Posted on 09/19/2020 6:52:03 AM PDT by Parody
Kiddie sex is possibly the most controversial topic any movie can examine. Slip anything into your movie about sex involving a child (whether the child is being molested by someone older, or is doing it with another child) and you guarantee plenty of censorship and angry chatter about censorship, not to mention pretentious eggheads trying to make the case that people are taking this way too seriously and kiddie sex totally isn't what the movie's about.
Sometimes those pretentious eggheads are right, and the detractors really are focusing too much on one little scene or insinuation to the exclusion of all the rest of the movie's story. A little child nudity, a child's having a precocious crush on an adult, or even a crime story involving child rape and/or prostitution do not make the movie all about kiddie sex. Fritz Lang's M, Michael Bay's The Island, Randal Kleiser's Blue Lagoon, Martin Scorcese's Taxi Driver, even Luc Besson's Leon: The Professional... none of these are really about kiddie sex, despite whatever prurient interest a few pathetic perverts might be able to take in them.
On a few rare occasions, however, the detractors are dead right and all the pretentious eggheads' film jargon and psycho-babble about metaphorical-subtextual-yackety-yack can't gloss over the reality that a given movie is all about the severely underage rumpety-pumpety, on-screen or off, with everything else mostly there just to provide a contextual excuse. We're not talking about trashy movies in which teens played by twenty-somethings or even by actual teens get all wildly promiscuous on-screen, we're talking about tweens and kids in the single digits doing the four-legged frolic. The following are genuine examples of these I-can't-believe-it's-not-kiddie-porn flicks.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.archive.org ...
Pretty Baby was banned in Ontario at the time it was released although if one lived near the border one could have gone to Quebec NY or Michigan I imagine to see it.
Anally raping her, no less; and in California, where Governor Newsom just signed a bill into law allowing judges to reduce the legal penalties for doing that. I'll bet Polanski's regretting having fled to Europe over that incident now. (He fled because contrary to his expectations when plea-bargaining, he was going to have to spend some time in prison, though it was still a pretty light sentence as I recall.) The legislature's fig-leaf justification for passing that bill was that the penalties for anally or orally sodomizing an underage child (of either sex) were higher than for vaginal rape, so they were equalizing them; it didn't occur to anybody to try raising the penalties for vaginal rape instead?
Incidentally, something a lot of people don't seem to have noticed in the transcript of his victim's heartbreaking testimony: the lawyer asks her whether she knows what sex is, and whether she's had any before, and she answers both questions in the affirmative. She was thirteen at the time. If that's how things were in California then (when it could still give its electoral votes to Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984), I'd probably hate to see how much further along on its slide into depravity the state is now when it's a one-party Democrat-run hellhole.
There was some shadiness surround Polanski's case. He pled guilty to a lesser charge, the more serious ones were dismissed, and he was ordered to spend 90 days in the mental hospital in Chino Prison. He served around 40 days and was released. After he was released, the judge threw out the plea bargain and re-sentenced Polanski to 50 years in prison. At this, he fled the country.
From Milan to Minsk.
Blame It on Rio, immediately comes to mind.
With the deserved outrage over Cuties I do have to ask, how are the routines from “Dance Mom” that much different?
While in college 3 buddies and myself took a class about the best of early classical movies, where the M movie was one of the movies in the syllabus. We were 2 stem and 2 business majors and didn’t really want to stretch our brains too much for the humanities elective that had to be checked off. So, it was me and the three buddies, the football and basketball teams. Perfect class for a gimme A grade. We all needed a second humanity class so the next semester took another course by the same prof that was a history of rock music, 1920s-50s evolution. Same deal, the 4 buddies from the dorm, football and basketball teams and gimme A.
Two left off the list, “The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane” featuring a nude 12 or 13 Jodie Foster leaving no doubt she’s bonking her underage boyfriend, and “Gigi,” about an adult man grooming a teenage girl to be his mistress. No explicit sex involved but the idea should have been repugnant to every feminist in the world.
As for Gigi, again: "We're not talking about trashy movies in which teens played by twenty-somethings or even by actual teens get all wildly promiscuous on-screen, we're talking about tweens and kids in the single digits doing the four-legged frolic." So again, presumably left off the list because it was disqualified.
I watched some cuts from Cuties and was shocked at how the girls acted. The visuals, such as how they dressed and flaunted their youth, were something that you saw at malls prior to covid time, but their behavior was outright nasty.
Cuties is just one problem. Youth beauty pageants and dance competitions are others. All have their focus on Hollywood.
Given that the thread was about movies that featured kiddie sex (and I think 13 year olds are still kids even if you don’t), the fact that a body double stood in for Jodie Foster does not disqualify the movie as having portrayed kiddie sex. As to “Gigi,” the premise is morally repugnant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.