 |
"Hey, you know, that gives me an idea. I mean, for my next film. Yeah . . ." |
Posted on 10/30/2004 1:26:00 PM PDT by socialismisinsidious
But Nicole Kidman (search) insists her new R-rated movie, which features a shocking scene of the Oscar-winner naked in the bathtub with a 10-year-old boy, is done in the best possible taste.
"Yes, it's an unusual scene, but the whole film is unusual," Kidman says of "Birth," (search) the controversial film that was booed at the recent Venice International Film Festival (search) and is likely to spark outrage when it opens here Oct. 29.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Not sure, but I am sure who they are voting for next Tuesday.
Holloywood is in the forefront of diversity and proclaiming equality of the sexes. I wonder how "okay" they would be with an older man having a bathtub scene with a 10 year old girl. I'm sure the old double standard would kick right in.
I think the Frenchman's authorship is self-explanatory. :)
The kid has no parents-he was cloned specifically for this part, and discarded soon after.
Can't the theaters that show this be prosecuted under the child pornography laws?
Mrs. Peel, you're needed. :)
|
"Hey, you know, that gives me an idea. I mean, for my next film. Yeah . . ." |
I hate child molesters.
That being said, I think it wise to reserve judgment on this one until someone here has seen the film in question. Children bathing with adults is not necessarily wrong. In some cultures (Japan comes to mind) the practice of children and parents bathing or soaking together is part of traditional culture. Up until recently child nudity was seldom considered in a sexual context; a naked kid was considered by and large to be no more erotic than a “naked” cat or dog. Only in recent “enlightened” times, when traditional mores have been abandoned, have children been routinely depicted as objects of sexual desire in the mass media.
I advise caution. Ms. Kidman is known to be a devoted mother. Let's wait and see what's actually in the movie before we all freak out.
That's the producer, huh? They probably have to discard a camera soon after taking his picture.
This is not portrayed as parent bathing with their own child!
But if they portrayed that same older man in the bathtub with a ten year old boy, any protest would be condemned as homophobia.
It seems that Hollywood is in the business of entertaining the perverts and enticing those on the edge of perversia over the line.
Doubtful. AFAIK, the kid was not naked and there was no sexual contact between him and Kidman.
Like some others, I remember when I was 10. Methinks thou dost protest too much ;-)
The highly publicized case of Mary Kay Letourneau raises some interesting questions of "perversion" vs. control (parental and governmental), does it not? When age of consent was first set in western societies during the middle ages, it was in fact ten for many centuries. Even then, the issue began as one of control rather than any outrage over perversion. Very young marriage was by no means common before the mid-teens but it happened. Early in the last century, there was marriage in the very early teens, with laws allowing it as young as twelve, and with a few states having no fixed limit other than what a court would allow. Such marriages at the extreme limit raised eyebrows but not hackles of outrage. Laws removing the ability of children to work outside the home rose hand-in-hand with the age of consent. But that would be expected as a practical matter since people unable to be legally employed would of course be unable to set up an independent household. And a relationship in which only one partner could work or indeed be allowed to function outside the home is an inherent inequality established by law, not by nature. Only after the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1939 became entrenched during and after WWII did the concern over perversion begin to apply all the way up to age 18, when a person by law becomes independent. Natural protectiveness hardened into control and then progressed to a moral outrage that simply did not exist 100 or 200 years ago, particularly in rural states. The case of Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his 13-year-old second cousin, long legal where it was performed in Tennessee, provided an opportunity for the the public in England and then in America to vent on this newfound sense outrage.
Of course, no one wants their child to become involved romantically or sexually with older men (or women). It interferes with the parental prerogatives in the lives of their children until they are full adults. The law has eliminated any concept of a gradual progression of children to independence based on maturity, ability or personal views and has set a fixed date for a sudden and complete break at the maximum age possible, ostensibly to protect children, often from themselves. And the issue today often devolves to one of secret casual sex due to lack of morals and draconian legal consequences rather than open marriage under the family's and society's watchful eye. But one must understand that the source of outrage stems more from loss of control, for which the recent and novel concept of young sex as a "perversion" was invented as a justification after-the-fact.
And yes, I've heard of, but never read, the Judith Levine book. But I remember when I was 10.
I did read Judith Levine's book. She made some good points and lots of bad points.
She was right, in my book when she discusses the fact that children and teens are sexual creatures who initiate and enjoy sexual contact.
They would do it if they thought it would sell tickets.
The whole premise of the movie is stoooooooooooopid.
More than 50 posts and no photo of Nicole? I guess we'll have to post pictures of me (her younger sister) instead.
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.