Pedophilia and child sex are the themes at Sundance film festival

[jay gw]

Ten years later, the 'Kids' are definitely not alright
By TODD MCCARTHY, Sun., Jan. 30, 2005, 6:00am PT

PARK CITY, Utah An 11-year-old boy spreads his semen over school lockers and repeats his father's filthy epithets when he blows a shot at tennis; a 16-year-old girl hangs her blood-stained sheet on the clothes line to let her father know she's lost her virginity; a 6- or 7-year-old boy proposes an exchange of bodily fluids in an Internet dialogue that might have given the characters in "Closer" pause; a 15-year-old stud becomes the heartthrob of a community's older women; a 14-year-old girl drugs and binds a man twice her age with the intention of castrating him.

These are just a few of the scenes that are being watched with barely a raised eyebrow in new American work at this year's Sundance Film Festival. It wasn't too many years ago that Larry Clark's "Kids" had to be screened here unannounced after midnight due to its explosive revelations of the sex-and-drug-drenched lives of young New York teens, and Miramax had to technically disassociate itself from the picture for fear of protests.

Whatever the reasons, sex has replaced violence as the new edge this season, at least as far as the independents are concerned. A few examples:

* In Noah Baumbach's "The Squid and the Whale," one of the best films in a very mixed-bag dramatic competition this year, a divorced father considers an affair with a student, his older son dithers about whether to bed a "nice" girl or the same, wilder student his father's with, and the 11-ish son reacts to his parents' split by masturbating in the library stacks and marking his territory by smearing the result around school.

* In Rebecca Miller's "The Ballad of Jack and Rose," a 16-year-old girl raised alone on an island by her father begins rebelling by abruptly asking a visiting virginal boy to deflower her; when he begs off, she lets that boy's punkish younger brother do the deed, thanking him afterward and then hanging the reddened sheet out to dry for dad's edification.

* In Miranda July's deceptively lightweight "Me and You and Everyone We Know," a first-grade-level boy who can barely read manages to type out some simultaneously innocent and outrageous Internet proposals about the possibilities of excrement exchange, while his high school-age brother is the recipient of oral favors from two mid-teen girls who want to know if he can tell the difference between their techniques.

* In Melissa Painter's "Steal Me," a 15-year-old boy becomes the Don Juan of a small Montana town, while in Arie Posin's "The Chumscrubber," a high schooler comes on strong to the mother of his girlfriend.

* In Mike Binder's "The Upside of Anger," a high school girl flaunts her affair with a much older man in her distraught mother's face.

* In Marcos Siega's "Pretty Persuasion," three Beverly Hills high school girls deviously engineer a sexual harassment suit against a teacher by using their sexual wiles.

* In Rian Johnson's "Brick," all the high school characters talk and behave like characters out of a Dashiell Hammett novel, with sex entering into the equation just as it would for adults.

* On the foreign front, Ziad Doueiri's French picture "Lila Says" centers on a mid-teen girl using sexual power as a significantly older woman might, while Park Chul-soo's new South Korean film "Green Chair" is about the boundary-pushing affair between a 32-year-old woman and a 19-year-old male student, who, under Korean law, is still a minor.

* Perhaps most startling is David Slade's "Hard Candy," in which an alarmingly aware 14-year-old girl takes revenge on a man who may or may not have preyed upon underage girls by tying him up and cutting him where it counts. The sexual sophistication of her character, not to mention her wherewithal and cleverness, is way beyond her years.

There may be more examples among the 120-odd features shown at Sundance, but sexual precocity among minors jumped out as the most frequent element found in independent films this year -- more even than such other popular subjects as family dysfunction, political rebellion and ethnic disparities.

http://www.variety.com/VR1117917076.html

Is there any reason why filmmakers believe they have to keep "shocking" audiences? Why can't they just make a meaningful and interesting film? Apparently that's pretty hard for Americans.

I guess all the Christian fundamentalists ranting about American morals in the toilet are just talking nonsense.

[aerocontrols]

These films are not aimed at the general public.

As to why the filmakers think that this will appeal to the Sundance crowd, I would hesitate to speculate.

[jay gw]

Quote:

These films are not aimed at the general public.

Every filmmaker at Sundance wants to make money from their films. How exactly do they do that? I'd like to hear your interpretations.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Every filmmaker at Sundance wants to make money from their films. How exactly do they do that? I'd like to hear your interpretations.

Google search for "won best picture at Sundance":

Quote:

Michael Feit Dougan's screenwriting credits began with, Public Access, which earned the Grand Jury Prize for "Best Picture" at Sundance. ...

Quote:

The picture, to be released this year, is being directed by Catherine Hardwicke (whose Thirteen won for Best Picture at Sundance in 2003) and will star Emile ...

Quote:

... The Royal Tenenbaums) while still supporting the independent films that are his passion (Trees Lounge, Rushmore, In the Soup-- Best Picture at Sundance in 1992 ...

Winning at Sundance is a way of getting noticed by influential people in the filmmaking industry. The American people did not flock in droves to see Public Access, Thirteen, or In the Soup, did they?

They way to make money from flims is to move out of the low-budget independent movie industry and into the big-budget, big star world.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Google search for "won best picture at Sundance":

Winning at Sundance is a way of getting noticed by influential people in the filmmaking industry. The American people did not flock in droves to see Public Access, Thirteen, or In the Soup, did they?

They way to make money from flims is to move out of the low-budget independent movie industry and into the big-budget, big star world.

All of those films, "In The Soup," "Public Access," "Thirteen," made money and advanced the careers of the directors, actors, etc.

So how do you get into big-budget films, exactly? To hear you tell it, you just show up at the corner of Hollywood and Vine and shout out "I want to make big-budget films!" But then experience shows that for most people, the way to do it is to make movies with whatever pennies and favors you can scrape together, get into as many festivals as will have you (and especially Sundance), hope to sell it to a distributor, and get small, modest success in the indy theaters.

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
These films are not aimed at the general public.

As to why the filmakers think that this will appeal to the Sundance crowd, I would hesitate to speculate.

Ol' Robert Redford must be creaming his jeans seeing his dream realized.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I believe in freedom of speech , even if it is “ The speech we hate”., but I also would like to cut the balls off of any child molester. I find this a rough terrain to try and navigate, perhaps if I saw the content of the films and allowed for excess in the name of “Art” or “Expression” I might be able to accommodate these producers. I find the whole idea to be reprehensible however. Perhaps I'm not so different the Deists or other defenders of moral absolutism, yet this is where I find myself.

If this wasn't such a problem.................. then it wouldn't be such a problem. Fact is that there are all kinds of
exploitation of children that happens every day like forced prostitution, labor,outright slavery, etc. This is pervasive in the third world. I don't view it as a curiosity from an intellectual standpoint , where one sees what's happening and leaves the movie or turns off the TV and leaves it behind. I think it is a moral affront to any who would see the human race to be .. well human.

[aerocontrols]

What a bizarre reply...

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
All of those films, "In The Soup," "Public Access," "Thirteen," made money and advanced the careers of the directors, actors, etc.

First of all, I don't believe that "In the Soup" (distribution: 4 theaters) made money, but that's hardly my point. $20 million worldwide box office may be very good for a film like Thirteen but that's probably less than the marketing budget for her new film, underwritten by Sony, Lords of Dogtown. As far as advancing careers goes, that was precisely my point and I don't understand how you missed it.

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
So how do you get into big-budget films, exactly? To hear you tell it, you just show up at the corner of Hollywood and Vine and shout out "I want to make big-budget films!" But then experience shows that for most people, the way to do it is to make movies with whatever pennies and favors you can scrape together, get into as many festivals as will have you (and especially Sundance), hope to sell it to a distributor, and get small, modest success in the indy theaters.

No, you've completely misinterpreted my meaning.

Quote:

Winning at Sundance is a way of getting noticed by influential people in the filmmaking industry. The American people did not flock in droves to see Public Access, Thirteen, or In the Soup, did they?

They way to make money from flims is to move out of the low-budget independent movie industry and into the big-budget, big star world.

To move from the low-budget world into the big-budget world:

1) Compete (hopefully win) at a festival like Sundance.

2) Get notariety and publicity.

3) Parlay that into more writing, directing jobs.

4a) Instead of making another low-budget flick like Public Access, you get a serious budget and get to make The Usual Suspects.

4b) Instead of making another low-budget flick like In the Soup you get a serious budget and get to make The Royal Tenenbaums.

etc. Not the only way, but certainly one of the primary motivations for sending a film to Sundance.

My whole post was arguing that the purpose of going to Sundance was career advancement. Thus the need to appeal to industry people moreso than the general public.

MattJ

[jay gw]

Quote:

The American people did not flock in droves to see Public Access, Thirteen, or In the Soup, did they?

They way to make money from flims is to move out of the low-budget independent movie industry and into the big-budget, big star world.

Everyone knows why Sundance exists. And yes, the American people have access to all the films you mentioned. They're all at my local Blockbuster.

[HarryKeogh]

since the dawn of cinema films have been made about topics some people would consider ugly, immoral and off-putting. This is nothing new. Teens can be sexual and children are abused in real life in ways which are odder than the scenes depicted in the OP. These are dramas about things that happen everyday. There are things that happen people may not like but banning their discussion or presentation before an audience isn't the answer. And Jay GW, who is to say these movies aren't meaningful? Can you base that on a one sentence summary of one scene in the movie?

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Everyone knows why Sundance exists.

Your original post implied that one could guage the efforts of filmakers to appeal to the public by looking at films brought to Sundance. To your question "Is there any reason why filmmakers believe they have to keep "shocking" audiences?" I would say that the intended audience would affect that issue a great deal. I've seen professional critics poo-poo a movie because it's stale or derivative. Unlike the critics, you or I may not have seen the 10 movies that it is supposedly derivative of. Industry folks who watch nearly every movie don't want to see the same old stuff. I would imagine that for film industry folks 'fresh' and 'groundbreaking' can often be achieved with material that you or I would describe as shocking.

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
And yes, the American people have access to all the films you mentioned. They're all at my local Blockbuster.

Perhaps so, but that's hardly the point. I saw and loved "The Usual Suspects" but that didn't drive me to go rent or buy "Public Access". Sometimes a film that appears at Sundance will make it big after the filmaker gets famous (Reservoir Dogs is an arguable example of a movie that has become bigger than it otherwise would have thanks to Tarantino's later success)

[Beerina]

You forgot the movie where a female high school gym teacher in her 30's was having an affair with a 14 year old female student. Needless to say the mother does not approve of this. The teacher gets mad and goes over the student/mother's house, and gets in a fistfight on the front lawn with the mother.

Oh, wait! Sorry!

That was not a Sundance movie. That was a real-world news story. My bad!

[Beerina]

Or the other Sundance movie where this guy in his 40's takes a 12 year old boy as his lover. The family finds out, so the man convinces the boy to kill his own father, which he does. Get this, it's so unbelievable: the man is hauled into court on a murder charge. As bad as the jail time for pedophilia is, he has to admit to it on the stand as part of the murder defence that the kid did it by himself. And lo! It works! The jury declares him innocent!

Later on, in a separate trial, the boy is declared guilty of the murder! His 40-something "lover" goes free!

Oh, wait!

Sorry.

That also was not a Sundance movie, but rather a real-world news story. I'm Oh for 2 today, not thinking clearly I guess.

[Beerina]

Or the movie where the ugly female comedienne exposes her black hair patch to a 14 year old girl "accidentally." Gets off.

Or the one where, hehe, get this, a children's show host and the co-star of several movies directed at teenagers swap photos of underage naked kids, but eventually get off because they were "artistic".

Or the movie where, omg, this is so fake, one of the biggest pop music entertainers of all time pays an estimated 20-40 million dollars to buy off a kid who accuses him of sexual abuse. The guy admits (literally) sleeping in beds with 10 year old boys -- by the hundreds. He claims he had a "lost childhood" since he was rich and famous since nearly a toddler. 10 years later, he appears on national TV holding hands with a cancer-ridden child (who he's paying for the treatments of), a boy, of course. Later on, this very same boy accuses him of molestation. Don't know how the 2nd trial comes out (the first never made it to trial thanks to the payoff) because the movie is still in production.


Oh wait. Not movies either. Damn, I'm Oh for 5 I guess.

[jay gw]

Quote:

That also was not a Sundance movie, but rather a real-world news story.

So because it happens in real life everyone should make films promoting it?

Not sure about that....

Remember when "blue" or racy films started, and the public was shocked? A woman showing her legs was enough to put audiences into an angry frenzy.

Today porn films make about $10 billion dollars a year.

Is there any reason why child porn won't be an American industry?

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
So because it happens in real life everyone should make films promoting it?

Not sure about that....

You don't actually believe that a film depiction of something is necessarily a promotion of that thing, right?

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
You don't actually believe that a film depiction of something is necessarily a promotion of that thing, right?

You have to believe it. Otherwise there's no option for you in the poll!

[jay gw]

Quote:

You don't actually believe that a film depiction of something is necessarily a promotion of that thing, right?

Promote

To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity.
To present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting.

Buyer acceptance.....popularity....publicity....advertis ing....hmmm films advertising popularity movie publicity

Wow, tough question.

And you ignored the rest of my post.

[Batman Jr.]

I'm going to have to agree with aerocontrols on this one. A portrayal of a sexual act in a movie doesn't always have the aim of glorifying it in the eyes of the movie's audience. If a filmmaker "depicting" anything amounted to an "endorsement" of that thing, then you could never establish characters as being "bad guys" in simpleminded blockbusters because you'd be urged to "accept" them in the way they are shown. If this were truly the case, no medium through which the storyteller has ever made his message known would be able to establish the protagonist/antagonist dichotomy.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Promote

To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity.
To present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting.

Buyer acceptance.....popularity....publicity....advertis ing....hmmm films advertising popularity movie publicity

Wow, tough question.

And you ignored the rest of my post.

The poll question might better have been phrased, "Should filmmakers be permitted to make movies containing any content related to child molestation, said movie being promoted through paid publicity and advertising?"

[jay gw]

Quote:

A portrayal of a sexual act in a movie doesn't always have the aim of glorifying it in the eyes of the movie's audience.

And sometimes it does. How do you know what the audience perceives it to be? You're psychic?

Bad guys....never glorified....hmmm

Boy, I'm sure glad that gangsta rap fad died off so quickly, sure am glad.

[DavidJames]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
And sometimes it does. How do you know what the audience perceives it to be? You're psychic?

Bad guys....never glorified....hmmm

Boy, I'm sure glad that gangsta rap fad died off so quickly, sure am glad.

So are you saying that there should be no movies containing content you don't approve of?

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Promote

To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity.
To present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting.

Buyer acceptance.....popularity....publicity....advertis ing....hmmm films advertising popularity movie publicity

Wow, tough question.

For some more than others, apparently.

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
And you ignored the rest of my post.

I don't believe the part of your post I "ignored" was there when I replied.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
You have to believe it. Otherwise there's no option for you in the poll!

That's why I didn't vote in the poll.

[c0rbin]

So, is the point of this thread that kids have sex and do drugs because of Sundance? Or is it that kids have sex and do drugs and you are shocked that film-makers represent this on scren (at Sundance)?

Which is it?

[Batman Jr.]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
And sometimes it does. How do you know what the audience perceives it to be? You're psychic?

And so it does sometimes, but so what? And how any one member of the audience might interpret what is being presented to them is beyond me, but the filmmaker can demarcate quite clearly what he/she approves of and doesn't approve of in his/her movies through narrative subtext. For a very obvious, black-and-white example, take The Terminator. You can tell by how the story is told that James Cameron looks upon the Terminator opprobriously. Even if you were into building robots to go on murderous rampages for you, you can tell what the message of the film is.

[jay gw]

Quote:

And how any one member of the audience might interpret what is being presented to them is beyond me, but the filmmaker can demarcate quite clearly what he/she approves of and doesn't approve of in his/her movies through narrative subtext.

Quote:

For a very obvious, black-and-white example, take The Terminator. You can tell by how the story is told that James Cameron looks upon the Terminator opprobriously.

Opprobrium:

1. Disgrace arising from exceedingly shameful conduct; ignominy.
2. Scornful reproach or contempt: a term of opprobrium.
3. A cause of shame or disgrace.



Hmmm.......

[Checkmite]

Over the years, many filmmakers - especially independent ones - have made certain kinds of films (let's call them "expose' films") that are designed to either make us aware of some problem we don't know about or force us to confront a problem we tend to ignore. Kids' behavior is one recurring theme - first films exposing "bad language" that kids habitually use, then cigarette smoking, and finally drug use. Some of these films are met with criticism initially, but the fact is the bahaviors they "exposed" were common and supported by polls and the like. The films of course only deal with a specific set of characters, but the film generally makes it clear, or at least suggest, that a good number of (if not most) kids do the things the characters do.

The newest set of kids' behavior that we are being "made aware of" is apparently rampant sexuality from an early age. But unlike the aforementioned problems like drugs, this precocious promiscuity is something that I haven't seen supported by research and polls and the like. There's no question it sometimes happens...and of course kids like to "brag". But the bragging seems to disappear in those anonymous polls, and as far as I know it's safely in last place, as far as "bad things kids do" goes. Perhaps I'm not looking at the right polls.

[jay gw]

Quote:

But unlike the aforementioned problems like drugs, this precocious promiscuity is something that I haven't seen supported by research and polls and the like.

That's because children having sex with adults is not a real problem. It's a problem made up by pedophile movie directors, using their American rights of free speech to promote their "interests" in the hopes of making them acceptable to the public.

[Donks]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
That's because children having sex with adults is not a real problem. It's a problem made up by pedophile movie directors, using their American rights of free speech to promote their "interests" in the hopes of making them acceptable to the public.

Do you have any evidence that these directors are pedophiles, or that they are trying to make pedophilia acceptable to the public?

[peptoabysmal]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Is there any reason why child porn won't be an American industry?

Yes. The perverts on this board are inversly proportional to the way that most of Americans think.

I can't believe that so many have answered this question Yes or have implied that there is some sort of middle ground...

The question: "Should filmmakers be allowed to make films promoting pedophilia?" seems pretty clear cut to me. It wasn't a question about whether or not the examples you provided were good examples of promoting pedophilia.

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
These films are not aimed at the general public.

I agree, films like these are more about navel gazing than commercialism.

[Cleon]

There are two questions here.

1. Do these films promote pedophilia? I have no idea, neither does jay gw. Neither of us have seen them, and soundbites about certain scenes aren't exactly conclusive.

2. Do filmmakers have a right to make films promoting pedophilia? Absolutely, providing they break no laws in the process. It's called "freedom of speech," and is a cornerstone to some principles laid down by a bunch of long-haired secularist hippie womanizers back in the 1700s. These folks have a right to say whatever they like, no matter how repulsive.

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I'm going to have to agree with aerocontrols on this one. A portrayal of a sexual act in a movie doesn't always have the aim of glorifying it in the eyes of the movie's audience. If a filmmaker "depicting" anything amounted to an "endorsement" of that thing, then you could never establish characters as being "bad guys" in simpleminded blockbusters because you'd be urged to "accept" them in the way they are shown. If this were truly the case, no medium through which the storyteller has ever made his message known would be able to establish the protagonist/antagonist dichotomy.

For real, that's like saying James Cameron promotes nuclear holocausts because he made Terminator 2.

[Sane]

In an article I read yesterday, the concern was that we have quickly become desensitised to this content.

Apparently, when "Kids" was shown at Sundance in the 90s, it was not advertised and the film started after midnight. Too offensive.

Have we become so numb so fast that anything will go at sundance and perhaps in mainstream films in the not so distant future?

I think that's the issue.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
There are two questions here.

1. Do these films promote pedophilia? I have no idea, neither does jay gw. Neither of us have seen them, and soundbites about certain scenes aren't exactly conclusive.

Well not necessarily. The examples of "pedophilia" offered above are kind of out of context. Like Lolita, they could actually be showing extreme derision for it. Another example would be The Butterfly Effect, in which one of the characters is used to make kiddy porn. But this is hardly "promoted", as it ruins the character's life and causes nice things like suicide. So you'd have to watch the movies I guess. My question is whether watching the films simply to get the context is worth enduring them. For example, I won't be watching "The Squid and the Whale", because...no.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleon
2. Do filmmakers have a right to make films promoting pedophilia? Absolutely, providing they break no laws in the process. It's called "freedom of speech," and is a cornerstone to some principles laid down by a bunch of long-haired secularist hippie womanizers back in the 1700s. These folks have a right to say whatever they like, no matter how repulsive.

Sure they have a right to make such films. The mistake is in presuming that one's right to make a film forces on another the obligation to publish and distribute it; or that one's (or everybody's) decision not to publish and distribute such a film is somehow a violation of the filmmaker's freedom of speech.

[jay gw]

Quote:

Do filmmakers have a right to make films promoting pedophilia? Absolutely, providing they break no laws in the process.

Do I have the right to make films calling for you and your family's deaths? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process. Overthrowing the government? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process. How to kidnap children? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process. Making and setting off homemade bombs? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process. How to make methamphetamine? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process.

And the comment about then and now in regards to 'Kids' being shown at midnight - yes, it's only been a few years and now nobody cares about 10 year olds having sex, graphic, not subtle.

Everyone here seems to think this is artistic "progress". No it's not.

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
Do I have the right to make films calling for you and your family's deaths? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process. Overthrowing the government? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process. How to kidnap children? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process. Making and setting off homemade bombs? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process. How to make methamphetamine? Absolutely, providing I break no laws in the process.

All of which have been discussed and decided by SCOTUS. There is a difference between advocacy and incitement.

Yes, you have the right to say I and my family should be killed. Notice that neo-Nazis and their sympathizers, who advocate that very thing (not to mention overthrowing the government), have not been shut down.

You have the right to describe how explosives are made. See the Anarchist Cookbook and howstuffworks.com, which even has this little gem.

And so on and so forth. High Times, the pot magazine, not only advocates marijuana use but also sells a DVD describing the process of growing it.

Freedom of speech is a good thing, even if people use it to say things you don't like.

Quote:

Everyone here seems to think this is artistic "progress". No it's not.

You've nothing to base that on except for your own prejudices. You haven't seen the films in question; you got these little soundbites and you're making sweeping judgements based on them.

[rikzilla]

I voted yes.

Not because I'm in favor of pedophiles...but because I am secure in the belief that the free marketplace of ideas will give pedophilia short shrift. It will recieve the scorn it deserves, and free speech will remain intact.

-z

[aerocontrols]

If acting is a craft rather than a task, then portraying the complex psychology of a child molester (for example) would be a better test of skill than a portrayal of yet another loose-cannon cop.

Directing such a story would also be a bigger challenge. Writing a believable story, etc.

Consider the fashion industry. Nobody wears those ridiculous things except for the models up on the stage.