I can see your issue with this, and it's understandable. My first reaction was exactly the same. But aren't you judging prematurely? You haven't seen it after all, so you can't comment on the level of explicitness in it, and I'm sure that with Nicole doing it, it will be quite subdued. And by concentrating on one scene you're taking it out of the context of the whole film. Aren't you just levelling the same kind of knee-j e r k reaction that greeted "Lolita?" Why not criticise "Leon" for the implied relationship between Jean Reno and Ms. Portman's characters?


Edited by - Radio Free Tawakalnistan on 9/8/2004 10:15:17 AM

i agree with fd, sounds like a sick film.

there's a world of difference between what something "sounds" like and what it is. I'm withholding my judgement until I've at least seen it and learnt something about it. tbh it sounds more like a cross between Audrey Rose, Heaven Can Wait, and the Sixth Sense, stop getting het up, until you know more. Once you've got something to base your judgement on, and not a brief second hand account, then you can more credibly say whether it's "sick" or not.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 9/8/2004 11:22:13 AM

I think the point is that the themes, generally involve the same things, adult and child in a "loving" relationship. In Lolita, it is very much an adult being attracted to an underaged girl in an adult way. No background or any other reason to justify the attraction other than an "adult" attraction.

This one plays with that immediate taboo and portrays an adult with a love for a child because the adult believes that the child is, in fact, her lost spouse/lover in a reincarnation.

The question is, however, to what extent that lost love is expressed to the child. Certainly, the way the news article describes it makes the movie seemingly scandalous but I am not so sure that it would be.

Also, the Lauren Bacall thing makes things even more confusing... what was the point of the article anyway? It seems more to involve the fact that security concerns are making things chaotic in Venice. It is a chaotic news report.

What's all the fuss about? As Taw said: take a look at the movie first, then judge. What if the whole symbolic part of this is beautifully shot?
This sounds typically like prudish America. You can't show a breast on tv or kiss a boy in a movie, but still you have the largest porn industry in the world! (This was not aimed politically, but aimed at the society in the whole)

A bit hipocritical isn't it?

Edited by - Wizard on 9/8/2004 1:28:54 PM

right on Wiz. I wish I'd said that (I was going to cite Britney Spears as my example, I forgot all about the porno trade)

@Wiz and Taw

For whatever the reason, it is what it is over here. It has been this way for a very long time, I don't see anything changing it any time soon. Don't know that it is entirely hypocritical although I well understand that there is a good deal of illogicality involved.

Lumping all Americans into one way of thinking is inaccurate to say the least. If all Americans thought only one way about it, there would be no p0rn industry, for example. We are a diverse nation, not only in terms of ethnic, cultural or racial origin but also in morals, religion, politics and many other "grouping categories."

I cannot speak for all of America any better than Fd can.

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/8/2004 1:33:47 PM

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/8/2004 1:34:38 PM

My fault off course for generalising all Americans but don't you agree with me on the point that I'm making? I think that nowhere in this world the differences on this subject are any bigger than in America.

Look at Ms. Kidman argument:

---

The controversial film, which features Kidman in the bath with a 10-year-old boy who her character believes is a reincarnation of her dead husband, was booed by journalists at a preview screening on Wednesday.

Kidman also kisses the boy in the movie.

"It wasn't that I wanted to make a film where I kiss a 10-year-old boy, I wanted to make a film where you understand love," said Kidman

---

What she said! You have to see this movie in a larger spectrum only than what is happening on screen.

Edited by - Wizard on 9/8/2004 1:39:54 PM

I neither agree nor disagree with Kidman. I have to reserve judgment as I have not seen it so I don't know that it is something that is offensive to me. So, of course, I agree with you and Taw as far as that goes. ... as in ... not pre-judging
it simply based upon a news report. Especially a news report about a movie which of its own nature is 50% scandalmongering / pandering to an audience and 50% pretentious artistic critique.

But the point I made earlier is that, thematically at least, adult/child "love" is an issue over here and has been even before Lolita BECAUSE of the p0rn you so quickly noted.

i dont want to get into this... but i will i think that its wrong... and that its sad but to each there own.. no matter what that might be

well it is an extremely sensitive issue especially in the current climate of public opinion regarding such matters. it's inevitable that anything that suggests children being used in such intimate imagery is going to cause consternation and anger, regardless of its intent. but that doesn't mean that it is a *bad* film, nor does it mean that taboo issues shouldn't be raised for fear of being howled down. and be faur, an actress like Nicole wouldn't be doing it it if it was sexually exploitative towards kids. And when you stop and think about it, it is a worthy and interesting premise; a woman believes a child is a reincarnation of her dead husband/whatever. I think that's q fascinating. People get to believe all sorts of strange things and act on them.

I don't disagree. But look at how the issue was portrayed in the article. If it was not meant to cause a controversial reaction in some readers, I could think of many other ways to describe what was going on than the one editorially chosen.

It was meant to disturb, it was meant to cause a storm, even if only in a teapot.

yes you're right, it was purposely presented that way. just to raise this sort of controversy. maybe the filmmakers think "all publicity is good publicity"

Swifty Lazar: "There is no such thing as bad publicity"