
Last Summer or any number of other teen slasher flicks, or 8mm
or Kiss The Girls. None of which I've seen by the way, but the
poster was absolutely right.
I think many hate the argument because it's so illustrative of the
prudishness many Americans have when it comes to nudity and
sex, and no one likes having that exposed so effectively. They
would rather think they have the moral high ground when it comes
to protecting our youth and so on, than to just be dismissed as
a prude.
Tony Kondaks
Ghost of KalElFan wrote in message
<19990927084049...@ngol07.aol.com>...
What I found curious was the bare-breatedness of Thora Birch who was WELL
under 18 when the movie was made. How many theatres is "American Beauty"
being shown in: 2 or 3 thousand across America? I mention this because the
subject of sex and underaged girls is the primary reason given for why
Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" was not able to get more than "art-house"
distribution when it was released a year ago. Compare the nudity in both
and it is clear that there was MUCH more in "American Beauty" (actually
there wasn't ANY in "Lolita").
Ghost of KalElFan
<tkon...@primenet.com> writes:
>What I found curious was the bare-breatedness of Thora Birch
>who was WELL under 18 when the movie was made.
Ah, back to the thread topic I see. :-)
Whether it's a real shot is still a question. I e-mailed Moriarty,
and although someone else apparently answered for him in his
absence he insists the answer in the interview was clear, that it
was really Birch and no trick shot. I suggested he follow up,
because maybe they'll say they misunderstood the question
or whatever, e.g. maybe Thora Birch's mom had to approve
even the portrayal of this with her face in the top part of the
frame, so in interviews they say (in a Clinton kind of way)
that it was real or really her or they agreed to it because it
was artistically important. Technically no lying, at least they
can argue. But Moriarty doesn't want to follow up or can't,
so we'll have to wait until someone else, probably major
media, asks the question and gets a clear, official answer.
The movie was shot in January-February of this year (Spacey
went on to shoot The Big Kahuna right after that according to
an article I read yesterday, so that's how I know shooting of
AB ended in February for Spacey at least; the IMDB says AB
shooting started in January). There could have been reshoots,
or this and other scenes that didn't involve Spacey could have
been shot later. The IMDB says Birch turned 17 on March 11
or something like that. So she was almost 17 at least, and
might have been 17 when this particular scene was done.
>How many theatres is "American Beauty" being shown in:
>2 or 3 thousand across America?
Not until this Friday. So far only 426 or so, in major markets
which won't make as much of a fuss about something like this
as Middle America may. The movie was only #5 last weekend.
Editors would prefer to start covering any controversy, run
interviews, etc, after it goes #1. We haven't even started to
see talk show appearances yet, and a lot of local newspapers
haven't run reviews. Even in the 50 major markets, people
are only starting to talk about the movie after having seen it
this weekend for the first time. No one expects this scene
coming in, as you know now if you've seen the movie with a
large enough audience. The filmmakers knew what they were
doing when they broke the silence with Ricky's father bursting
in. We're expected to be surprised/shocked by the scene,
and confront our guilt about the voyeur nature of it.
>I mention this because the subject of sex and underaged girls
>is the primary reason given for why Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" was
>not able to get more than "art-house" distribution when it was
>released a year ago. Compare the nudity in both and it is
>clear that there was MUCH more in "American Beauty" (actually
>there wasn't ANY in "Lolita").
I didn't see Lolita, but I'm convinced this will become an issue
provided American Beauty becomes a #1 movie, maybe even
if it doesn't because it's an Oscar favorite now. This is a very
sensitive issue in North America at least, and two 16-year-olds
are being portrayed topless in lewd if not sexual situations.
One of them they would have us believe was played by a 16-
year-old at the time. I think it's bound to create a controversy,
it just hasn't hit the fan yet.
In the I think unlikely event that the shot of Birch is real, you
could eventually have this on the national evening news shows,
with the clip censored in all the right places and the two-minute story
accompanying it discussing the issue. It would get attention, I'm
almost certain of it. I'm also rethinking my response to Jude and
he may be right that Dreamworks (and Spielberg) would take some
heat over that. If this were a Disney film, you'd be hearing the
howling to Oscar time.
Which is another reason why I now very strongly suspect the shot
is fake. You can argue it should still be an issue as Lolita was,
but I think most people just go back to sleep if it's a fake shot.
Steve Kraus
> What I found curious was the bare-breatedness of Thora Birch who was WELL
> being shown in: 2 or 3 thousand across America? I mention this because the
> subject of sex and underaged girls is the primary reason given for why
> Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" was not able to get more than "art-house"
> distribution when it was released a year ago. Compare the nudity in both
> and it is clear that there was MUCH more in "American Beauty" (actually
> there wasn't ANY in "Lolita").
Um...are you claiming that you don't understand the
difference between the two? That aspect of "American
Beauty" involves a man lusting after a young woman--
the operative word here is woman...not girl. She may
be underage but is still a physically mature person.
Plus it's not consumated. Perhaps there would be more
controversy if it were but even that is not a given.
The fact is that no one would bat an eye if dialog would
reveal that Angela had had sex with boyfriend(s) (I'll
steer clear of her BS'ing about sleeping with photographers
etc because that's pretty much the same situation as with
Lester) because she is at an age where regardless of age-of-
consent laws it's not uncommon for people to have sex.
"Lolita" on the other hand is about a pedophilic middle aged
man and a pre-teen (12 I think). THAT does tend to make the
public uneasy. Very different situations.
ChesterB
>subject of sex and underaged girls is the primary reason given for why
>Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" was not able to get more than "art-house"
>distribution when it was released a year ago. Compare the nudity in both
>and it is clear that there was MUCH more in "American Beauty" (actually
>there wasn't ANY in "Lolita").
the issue with Lolita was that the distributors were squeemish about the
demonstration of an actual minor in a sexual position with an adult male. the
nudity does not matter. it's how the minor is being shown on the screen with
an adult.
with thora birch, she was just topless, alone on the screen. there was no
contact, sexual or not, with any adults.
+++++++++++++++--
hoot man
Mason Barge
>other countries 14. There are some exceptions for clearly coerced
>relations, like if a teacher coerces an underage child to sex. Also
>buying sexual services from someone under 18 is a crime here.
>
>Osmo
Pardon me, but I was proven quite wrong about this in the U.S. It apparently
generally ranges between 14 and 18, depending on the state.
Tony Kondaks
Ghost of KalElFan wrote in message
>>who was WELL under 18 when the movie was made.
>
>
>Whether it's a real shot is still a question.
Doesn't matter whether it was or not...as was the case with Lolita, it is
the same whether it is the underaged's real body or an over-age double; as
long as the implication is that it is the underaged, the child porn laws
apply.
>I e-mailed Moriarty,
>and although someone else apparently answered for him in his
>absence he insists the answer in the interview was clear, that it
>was really Birch and no trick shot. I suggested he follow up,
>because maybe they'll say they misunderstood the question
>or whatever, e.g. maybe Thora Birch's mom had to approve
>even the portrayal of this with her face in the top part of the
>frame, so in interviews they say (in a Clinton kind of way)
>that it was real or really her or they agreed to it because it
>was artistically important. Technically no lying, at least they
>can argue. But Moriarty doesn't want to follow up or can't,
>so we'll have to wait until someone else, probably major
>media, asks the question and gets a clear, official answer.
>
>The movie was shot in January-February of this year (Spacey
>went on to shoot The Big Kahuna right after that according to
>an article I read yesterday, so that's how I know shooting of
>AB ended in February for Spacey at least; the IMDB says AB
>shooting started in January). There could have been reshoots,
>or this and other scenes that didn't involve Spacey could have
>been shot later. The IMDB says Birch turned 17 on March 11
>or something like that. So she was almost 17 at least, and
>might have been 17 when this particular scene was done.
>
>>How many theatres is "American Beauty" being shown in:
>>2 or 3 thousand across America?
>
>Not until this Friday. So far only 426 or so, in major markets
>which won't make as much of a fuss about something like this
>as Middle America may. The movie was only #5 last weekend.
>Editors would prefer to start covering any controversy, run
>interviews, etc, after it goes #1. We haven't even started to
>see talk show appearances yet, and a lot of local newspapers
>haven't run reviews. Even in the 50 major markets, people
>are only starting to talk about the movie after having seen it
>this weekend for the first time. No one expects this scene
>coming in, as you know now if you've seen the movie with a
>large enough audience. The filmmakers knew what they were
>doing when they broke the silence with Ricky's father bursting
>in. We're expected to be surprised/shocked by the scene,
>and confront our guilt about the voyeur nature of it.
>
>>I mention this because the subject of sex and underaged girls
>>is the primary reason given for why Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" was
>>not able to get more than "art-house" distribution when it was
>>released a year ago. Compare the nudity in both and it is
>>clear that there was MUCH more in "American Beauty" (actually
>>there wasn't ANY in "Lolita").
>
Tony Kondaks
Steve Kraus wrote in message <37F0EC...@BLOCKERgovst.edu>...
>Tony Kondaks wrote:
>> What I found curious was the bare-breatedness of Thora Birch who was WELL
>> being shown in: 2 or 3 thousand across America? I mention this because
the
>> subject of sex and underaged girls is the primary reason given for why
>> Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" was not able to get more than "art-house"
>> distribution when it was released a year ago. Compare the nudity in both
>> and it is clear that there was MUCH more in "American Beauty" (actually
>> there wasn't ANY in "Lolita").
>
>difference between the two? That aspect of "American
>Beauty" involves a man lusting after a young woman--
>the operative word here is woman...not girl. She may
>be underage but is still a physically mature person.
>Plus it's not consumated. Perhaps there would be more
>controversy if it were but even that is not a given.
Well, if that were the case, 1,000s of David Hamilton fans would now be
allowed to see his films and view his picture books in America, which I
don't believe to be the case.
>
>The fact is that no one would bat an eye if dialog would
>reveal that Angela had had sex with boyfriend(s) (I'll
>steer clear of her BS'ing about sleeping with photographers
>etc because that's pretty much the same situation as with
>Lester) because she is at an age where regardless of age-of-
>consent laws it's not uncommon for people to have sex.
>
>"Lolita" on the other hand is about a pedophilic middle aged
>man and a pre-teen (12 I think). THAT does tend to make the
>public uneasy. Very different situations.
Yes, I agree, although topics such as this are discussed on a daily basis on
U.S. talk shows.
jpm
kals...@aol.com (Ghost of KalElFan) wrote:
> **** Remember, major SPOILERS below and in the thread... ****
>
> In article <7s23pt$nhc$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Moriarty"
> <tf...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >I've seen the film twice now, and both times I've
> >been moved to tears when Mena Suvari asks him how he is,
> >and he considers it for a long moment before answering
> >honestly, simply, "I'm fine." It's such a beautiful place for
> >Lester to reach, such a Zen conclusion to his year of
> >change.
>
> Yes that was very good, but remember why he's fine. He
> found out his daughter is in love, and that's really the moment
> where I think Spacey gives the best reaction shot in the movie.
> He realizes that she's being honest and true to herself and what
> she wants, and he's probably especially happy because that
> suggests she'll avoid making the kind of mistakes he made
> over the last 20 years. The daughter is a key character here,
> because in a way she's gone down his same path of realization,
> but at an age he should have or wished he had.
Minor quibbles. . .
Spacy being "fine" isn't only because he found out his daughter is happy.
The news of his daughter happened just after his moment of realization
with Angela where he stopped himself from taking her. Just exactly what
that realization was I still haven't worked out, but it's key that he
wasn't all that angry she was a virgin and was somewhat relieved that he
stopped. The daughter's happiness is secondary to Lesters' realization.
> Which brings us back to that partial nudity scene. It's then
> that she takes the final step over into honesty with herself.
> Her boyfriend is the most honest character in the movie from
> the start. He lies to his father to keep him pacified, but he's
> true to himself and what he wants. She initially has the
> reaction she's "supposed" to have -- he's weird -- but is very
> quickly impressed with how confidently and brutally honest
> he is. He doesn't have an ounce of guilt about the video taping
> or hash selling or anything else. She starts this journey to
> come to the same point that he's at. Her journey is completed
> with this topless scene where she accepts his voyeurism (and
> in a way seduces him), and confimed later when she says yes
> she'll go with him to New York.
My definition of voyeur is one who watches for sexual pleasure. I don't
think you can say that Ricky's motivation is to get off. In his zen way,
all human expression is equal and amoral; death, sex, violence, whatever.
Ricky's watching has more to do with witnessing Janes personal progression
that she would be fearless enought to disrobe to him.
> In a direct way the audience is challenged to be honest in that
> scene as well. It's a test almost, call it the Colonel Fitts test
> but the heterosexual under-18 version. She's 16 or whatever,
> she's obviously become a sexual being. She knows it and she
> wants to be. The male audience will be titillated by this. <snip>
> "Why is this wrong?" That's what the movie does in a way. If
> you're against 16-year-olds baring their breasts in a very direct,
> titillating way, this movie is daring you to come out and either
> be a Fitts-like hypocrite, or make your case.
<etc big snip>
Ghost of - don't take personal offence cause it's not intended that way,
but you've made this point in several threads in various ways and it all
boils down to "doth protests too much." You're trying too hard to justify
it and that's significant. . .
Why is everyone getting hung up on the specific age and everyones right to
appreciate nudity? That's all beside the point.
I call it a bad choice to show a 16 year olds breasts instead of creating
a scene that communicates the same thing. I object to taking advantage of
the immaturity of a 16 year old and the bad judgement of her parents so
she can be filmed naked. Just how cheap do we hold innocence and
dignity?
I work with kids, and I have a good grasp of where their heads are at at
age 16. I know how shortsighted they can be and how lacking in life
perspective to make weighty decisions. We don't even let them drink or
drive at that age, yet its ok to have them and their parents sign consent
so that 100 million people will see her naked and that scene be forever
imortalized on alt.binaries.mpeg?
It's stupid. How many of you want your daughters to do that at 16? Your
sister? Your mother? Your wife?
You can't say its ok for someone else to do it when you wouldn't want
someone you're close to to sell themselves that way.
And don't tell me I'm a prude. I've made quite a few clay scultpures of
naked female models, but they were all over 18.
Not down on the movie at all, enjoyed it and will see almost all of it
again. . .
<grin>
--
| Apple Computer : Proudly going out of business for over 20 years now ! |
Ghost of KalElFan
In article <obviously_fake-...@ip219.atlanta15.ga.pub-ip.psi.net>,
obvious...@bogus.com (jpm) writes:
>I call it a bad choice to show a 16 year olds breasts instead
>of creating a scene that communicates the same thing. I
>object to taking advantage of the immaturity of a 16 year old
>and the bad judgement of her parents so she can be filmed
>naked. Just how cheap do we hold innocence and dignity?
Don't take this personally JP. :-) I'm arguing the other side of
the case here. Remember, it's what I do when I can see both
sides.
Do you remember being in high school? Girls had breasts. Big
ones sometimes. Guys noticed and -- news flash -- guys would
not have been disgusted to see them. Someone posted that
Seinfeld did a whole episode on this ogling thing. And you can
wax philosophical about Ricky all you like, but the whole reason
you're objecting belies acceptance that it is a voyeuristic scene
for the audience. (The filmmakers knew too, as evidenced by
how they had Col. Fitts break up the scene.) You know that
it titillates, and the pictures will eventually be floating around
the Internet, and 14-year-old boys will go to see this movie in
part for the scene. We all know this. And it has everything
to do with you saying it cheapens innocence and dignity and
so on.
If we all said we saw the scene and "realized that all human
expression is equal and amoral; death, sex, violence, whatever"
and just like Ricky we were "witnessing Janes personal progression
that she would be fearless enough to disrobe to him," and that's
*ALL* we saw, then we would be lying. We saw tits too. Nice
tits. Bigger than you'd have thought tits. Many were surprised,
and titillated. You cite your knowledge of 16-year-olds, and
criticize the mother for approving it, and bemoan that these
pictures are now out there forever, without knowing how the
actress or mother feel about it or even knowing for sure if it's
a real shot. Maybe they're all laughing their asses off at
this 85-post thread, because it isn't even a real shot.
If it was, well she was almost 17, maybe they feel this will be
great for the movie and great for her career and maybe she's
secretly thrilled to be the teen starlet du jour. I read some-
where that Thora was like the character in one respect, that
she didn't like the way she looked. We saw Jane's character
saying she thought Ricky was weird, but even on the first
videotaping remember her smiling after she got inside and
turned away from the curtains? Maybe she likes the attention,
we don't know. It might indeed be good for her career. Anyway,
do you see how some might see your position as filled with
judgments about other people's personal morality or decisions?
What about the Mena Suvari scene by the way, assuming she's
18 as we were told she was earlier in the thread? Is that okay,
even though a 16-year-old was being portrayed?
Anyway, JP, I actually liked your post. I think it's typical of
what many people think. I just think it's naive to couch it as
not being a very personal difference. Ultimately it is personal
morality we're talking about. That lady a few rows back thought
it was *disgusting*. You talk about cheapening innocence and
dignity. Some people feel very strongly about this, and it makes
me even more certain that this will become an issue which was
my main prediction in starting this thread.
Ghost of KalElFan
obvious...@bogus.com (jpm) writes:
>My definition of voyeur is one who watches for sexual pleasure.
>I don't think you can say that Ricky's motivation is to get off.
>In his zen way, all human expression is equal and amoral;
>death, sex, violence, whatever. Ricky's watching has more
>to do with witnessing Janes personal progression that she
>would be fearless enough to disrobe to him.
Gee, they could use you if and when this becomes a controversy.
Great defense. :-) See my other post, though, responding to
your "bad choice" paragraph.
I'll add another defense -- because this is what I do, JP, I'll play
both sides of an argument I don't feel strongly about. I've said
I wasn't offended and I couldn't find a breast-admiring off-switch
after I discovered this actress was 16 going on 17, which is true.
But that doesn't mean I strongly disagree with your point that
maybe 18 should be a hard line below which you should not
have scenes like this even in art movies. I can see both sides
of the argument, and will look forward to seeing this controversy
unfold.
I do think 18 is an unrealistically high age of consent to have sex
in those 1/3 of states that have that, but 14 strikes me as low
so I'd probably say 16. And I disagree strongly with people
invoking the word pedophilia in the context of this movie or
16-year-olds. One can say "16 is the rule and we should all
abide by it," but the biologically reality is that many 16-year-olds
can easily pass for 18-year-olds, and vice versa. Biologically,
the birthdate is meaningless when you get into sexually mature
females 16-18. It's simply an arbitrary number that you pick
and expect people to abide by.
Anyway, the other defense, as we look closer, is that the movie
may arguably be advocating against the portrayal of 16-year-olds
as sexual objects, and against 16-year-olds feeling pressure to
be sexual or feeling it's cool to be that way (or conversely, uncool
to be a virgin). Angela is an unsympathetic character through
most of the movie, but is very sympathetic at the end. Also note
when Jane's scene takes place, it's right after the huge fight her
parents had and the direct fight she had with her mother who
actually hit her. One could argue the message is that parents
are partly responsible here too, that bad parenting is what drives
kids to have sex too early or do drugs or [insert what to the reader
might be bad moral behavior]. Peer pressure as well, since Jane
had been inundated with Angela's stories of having sex.
Ghost of KalElFan
obvious...@bogus.com (jpm) writes:
>The daughter's happiness is secondary to Lesters' realization.
Nah, I think you've read that all wrong. The Angela decision was
easy. It was a surprise to him, yes, but once he found out the
decision was a no-brainer. Of course he's "great" to some extent
because of *everything*, this entire journey he's taken, and when
he finds out about Angela he's nearing the end of it. But his face
really lights up when he gets an answer from Angela on Jane
believing she's in love. That's what caps the whole thing for him.
If the answer had come back "Sorry, Lester, she hates your guts
more than ever and you've ruined her life and she's terribly unhappy,"
then of course his answer wouldn't have been "Great".
I think this is sledgehammer stuff at this point, not subtle at
all because you see him staring at the picture with the three
of them right after that. The significance of Angela in that
scene just before was to show Lester for the hero he is. He
does the right thing. It's perhaps the least subtle part of the
movie. Take it at face value. Then he goes to the kitchen
to hear about Jane, and get asked the question, and achieve
the realization that he's great, and reflect on that picture.
Just my opinion. I guess that's one of the things about this
movie. As that one reviewer said, it gets people thinking and
talking, and is like a Rorschach test (I'm sure I've spelled that
wrong). Incredibly strong and interesting characters in this
movie. Give 'em all Oscar nominations.
Ghost of KalElFan
<tkon...@primenet.com> writes:
>Doesn't matter whether it was or not...as was the case with
>Lolita, it is the same whether it is the underaged's real body
>or an over-age double; as long as the implication is that it
>is the underaged, the child porn laws apply.
Practically, there isn't going to be 1/10th the controversy if it
was a fake shot. Beyond that, it may be a legal issue but
it's just an opinion as to what law applies, whether it's an
art vs. porn issue, whether it matters if a body double was
used and so on. I imagine the producers' lawyers spent a
lot of time making sure this was legal as far as they were
concerned.
Paul J. Adams
>>>> "But if she was murdered in the movie there would be no
>>>> controversy. After all murder is natural and not dirty like
>>>> nudity." <unknown post>
>I think many hate the argument because it's so illustrative of the
>prudishness many Americans have when it comes to nudity and
>sex, and no one likes having that exposed so effectively. They
>would rather think they have the moral high ground when it comes
>to protecting our youth and so on, than to just be dismissed as
>a prude.
First, let me say that I was not particularly offended by the nudity
in American Beauty, so please don't misunderstand my intentions.
Now let me explain why I find the above "film violence vs. film
nudity" argument flawed.
Filmed violence is always fake. No one is actually hurt. A person
murdered in film is not murdered in reality, and everyone who sees the
film knows this.
Filmed nudity is real, which is obvious, but let me explain further
what I mean. There is, or potentially may be, a real sexual arousal
in the viewer, created by the phenomenon of an actual human being
exposing herself (or himself). This can arguably be perceived as an
exploitative relationship of sexual voyeurism between the actress and
the audience.
If it's simply a matter of photographed nudity, and the model/actress
can reasonably be considered an adult, then I don't see any strong
reason to object, other than to acknowledge that the act may
contribute to the objectification of women... in other words, it may
be ocassionally tasteless or gratuitous, but that doesn't mean it
shouldn't be allowed.
But an extreme analogy might clarify what I mean when I say that
filmed nudity is real... let's take the sexual analogy to the level of
hard core pornography.
In the real world, to punch a woman in the face is a bad thing to do.
To ejaculate in her face, with her consent, can possibly be regarded
as a good thing to do. That doesn't mean that a film that *simulates*
a punch to the face is harmful to society, while a hardcore
pornographic film is of benefit to society (or the actress).
I think that pornography should be legal, but I recognize that it is
also exploitative and harmful to those involved in the production, and
that it generally degrades our value for healthy sexual relationships
and respect for women. I simply value liberty, and free speech to
such a degree that I'm willing to accept these negative consequences.
Now, I know that filmed nudity is not pornography, and that my example
was extreme... but I hope it clarifies the issue somewhat. The
objection to nudity in film, which is often labled "prudishness" does
not indicate that Americans think "violence is good, sex is bad."
We're not as insane and hypocritical as all that. The objection
simply arises from the fact that filmed nudity, for the titilation of
the audience, is a genuine sexual transaction of sorts, in which the
audience pays to be sexually arroused. The actress really gives
herself to the audience visually, though obviously not physically.
Some people more than others are offended by the notion that the
actress is exploited and the image of women is cheapened, along with
the notion of healthy sex.
Meanwhile, filmed violence is always a simulation, a simulation which
is not necessarily harmful to anyone, and which is certainly less
harmful than an actual act of violence in the real world.
I know I'm repeating myself, but let me break it down:
- It's always better morally to simulate an act of violence on screen,
than it is to perform that violent act in real life.
- It can be reasonably argued that to perform a sexual act privately
is morally better, and less exploitative, than to record that sexual
act for public display.
- Therefore, it is not necessarily hypcritical to take greater offence
to filmed sexuality than to filmed simulated violence. This point of
view in no way indicates that anyone believes that "sex is worse than
violence."
Richard Thurston
za...@uswest.net (Paul J. Adams) wrote:
>
> >>>> "But if she was murdered in the movie there would be no
> >>>> controversy. After all murder is natural and not dirty like
> >>>> nudity." <unknown post>
>
> >I think many hate the argument because it's so illustrative of the
> >prudishness many Americans have when it comes to nudity and
> >sex, and no one likes having that exposed so effectively. They
> >would rather think they have the moral high ground when it comes
> >to protecting our youth and so on, than to just be dismissed as
> >a prude.
>
> First, let me say that I was not particularly offended by the nudity
> in American Beauty, so please don't misunderstand my intentions.
>
> Now let me explain why I find the above "film violence vs. film
> nudity" argument flawed.
>
> Filmed violence is always fake. No one is actually hurt. A person
> murdered in film is not murdered in reality, and everyone who sees the
> film knows this.
>
> Filmed nudity is real, which is obvious, but let me explain further
> what I mean. There is, or potentially may be, a real sexual arousal
> in the viewer, created by the phenomenon of an actual human being
> exposing herself (or himself). This can arguably be perceived as an
> exploitative relationship of sexual voyeurism between the actress and
> the audience.
>
Who is exploiting whom? Me for paying (indirectly) the actress money
for my 'arousal'? Or the actress as target for my 'lust'?
> If it's simply a matter of photographed nudity, and the model/actress
> can reasonably be considered an adult, then I don't see any strong
> reason to object, other than to acknowledge that the act may
> contribute to the objectification of women... in other words, it may
> be ocassionally tasteless or gratuitous, but that doesn't mean it
> shouldn't be allowed.
>
> But an extreme analogy might clarify what I mean when I say that
> filmed nudity is real... let's take the sexual analogy to the level of
> hard core pornography.
>
> In the real world, to punch a woman in the face is a bad thing to do.
> To ejaculate in her face, with her consent, can possibly be regarded
> as a good thing to do. That doesn't mean that a film that *simulates*
> a punch to the face is harmful to society, while a hardcore
> pornographic film is of benefit to society (or the actress).
>
> I think that pornography should be legal, but I recognize that it is
> also exploitative and harmful to those involved in the production, and
> that it generally degrades our value for healthy sexual relationships
> and respect for women. I simply value liberty, and free speech to
> such a degree that I'm willing to accept these negative consequences.
Those actually involved in production of hard core may disagree with
you. They may argue they felt more exploited working at the local
burger stop.
>
> Now, I know that filmed nudity is not pornography, and that my example
> was extreme... but I hope it clarifies the issue somewhat. The
> objection to nudity in film, which is often labled "prudishness" does
> not indicate that Americans think "violence is good, sex is bad."
> We're not as insane and hypocritical as all that. The objection
> simply arises from the fact that filmed nudity, for the titilation of
> the audience, is a genuine sexual transaction of sorts, in which the
> audience pays to be sexually arroused. The actress really gives
> herself to the audience visually, though obviously not physically.
> Some people more than others are offended by the notion that the
> actress is exploited and the image of women is cheapened, along with
> the notion of healthy sex.
>
Talked this over with my wife and we both had to agree that we actually
did not pay our money to 'American Beauty' in hopes of being
aroused. 'A genuine sexual transaction of sorts', perhaps but I don't
think so. My wife also didn't seem to feel the image of women was
tarnished by any nudity in the film. Perhaps by the Bening character,
but upon reflection not by her either.
> Meanwhile, filmed violence is always a simulation, a simulation which
> is not necessarily harmful to anyone, and which is certainly less
> harmful than an actual act of violence in the real world.
>
> I know I'm repeating myself, but let me break it down:
>
> - It's always better morally to simulate an act of violence on screen,
> than it is to perform that violent act in real life.
>
> - It can be reasonably argued that to perform a sexual act privately
> is morally better, and less exploitative, than to record that sexual
> act for public display.
I suppose one could make that argument but why? Is the arena of human
sexuality the only possible area of behavior where, in film or theatre,
such behavior could be exploited?
>
> - Therefore, it is not necessarily hypcritical to take greater offence
> to filmed sexuality than to filmed simulated violence. This point of
> view in no way indicates that anyone believes that "sex is worse than
> violence."
>
--
Osmo Ronkanen
Paul J. Adams <za...@uswest.net> wrote:
>Filmed violence is always fake. No one is actually hurt. A person
>murdered in film is not murdered in reality, and everyone who sees the
>film knows this.
>
>Filmed nudity is real, which is obvious, but let me explain further
>what I mean. There is, or potentially may be, a real sexual arousal
>in the viewer, created by the phenomenon of an actual human being
>exposing herself (or himself). This can arguably be perceived as an
>exploitative relationship of sexual voyeurism between the actress and
>the audience.
How? Is arousal somehow bad? Violence is bad, nudity is not.
>But an extreme analogy might clarify what I mean when I say that
>filmed nudity is real... let's take the sexual analogy to the level of
>hard core pornography.
But pornography and nudity are two entirely different things. Child porn
requires intercourse with a child that is illegal.
>I think that pornography should be legal, but I recognize that it is
>also exploitative and harmful to those involved in the production, and
>that it generally degrades our value for healthy sexual relationships
>and respect for women.
Just where do you get that stuff?
I simply value liberty, and free speech to
>>such a degree that I'm willing to accept these negative consequences.
>
>Now, I know that filmed nudity is not pornography, and that my example
>was extreme... but I hope it clarifies the issue somewhat.
No it does not as nudity and pornography are different things.
> The
>objection to nudity in film, which is often labled "prudishness" does
>not indicate that Americans think "violence is good, sex is bad."
Yes it does, especially the latter.
>We're not as insane and hypocritical as all that. The objection
>simply arises from the fact that filmed nudity, for the titilation of
>the audience, is a genuine sexual transaction of sorts, in which the
>audience pays to be sexually arroused.
And that is bad?
Osmo
Paul J. Adams
wrote:
>> The
>>objection to nudity in film, which is often labled "prudishness" does
>>not indicate that Americans think "violence is good, sex is bad."
>
>Yes it does, especially the latter.
Obviously you're not interested in even trying to understand. But if
you would try, just a little, you'd realize that an objection to
filmed nudity is not the same as an objection to nudity, that an
objection to filmed sex is not an objection to sex. You'd also
realize that there's a difference between endorsing violent films and
endorsing real acts of violence.
No rational person, in America or anywhere else, believes that it's
better to punch a woman than to stroke her breasts, or that it's
better to shoot someone's brains out than to have consensual sex with
them.
If you interpret every objection to filmed sexuality as an objection
to *sex* in general, if you take an endorsement of simulated film
violence as an endorsement of *real violence* then of course you'll
leap to the absurd conclusion that Americans think "violence is good,
sex is bad." But if you take a moment to think a little, you'll
realize this is an extremely false representation of the American
character.
Let's just pretend for a second that I'm a puritanical Christian dude
(I'm not, but this is make believe). I might believe that consensual
sex between two people in love, in the privacy of their own homes, is
a very very good thing. I might also object strongly to pornography.
If you interpret my objection to pornography as an objection to sex,
then you're absolutely wrong... you just demonstrate your own failure
to think analytically.
Americans may be more prudish than Europeans when it comes to
eroticism in films. They may be less squeemish about simulated
violence on film. This doesn't in any way suggest that Americans
value violence over sex. To even suggest this is absurd.
In any event, I don't think it's necessarily true that Americans are
more prudish about eroticism in films. I think that the reality is
Americans have a stronger dividing line between what are considered
public forums and private adult forums. They have a stricter view of
what's appropriate in broadcast media because they view this as a
public forum in which a certain standard of decency should be
maintained. But in theatrical films, videos, and pay cable stations,
a lot more is tollerated. In strictly adult media such as
pornography, absolutely anything goes, so long as it's not coercive or
exploitative of minors. Pornography is everywhere.
This doesn't suggest that Americans think sex is bad. It indicates
that Americans like to keep their sex more private than Europeans.
There's a cultural difference, yeah, but it doesn't mean that
Americans are stupid, repressed, or hypocritical.
Anyway, we're not even that private about our sexuality anymore.
Films for teenagers on up to adults are full of tits and ass shots,
adults frequently view pornography, every TV show and movie tries to
"push the envelope" on acceptable language and eroticism, and more and
more parents are letting their kids see movies like There's Something
About Mary and American Beauty. Also, if you think that the negative
reactions to films like American Beauty are representative of Amercian
culture, you have to acknowledge that the film American Beauty is
itself a reflection of American Culture. It's an American film, and
it's enormously popular with an American audience.
Let me finally say this: I object when someone criticizes America for
it's greater tolerance of filmed violence than filmed sex. The main
reason I object is not because of the suggestion that we should be
more tolerant of sex, but because of the implicit suggestion that we
should be *less* tolerant of simulated violence.
Richard Thurston
-- Can a film maker ever justify nudity in a film? Or, in your view, is
any nudity merely an attempt to titillate the audience? Does artistic
intention ever enter into the equation?
Thomasi Kubenka
: Let's just pretend for a second that I'm a puritanical Christian dude
: (I'm not, but this is make believe). I might believe that consensual
: sex between two people in love, in the privacy of their own homes, is
: a very very good thing. I might also object strongly to pornography.
: If you interpret my objection to pornography as an objection to sex,
: then you're absolutely wrong... you just demonstrate your own failure
: to think analytically.
the problem arises when your puritanical christian alter ego goes around
trying to label every filmed depiction of very very good consensual sex
between two people in their own home as pornography. that guy is an
asshole.
: In any event, I don't think it's necessarily true that Americans are
: more prudish about eroticism in films. I think that the reality is
: Americans have a stronger dividing line between what are considered
: public forums and private adult forums. They have a stricter view of
: what's appropriate in broadcast media because they view this as a
: public forum in which a certain standard of decency should be
: maintained.
so what you're saying is, americans are more prudish about eroticism in
films.
: Pornography is everywhere.
true, but still, the prudish segment of america would rather it wasn't.
i don't think, as you suggest, that they're happy to leave it in its
place on pay per view or whatever. they just can't hassle lawmakers quite
enough to make it worth the hassle they'd get from libertarians if they
banned it.
: This doesn't suggest that Americans think sex is bad. It indicates
: that Americans like to keep their sex more private than Europeans.
: There's a cultural difference, yeah, but it doesn't mean that
: Americans are stupid, repressed, or hypocritical.
if they're so insistent that you have to keep sex hidden from public view,
what isn't repressed about that? in other words, i think you need to
flesh out your argument in this paragraph a little bit more.
: Let me finally say this: I object when someone criticizes America for
: it's greater tolerance of filmed violence than filmed sex. The main
: reason I object is not because of the suggestion that we should be
: more tolerant of sex, but because of the implicit suggestion that we
: should be *less* tolerant of simulated violence.
i think you might be imagining that. at least that's never what _i_ mean.
--
s t e w a r t k i n g http://hcs.harvard.edu/~slking/
"step two is for miss julia 'goddess of porn' starkey to stop telling me
that if i hit on random girl x i'll regret it because she's a big
whiner 'cute though.' step three is for me to be EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE."
- david packer
jpm
screenwriter supports my view that Jane's happiness wasn't the key issue
for Lester.
In the interview Allen Ball said that the title "American Beauty" meant a
lot of things as he was writing the script, but ended up meaning "the
ability to see beauty"
That in a nutshell describes the arc Lester takes thruout the film. At
first, in his coma, he sees his life as crap, thus his sardonic apathy. It
took the remarkably jarring lust for Angela to awaken him. At the moment
he decided not to consumate that lust, he realized that it wasn't sex he
was seeking, but "the beauty of life" and in gazing at the family photo of
all three of them together (not just Jane) he realized that he was now
able to see that beauty.
> Just my opinion. I guess that's one of the things about this
> movie.
I agree, "tastes great, less filling" <grin>
jpm
> >obvious...@bogus.com (jpm) writes:
> >The daughter's happiness is secondary to Lesters' realization.
> kals...@aol.com (Ghost of KalElFan) wrote:
> Nah, I think you've read that all wrong. The Angela decision was
> easy. It was a surprise to him, yes, but once he found out the
> decision was a no-brainer. Of course he's "great" to some extent
> because of *everything*, this entire journey he's taken, and when
> he finds out about Angela he's nearing the end of it. But his face
> really lights up when he gets an answer from Angela on Jane
> believing she's in love. That's what caps the whole thing for him.
> KalS...@aol.com
> http://www.scifipi.com
jpm
Adams) wrote:
> The objection
> simply arises from the fact that filmed nudity, for the titilation of
> the audience, is a genuine sexual transaction of sorts, in which the
> audience pays to be sexually arroused. The actress really gives
> herself to the audience visually, though obviously not physically.
> Some people more than others are offended by the notion that the
> actress is exploited and the image of women is cheapened, along with
> the notion of healthy sex.
<Standing ovation>
Sorry, I hate ditto posts, but you've nailed it better than my four tries.
The various defenses I've read of everyones right to see a 16 year old
display herself on film has been somewhat sickening. They don't want to
get the exploitation angle cause that puts them in a bad light. People
will go through all types of denial to keep from thinking ourselves doing
wrong, especially if it prevents us from getting something we want.
Richard Thurston
209.246.177.75.atlanta1.level3.net>,
obvious...@bogus.com (jpm) wrote:
> In article <37f1e3f0...@news.uswest.net>, za...@uswest.net
(Paul J.
> Adams) wrote:
>
> > The objection
> > simply arises from the fact that filmed nudity, for the titilation
of
> > the audience, is a genuine sexual transaction of sorts, in which the
> > audience pays to be sexually arroused. The actress really gives
> > herself to the audience visually, though obviously not physically.
> > Some people more than others are offended by the notion that the
> > actress is exploited and the image of women is cheapened, along with
> > the notion of healthy sex.
>
> <Standing ovation>
>
> Sorry, I hate ditto posts, but you've nailed it better than my four
tries.
Before you two wear yourselves out patting each other on the back for
your efforts at detailing this one example of the moral rot of America
( 2 each 16 year old girls bare breasts on film), speaking for my wife
and myself as members of the audience we did not pay our $7.50 "to be
sexually aroused". This is a serious film with manifestly serious
intentions. Among those intentions, in my view, one should not include
titillation. One would, however, include a fairly frank portrayal of
sexuality, adult and teenaged. One can seriously consider such issues
without fear of arousal or exploitation. Or am I giving you both too
much credit?
>
> The various defenses I've read of everyones right to see a 16 year old
> display herself on film has been somewhat sickening. They don't want
to
> get the exploitation angle cause that puts them in a bad light. People
> will go through all types of denial to keep from thinking ourselves
doing
> wrong, especially if it prevents us from getting something we want.
>
> --
The something I wanted, and while I don't presume to speak for the rest
of the film's audience I doubt I was the only one who feels this way,
was to view the vision of the film makers and hopefully learn what they
have to say about the times in which I live. I think I was successful
in understanding their vision. And I think the film makers were
successful in how they conveyed their ideas. Judging by many posts on
this and similar threads, many others feel that way as well. Denial
does not enter into the equation.
>
--
Osmo Ronkanen
>wrote:
>
>>> The
>>>objection to nudity in film, which is often labled "prudishness" does
>>>not indicate that Americans think "violence is good, sex is bad."
>>
>>Yes it does, especially the latter.
>
>Obviously you're not interested in even trying to understand. But if
>you would try, just a little, you'd realize that an objection to
>filmed nudity is not the same as an objection to nudity, that an
>objection to filmed sex is not an objection to sex.
Why would anyone object to filmed nudity and sex if he does not object
to sex? (I mean object in general, not as irrelevant parts in a
particular movie)
> You'd also
>realize that there's a difference between endorsing violent films and
>endorsing real acts of violence.
>
You make strange skip from _objecting_ nudity in films to _enforcing_
violence.
>No rational person, in America or anywhere else, believes that it's
>better to punch a woman than to stroke her breasts, or that it's
>better to shoot someone's brains out than to have consensual sex with
>them.
But in the film nudity and sex are in general considered more
objectionable in the US. Here that is not the case.
>Let's just pretend for a second that I'm a puritanical Christian dude
>(I'm not, but this is make believe). I might believe that consensual
>sex between two people in love, in the privacy of their own homes, is
>a very very good thing.
If you were a puritan you'd require that they are married, are
different genders and practice only in certain positions etc.
>I might also object strongly to pornography.
>If you interpret my objection to pornography as an objection to sex,
>then you're absolutely wrong... you just demonstrate your own failure
>to think analytically.
Sure you have objections to sex if you put qualifications to it, like
being married etc.
>
>Americans may be more prudish than Europeans when it comes to
>eroticism in films.
Or sex in general like sex education in schools etc. That is why you
have so appalling teenage pregnancy rates.
> They may be less squeemish about simulated
>violence on film. This doesn't in any way suggest that Americans
>value violence over sex. To even suggest this is absurd.
>
>In any event, I don't think it's necessarily true that Americans are
>more prudish about eroticism in films. I think that the reality is
>Americans have a stronger dividing line between what are considered
>public forums and private adult forums. They have a stricter view of
>what's appropriate in broadcast media because they view this as a
>public forum in which a certain standard of decency should be
>maintained. But in theatrical films, videos, and pay cable stations,
>a lot more is tollerated.
Do people really in their mind make the distinction or is that just some
stupid legal ruling in the US?
Here one cannot get a movie channel without getting a hard core movie
every night. (The irony is that hard core is not allowed on vide here,
that does not mean it is unavailable)
> In strictly adult media such as
>pornography, absolutely anything goes, so long as it's not coercive or
>exploitative of minors. Pornography is everywhere.
Like on normal video rental stores?
>
>This doesn't suggest that Americans think sex is bad. It indicates
>that Americans like to keep their sex more private than Europeans.
ROTFL. Tell that to Kenneth Starr.
>There's a cultural difference, yeah, but it doesn't mean that
>Americans are stupid, repressed, or hypocritical.
Then how are movies given very easily R rating for sex when here same
movie can be allowed for all, or given a much lower rating.
...
>
>Let me finally say this: I object when someone criticizes America for
>it's greater tolerance of filmed violence than filmed sex. The main
>reason I object is not because of the suggestion that we should be
>more tolerant of sex, but because of the implicit suggestion that we
>should be *less* tolerant of simulated violence.
I have made no such suggestion.
Osmo
Paul J. Adams
wrote:
>Why would anyone object to filmed nudity and sex if he does not object
>to sex? (I mean object in general, not as irrelevant parts in a
>particular movie)
For the same reason that I might prefer to have sex with my girlfriend
in our own home, instead of in the street with people watching. Can't
you see that there's a difference between wanting to keep sex private,
and not wanting sex to exist at all? An objection to pornography is
not an objection to sex.
>
>> You'd also
>>realize that there's a difference between endorsing violent films and
>>endorsing real acts of violence.
>>
>
>You make strange skip from _objecting_ nudity in films to _enforcing_
>violence.
Read again. I said "endorsing." You know, the opposite of
"objecting." Then look at the underlying ideas.
If I think it's okay to show violence in film, that doesn't mean I
think violence in the real world is okay. If I think it's *not* okay
to show sex on film, that doesn't mean I think sex is *not* okay in
the real world. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
>If you were a puritan you'd require that they are married, are
>different genders and practice only in certain positions etc.
Yeah, but I'm not a puritan. I don't even object to sex and nudity on
film. But why are you making irrelevant comments that don't bear on
my very simple, clear cut argument?
>>I might also object strongly to pornography.
>>If you interpret my objection to pornography as an objection to sex,
>>then you're absolutely wrong... you just demonstrate your own failure
>>to think analytically.
>
>Sure you have objections to sex if you put qualifications to it, like
>being married etc.
This is wrong for two reasons.
First of all, because my argument has absolutely nothing to do with a
discussion of marriage, or extra-marital sex. You're bringing in a
whole array of irrelevant issues.
Secondly, because you're wrong. An objection to extra-marital sex is
not an objection to sex... it's an objection to extra-marital sex.
Do you divide the entire world into two categories? Those who think
absolutely anything goes sexually, and those who object to all sex?
You know, it is possible to be a normal healthy sexual human being,
without being either a puritan or a degenerate. There is a middle
ground.
>>
>>Let me finally say this: I object when someone criticizes America for
>>it's greater tolerance of filmed violence than filmed sex. The main
>>reason I object is not because of the suggestion that we should be
>>more tolerant of sex, but because of the implicit suggestion that we
>>should be *less* tolerant of simulated violence.
>
>I have made no such suggestion.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the complaint about America's
greater tolerance of violence over sex in films contains an implicit
suggestion that we are too tolerant of film violence.
If you wanted to make a morally neutral comparison, you'd say
something like this: "Americans are more tolerant of films with
driving scenes, than of films with sex." But that's not a
sufficiently ironic statement... so you instead point out the
"hypocracy" of America's greater tolerance of violence over sex in the
movies.
This only seems ironic to those who believe that violence in film is
more harmful than sex in film... and that contains a suggestion of the
harmfulness of film violence.
alex crouvier
Paul J. Adams <za...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:37f1e3f0...@news.uswest.net...
> - It's always better morally to simulate an act of violence on screen,
> than it is to perform that violent act in real life.
Wow....! Where is that zinger coming from? Ever heard a violent thought is
as good as a violent act? Ever heard undressing a person with one's eyes?
> - It can be reasonably argued that to perform a sexual act privately
> is morally better, and less exploitative, than to record that sexual
> act for public display.
Yea, liberty indeed. Free speech, free speech!
> - Therefore, it is not necessarily hypcritical to take greater offence
> to filmed sexuality than to filmed simulated violence. This point of
> view in no way indicates that anyone believes that "sex is worse than
> violence."
You are working around your deep-seated prudishness. Sex and violence have a
stronger symbiotic relationship than you think.
alex crouvier
> This doesn't suggest that Americans think sex is bad. It indicates
> that Americans like to keep their sex more private than Europeans.
> Americans are stupid, repressed, or hypocritical.
Hehehehehehhe.....
alex crouvier
> Anyway, we're not even that private about our sexuality anymore.
> Films for teenagers on up to adults are full of tits and ass shots,
> adults frequently view pornography, every TV show and movie tries to
> "push the envelope" on acceptable language and eroticism, and more and
> more parents are letting their kids see movies like There's Something
> About Mary and American Beauty.
Wow, is that a good move towards "sensualizing" American films?
The fact that THERE'S SOMETHING ABT MARY played well across age and gender
last year showed that American view of sexuality is still arrested around
prom night.
Can American audience watch LAST TANGO IN PARIS without ooh-aah-ing the
realistic sex scenes and self congratulate themselves that they are mature
audience watching "an artistic, erotic European film" but instead see the
point of the film: the intrinsic link between sex and violence?
John Harkness
wrote:
-- Extended snippage
"Filmed violence is always fake. No one is actually hurt. A person
murdered in film is not murdered in reality, and everyone who sees the
film knows this.
"Filmed nudity is real, which is obvious, but let me explain further
what I mean.
-- Even more extended snippage, though much of it is quite funny, in a
logically indefensible way
Re" paragraph one -- Vic Morrow. News footage. assorted stunt doubles.
Why does EVERYONE who sees a film know something is fake. Do small
children know, for example?
Re: paragraph two -- see the extensive commentary in another thread on
whether Thora Birch was doing her own nudity or if she had stunt
breasts or digital breasts.
Please keep explaining. your posts are always funny.
And the problem with most American films is they haven't nearly enough
gratuitous sex and violence.
John Harkness
Osmo Ronkanen
Paul J. Adams <za...@uswest.net> wrote:
>On 3 Oct 1999 01:17:12 +0300, ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)
>wrote:
>
>>Why would anyone object to filmed nudity and sex if he does not object
>>to sex? (I mean object in general, not as irrelevant parts in a
>>particular movie)
>
>For the same reason that I might prefer to have sex with my girlfriend
>in our own home, instead of in the street with people watching. Can't
>you see that there's a difference between wanting to keep sex private,
>and not wanting sex to exist at all? An objection to pornography is
>not an objection to sex.
I just do not see how sex in the movies is comparable to having sex in
the street. If you do not want to see sex in movies, fine, go see movies
where there is no sex. Let others watch what they prefer.
>
>>
>>> You'd also
>>>realize that there's a difference between endorsing violent films and
>>>endorsing real acts of violence.
>>>
>>
>>You make strange skip from _objecting_ nudity in films to _enforcing_
>>violence.
>
>Read again. I said "endorsing." You know, the opposite of
>"objecting." Then look at the underlying ideas.
>
>If I think it's okay to show violence in film, that doesn't mean I
>think violence in the real world is okay. If I think it's *not* okay
>to show sex on film, that doesn't mean I think sex is *not* okay in
>the real world. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I just do not see how those are comparable. One is a negative about sex
and one is a positive about violence. Apples and oranges.
>
>>If you were a puritan you'd require that they are married, are
>>different genders and practice only in certain positions etc.
>
>Yeah, but I'm not a puritan. I don't even object to sex and nudity on
>film.
Then what is this discussion for?
...
>>
>>Sure you have objections to sex if you put qualifications to it, like
>>being married etc.
>
>This is wrong for two reasons.
>
>First of all, because my argument has absolutely nothing to do with a
>discussion of marriage, or extra-marital sex. You're bringing in a
>whole array of irrelevant issues.
>
>Secondly, because you're wrong. An objection to extra-marital sex is
>not an objection to sex... it's an objection to extra-marital sex.
Yeah, and objection to non.missionary position is not objection to sex,
it is just objection to non.missionary position., Get real. You cannot
object to sex on people who are not married and claims that you are not
anti-sex.
>
>Do you divide the entire world into two categories? Those who think
>absolutely anything goes sexually, and those who object to all sex?
When it is about unmarried people enjoying sex it is not about anything
goes. The line should be that the parties consent, that they are
sufficiently old and that nobody is seriously harmed.
>You know, it is possible to be a normal healthy sexual human being,
>without being either a puritan or a degenerate. There is a middle
>ground.
"a degenerate"?????????
...
>>
>>I have made no such suggestion.
>
>Whether you acknowledge it or not, the complaint about America's
>greater tolerance of violence over sex in films contains an implicit
>suggestion that we are too tolerant of film violence.
Maybe in your mind. I have made no such implication.
>If you wanted to make a morally neutral comparison, you'd say
>something like this: "Americans are more tolerant of films with
>driving scenes, than of films with sex."
Driving scenes in general are not regarded as controversial, nor are
they basis of any rating, so the comparison is meaningless.
> But that's not a
>sufficiently ironic statement... so you instead point out the
>"hypocracy" of America's greater tolerance of violence over sex in the
>movies.
>
>This only seems ironic to those who believe that violence in film is
>more harmful than sex in film... and that contains a suggestion of the
>harmfulness of film violence.
And do you claim that it is not harmful for kids?
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
alex crouvier <crou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Wow, is that a good move towards "sensualizing" American films?
>The fact that THERE'S SOMETHING ABT MARY played well across age and gender
>last year showed that American view of sexuality is still arrested around
>prom night.
I think it went quite well here as well. I liked it. Here is data from
the certification from IMDB:
Certification: USA:R / UK:15 / Finland:K-12 / France:U / Germany:12 /
Mexico:B / Netherlands:AL / New Zealand:R16 / Australia:MA /
Singapore:PG / Spain:13 / Sweden:7 / Switzerland:12 (canton of Geneva)
/ Switzerland:12 (canton of Vaud) / Portugal:M/12 / Brazil:12
It seems that the English speaking countries seem to have stricter rules
on this kind of stuff.
>
>Can American audience watch LAST TANGO IN PARIS without ooh-aah-ing the
>realistic sex scenes and self congratulate themselves that they are mature
>audience watching "an artistic, erotic European film" but instead see the
>point of the film: the intrinsic link between sex and violence?
>
Certification: Italy:VM18 (re-rating) / USA:NC-17 (1997 re-rating) /
UK:X / Finland:K-18 / Portugal:M/18 / Sweden:15 / Portugal:(Banned)
(1973-1974) / France:-16 / Germany:18
It shows that it is old movie. Currently it would get harder
than K-16, or even K-14 here. That K-18 means it is not legal to
distribute it on video (a stupid stupid stupid law) Currently only hard
core movies get K18 because of sex. (Which imo is also stupid as general
age limit for pornographic material is 15)
Osmo
Scott J. Promish
news:37f73...@news.cyberway.com.sg...
> Paul, after all said and done, you are a prude.
>
> Paul J. Adams <za...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:37f1e3f0...@news.uswest.net...
> > - It's always better morally to simulate an act of violence on screen,
> > than it is to perform that violent act in real life.
>
> Wow....! Where is that zinger coming from? Ever heard a violent thought is
> as good as a violent act?
But it isn't.
How can you argue this?
Kevin
>And the problem with most American films is they haven't nearly enough
>gratuitous sex and violence.
If you run for president on this slogan, John, you'll get lets of votes,
probably mine. (That is, if you're an American, and not one of them damn
Canadians.)
I don't know about the violence part, but isn't "gratuitous sex" an oxymoron?
--Kevin
(who's still searching in vain for genuinely erotic American films)