Fat Girl banned in Ontario (1 Viewer)

[Vince Maskeeper]

Thora Birch was 16 or 17 when American Beauty was filmed.

The topless scene used a body double. If you look closely, the shot is through a window- and the window frame goes right aross her neck. The area in the top window was her, the area in the bottom was a body double edited in later.
If you watch closely you can see that they go out of sync a bit from time to time.
I'm sure everyone realizes that this thread is about to be closed. If you guys don't stop the political bickering, a moderator will be forced to close this discussion.
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
AIM: VinceMaskeeper
Do you want SOUTH PARK on DVD in order, rather than themed sets? Join our overwhelming majority!!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Richard and Matty,
I think you are arguing two issues. I will do my very best to keep this on track, and maintain dignity and decency all around.
Richard is arguing against child pornography. Excellent work to be sure, and I doubt anyone would argue with that.
Matty B is arguing against censorship. Excellent work to be sure, and many would argue for this as well (especially on this forum).
But they are not in opposition 99.99% of the time. In this case, I am unable to present detailed examples because I have not seen the film, nor do I want to. I would like the choice, however, to see the film if I wished. The parents that Richard mentions are the ones I get angry with. I do not care for my choices being dictated by the poor parenting of the world.
It is not the government's responsibility to choose what it decent for me (or their children). It is THE MAN's job to protect those that need protecting. Did that happen in this case? I assume so, but maybe not. Should there be laws preventing "exploitation" (ie...nudity, sexual situations) involving actors under the age of 18? I think so.
But I was pretty stupid at 18. That's the tough line to draw, as Richard stated in defense of his argument. That sword, like most others, cuts both ways. So what is more important: fighting censorship, or fighting immorality (child pronography)? They can both be quite evil.
Who can determine what is censorship and what is protection? I wish I knew the answer. I wish I knew that SOMEONE knew the answer. But like many other great debates (which I won't even MENTION here), it is not black and white. I DON'T KNOW. I, and the majority of the people here, are willing to sacrifice some choices to protect those that need it. But to some, when you give an inch, they try and take a mile. It makes it hard to give that inch and trust them.
Blah, blah, blah...I have made it more murky, I know. It's not an easy argument. Just try and be civil, because to believe in one argument does not mean you are against the other.
Take care,
Chuck
[Edited last by Chuck Mayer on November 16, 2001 at 10:15 AM]

 

[Ross Williams]

Gary, it's about a 2 hour film. The first 1:55 was really damn boring. I thought it was a very well acted, but sort of typical, incredibly slow, coming-of-age story. The last 5 minutes is a complete shock, a real cheap-shot, to get a forced reaction out of the audience. This was the part I was disgusted with, and since it was at the very end that's what I left with. So no, I wasn't bored the last 5 minutes, I was pissed.
But I do think it's possible to be disgusted and bored at the same time. I haven't actually seen it, but another French film translated to Rape Me is supposedly just such a film. Friends of mine told me it was nothing but extreme (disgusting) sex and violence, sounds great right, but supposedly the film is also extremely boring, because the story sucks and the sex and violence gets old quickly.
------------------
"You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they
don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you." - Silent Bob
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai
Optimus Prime Films

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

I don't want to engage in a debate with those who find movies (that they usually haven't seen) morally reprehensible and wish to have them banned. All I can say is, don't watch it and please don't dictate what the rest of us can watch.

So don't get all upset when someone wants to see any movie in their home "without those black bars".

 

[andreasingo]

There's something really disturbing about one person deciding for others what they have a right to see, like this first person knows better than the regular guy/girl on the street.
I say, abolish ALL censorship, educate people and let them decide for themselves.
[Edited last by andreasingo on November 16, 2001 at 11:49 AM]

 

[Richard_Huntington]

There's something really disturbing about one person deciding for others what they have a right to see, like this first person can would know better than the regular guy/girl on the street.

That's already decided for us now. Child porn and snuff films are illegal. Should we change that? You can be sure some sick people want to see that crap.
------------------
"My wife actually prefers widescreen"

 

[MickeS]

Is it illegal for a 15-year old girl to have sex? If it is, it shouldn't be shown on film. If it isn't, they should be able to show it on film. It's not harder than that, IMO.
Sex and nudity does not equal pornography.
/Mike

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Please don't let this get ugly.
Everyone has a right to an opinion, and just because someone doesn't have the same one as you (a general "you") does not mean they are wrong.
Laws exist to protect people. Such are the laws against child pornography and snuff films. I do not want free rein for creaters of art, so that I may choose to watch what I wish without limits. It's a fact that other people choose what you see and read and hear all the time. The suits at Warner and Fox choose what movies you see. At publishers like Harpers, they choose what you read. I know that isn't the intended argument for freedom from censorship, but it leads into my point.
Richard, at first I completely disagreed with you because I thought you were espousing censorship. You were not, and I apologize. I believe you were preaching responsibility.
Responsibility of artists is something that is not mandated because it can't be. Same thing with journalists and lawyers. You can only hope they have it. To prevent excesses by those that lack this, laws are established to protect certain segments of the populations.
I don't completely agree with Richard at all. But listen to what he is saying, not what you THINK he is saying. Censorship is an awful, awful thing, but so is anarchy.
Again, I don't have the answer. But neither does anyone else here. Maybe we can learn something from each others opinions.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Seth Paxton]

Without having seen the film myself, I can understand what Ross is saying about boring and disgusting. After all, I just watched Freddy Got Fingered.
A director can always disturb you with graphic images, but that does not in and of itself constitute good/interesting filmmaking. At best it might be abstract filmmaking to simply string together shots of people being killed, not unlike those videotapes hawked on late night TV a few years ago.
So by the uninteresting, repetitive style you can bore your audiance even with graphic images. Especially if your audiance begins to sense that ALL you are doing is simply using those images as a crutch to supplement having nothing interesting or original of your own to say. (Again I think of Freddy).
Here's an example...say I was to leave a camera just sitting on a park bench filming everyday until one day a brutal rape happened right in front of it. Now, all the stuff before it was boring nothingness, perhaps even nothing moved on camera for the 90 minutes before this attack.
I take that 100 minutes of film and slap a title on it. What I have is a boring film that will still shock and disgust the audiance at the end. Some moron will call it "insightful" or "abstract and thoughtful", perhaps showing the contradiction between peacefulness and horror or some BS. But we all know that I was just some dumbass who put forth NO CREATIVE THOUGHT in "making" the film.
The BORING part is my filmmaking, the DISTURBING part is the real life event caught on film by accident.
Or is Faces of Death Hitchcockian??
[Edited last by Seth Paxton on November 16, 2001 at 05:51 PM]

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Is it illegal for a 15-year old girl to have sex?

Not necessarily. In many states it is illegal for a 15 year old to have sex with someone over the age of 18, but not a violation of law to have sex with someone of their age group. Depends on state law.
Moreso, I don't know why that matters. Are we suggesting that only legal activities should be shown in film? So any and all drug use would be banned? Heck- even Speeding, blowing things up, etc are illegal. IN a few states, oral sex is technically illegal.
Just curious why legality of the act would limit/influence it's depiction in films. Heck, I can't think of a single film where someone doesn't violate at least one law. And what if the story took place in space- whos laws apply?
Not sure about this.
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
AIM: VinceMaskeeper
Do you want SOUTH PARK on DVD in order, rather than themed sets? Join our overwhelming majority!!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Vince,
I think the concern is not with illegal acts shown in the film, but illegal acts during filmING...an underage actor appearing nude for example. Again, it's all a very fine line, with pitfalls on both sides.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[MickeS]

Chuck, exactly. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I meant that if something illegal was done during filming, and that is portrayed on screen, I believe it should not be shown. Obviously simulated illegal actions should be shown.
If a simluated sex scene with a child is shown, I have no problem with that (although I'm sure many people do). If it's a real sex act with a child that's filmed, I have BIG problem with it, and I believe it should be illegal to show the film.
Of course, there are still problems with jurisdiction, as Vince points out. I bet that isn't a real problem in 99% of the cases, though.
/Mike
[Edited last by MickeS on November 16, 2001 at 01:26 PM]

 

[Richard_Huntington]

Richard, at first I completely disagreed with you because I thought you were espousing censorship. You were not, and I apologize. I believe you were preaching responsibility.

Thank you. I am not a guy who wants censorship. I think the MPAA is nothing more than a body of people who censor and should be changed to allow films like Basic Instinct and the various horror trash/etc. etc. to be released in a form that the director wants, but with a rating that will not result in it being banned from theaters. We need to get rid of the standard R and replace it with R-13, R-17 and bring back the X. What problems this would solve.
Now as for things in films that I am against, 20 years ago certain things and images would never even be contemplated. But now, they are. As society ages, we become more and more tolerant of things and some really horrible stuff is unfortunately included in that. I consider the images of children undressed and engaging in sex acts to be just that. Horrible.
Now, if a film like LOLITA casts an actress who is not a minor in the part of a minor, than I have no problem with that because you have a legal adult making a decision on her own. But cast a minor in the role, then you have a problem. The line has to be drawn somewhere and it is best, in my opinion, that we be cautious about it, rather than risky. This will harm no one, where as being risky can and might harm someone.
Responsibility is so important in the arts and with modern society, it seems as though anything goes and those that say, "Hey, wait a minute" are being called Nazi's and censors and that is a serious danger.

------------------
"My wife actually prefers widescreen"

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I think a few things are getting confused in the heat of the argument.
First of all, Fat Girl was filmed in France, so any U.S. laws being discussed are irrelevant as far as the matter of where it was shot is concerned.
Second, the banning of the film has occurred in Canada. For all I know, this film has not had problems playing in the U.S. (It played at the New York Film Festival and entered limited releas on October 12.) I know Entertainment Weekly had a decent-sized (and favorable) review of the film a few weeks ago.
My memory is a little hazy on what seems to be one of the sticking points. I remember that there was proposed legislation a few years ago where it was feared, through interpretation, that any film in which a character portraying a minor was engaged in sexual situations could be a prosecutable offense (or something of that sort). The big controversy wasn't so much an issue of using an underage performer but that if the character was underage or the performer looked like he/she was underage, it would still be equivalent to using a minor. (Obviously this creates problems for many productions, ranging from high school sex comedies to Romeo & Juliet.) I don't believe this ever took effect legally. (I could be incorrect on this, but I think people react so strongly to this that they don't bother to get the full story.)
The word censorship tends to throw people into fits. Although I don't agree with censorship, I do think artists have the responsibility to show creative restraint.
As to the film in question, most of us discussing it are doing so secondhand. We simply haven't seen it. While I don't doubt much of Fat Girl is as shocking as it sounds, words sometimes can make things sound worse than they actually are. I don't know since it hasn't opened here.
Breillat's Romance was very provocative and did feature the performers engaging in sex and not simulating it. (I thought the film posed some interesting questions and did so with style, but I also thought it ultimately collapsed under its own weight, for what it's worth.) As a director she has walked the edge and will likely continue to do so.
Using underage actors is a dicey issue. I know I was surprised with the nudity in Walkabout, Nicolas Roeg's 1971 film. I suppose where I wasn't bothered by it there when I likely would be bothered by it in Fat Girl is context. Really, context is what the whole issue revolves around. It's not what is being shown--the naked human body--but the setting within which it is being displayed.
On a partially related note, I know that the rumor has been that a body double was used for Thora Birch in American Beauty. I swear that this very subject came up in one of Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column (the archives of which do not go back that far). I thought that it was confirmed that Birch did the scene, but her parents consented and were on the set at the time.
------------------
Read my reviews at www.dvdmon.com
Most recent reviews: Down from the Mountain, The Night Heaven Fell, Plucking the Daisy, Bridget Jones's Diary, Withnail and I: The Criterion Collection

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

On a partially related note, I know that the rumor has been that a body double was used for Thora Birch in American Beauty. I swear that this very subject came up in one of Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column (the archives of which do not go back that far). I thought that it was confirmed that Birch did the scene, but her parents consented and were on the set at the time.

Don't know, but I find it hard to bleieve that parental consent would be much of an issue as it has been traditionally parents who are responsible for child pornography or prostitution in the USA and beyond.
If parental consent is all it takes, what would stop a parent from exploiting their own children? Parent sets up a kiddie porn website of their teen daughter to make a few bucks.
I don't know what was used in the film, but I do have a friend who has worked as an assistant at a few major FX houses, and he said that CFC/MVFX (where I think he worked at the time) did work on a shot for Americn Beauty which composited an underage actress's face with an adult body double's breasts.
I don't for sure if they used it in the film, but it certainly looks like an effects shot to me!
-Vince
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
AIM: VinceMaskeeper
Do you want SOUTH PARK on DVD in order, rather than themed sets? Join our overwhelming majority!!

 

[Ted Todorov]

quote: I think the concern is not with illegal acts shown in the film, but illegal acts during filmING...an underage actor appearing nude for example. Again, it's all a very fine line, with pitfalls on both sides.[/quote]And in relation to American Beauty, Vince says:quote: Don't know, but I find it hard to bleieve that parental consent would be much of an issue as it has been traditionally parents who are responsible for child pornography or prostitution in the USA and beyond.[/quote]
The above stuff, seems to me, says that mere nudity of an underaged person on screen constitutes child pornography. If that is indeed what the posters mean to say, I find it a very troubling assertion. That would render illegal millions of family photo albums and thousands of home movies or videos of the kids taking baths, etc. which would be absurd.
It would also render illegal everything from Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (Olivia Hussey was under 18 when it was made) and Malle's Pretty Baby to Sally Mann's photography -- which would be a travesty, and clearly isn't so.
While pornography of any stripe is notoriously hard to define (the best definition came from Justice Potter Stewart: "I know it when I see it"), I think that there is a simple definition for child pornography -- pornography with children in it. If a work is not pornographic in the first place, putting children in it doesn't make it so. American Beauty is not pornography by any sane definition, so the age of the actress or whether her parents approved or a body double was used are all completely immaterial.
So far as Fat Girl (the movie that only one other person posting in this thread has actually seen, but everyone has an opinion on) is concerned, it is not IMO pornographic. If you have seen Romance, you may draw unwarranted conclusions -- Fat Girl has no real sex in it. I happen to think that Fat Girl is an incredibly incisive and true to life portrait of how sisters sometimes relate to each other. But anyway, this post got too long, so I won't argue with anyone who thinks it's boring
Ted
[Edited last by Ted Todorov on November 16, 2001 at 04:28 PM]

 

[Seth Paxton]

I agree with Ted's definition. Unless Song Remains the Same is child porn. For gosh sakes, a strong argument could be made that nudity is a beautiful thing and that only it's "modern" cultural ties to sexuality make nudity "bad". Unless National Geographic just became kiddie porn, considering kids under 18 being shown topless or naked all the time, along with adults.
(don't worry, I'm not about to start running around naked myself )
And again I defer to someone who has seen the film. I was open with the fact that I had not seen it, and my only point above was to defend the CONCEPT of a film being both boring and disgusting. It can be (and often is) done.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Ted,
I believe that there would be a great difference between child bathing and filming a teen of a sexual nature. The material presented in American Beatuy would certainly be legally considered pornography if distributed as commercial video of a 17 year old changing clothes.
I think the sexual context is the key. Similar video to what is presented in AMERICAN BEAUTY has been prosecuted as pornography in the past. There was a story just a year ago of an Ohio teen who had video of various girlfriends stripping... he wasn't even distrubuting this material, rather just owning it and he was convicted as well as his father who knew the videos were made.
The footage was by consent, granted not by the parents- but I think parental consent is probably not one of the legal standards- although I could be wrong.
-Vince
------------------
http://www.musicianassist.com
AIM: VinceMaskeeper
Do you want SOUTH PARK on DVD in order, rather than themed sets? Join our overwhelming majority !!
[Edited last by Vince Maskeeper on November 16, 2001 at 07:05 PM]

 

[Ted Todorov]

Vince,
I obviously can't make my case (with you) using American Beauty but look at my other movie examples -- the nudity in both Pretty Baby & Romeo and Juliet clearly was in a sexual context -- Brooke Shields (12 at the time) played a child prostitute who was posing nude in provocative poses, and in R & J, Olivia Hussey (16) was nude in the context of having sex with Romeo. Just last year there was a well publicized photo exhibit in Soho of a nude (11? year old) Brooke Shields, wearing lots of make-up, and striking provocative poses. Clearly non of these works are considered illegal -- and since there are minors involved, they must not be pornographic (in a legal sense).
For something to be considered pornographic (and therefore child pornography if minors are involved), there has to be either actual sex, or the intent of the work in the case of simple nudity has to be meant to arouse in the "men's magazine" sense as opposed to being being part of a work of art as it is in Sally Mann's photographs or Louis Malle's films (plural, because Murmur of the Heart falls in to the same category.)
I am not familiar with the the Ohio case you cite, but I can readily see it falling into the category of nudity that is not art but is meant to arouse. Now I will grant you, there have been a number of cases involving mothers being dragged off to jail because some Photomat clerk called the cops when he saw nude photos of their 4 year old playing in the back yard in the film he was developing, but to my knowledge none of these cases got very far.
Ted
[Edited last by Ted Todorov on November 16, 2001 at 10:56 PM]

 

[Matty B]

The whole basis of pornography is the intent. Any of you familar with the modern art culture in the US have heard of Robert Maplethorpe. He was convicted in Cincinatti of child pornography (Im not sure WHICH law). Upon appeal to the supreme court the conviction was over turned because the photos WHILE containing children and while being VERY VERY VERY explicit! (Urination into childrens mouths, simulated sex with adults and YOUNG children) the intent was NOT to arouse, the intent was artistic. The intent of Fat Girl I ASSUME as I havent seen it and MOST of us have not, is to SHOCK, NOT to arouse.