21st Hall of Fame

Tools    





The trick is not minding
What is more inappropriate:

The nudity in Pretty Baby or the nudity in American Beauty?
That’s a good question. Thora Birch was born in 1982, and American Beauty was released in 1999. So she would have been 16 or 17 when she did her topless scene?



If someone wants to nominate a movie that has been banned in some countries, maybe they should start a Banned Movies HoF, and let the people who are interested in watching those movies join that HoF. Nobody should ever be required to watch a movie that isn't suitable for the general public, or just doesn't belong in a specific genre HoF.
Even if most of the regular HoF participants wanted to, the problem with adding a rule to exclude "banned films" is that many countries will ban or edit films for reasons that general audiences in Western countries would not find offensive. We'd need to consider the context of each individual ban. For example, Christopher Robin is banned in China because people online had previously compared Xi Jinping to cartoon images of Winnie the Pooh, but that film's existence would not cause any controversy here.

Films like Back to the Future, Battleship Potemkin, Brokeback Mountain, The Great Dictator, Persepolis, Raise the Red Lantern, and Waltz with Bashir that have all been nominated in previous (or ongoing) HoFs would have been excluded with a blanket "no banned films" rule.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible

People should realize that there are movies that just shouldn't be nominated in certain HoFs, even general HoFs. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be nominated at all, but there's a right and wrong place and time to nominate certain movies. If someone wants to nominate a movie that has been banned in some countries, maybe they should start a Banned Movies HoF, and let the people who are interested in watching those movies join that HoF. Nobody should ever be required to watch a movie that isn't suitable for the general public, or just doesn't belong in a specific genre HoF.
Ya, let's cover the nudity on greek statues because Iran doesn't like it. Let's censor or stop consuming art because some government thought it would be unapropriate. That went well in the past.
People in these HoFs are very different tastes, and that's part of the magic, because they show a huge array of films. Sometimes something will offend you, or you will simply hate it but you still watch it out of respect to the other person's choice and taste. The same way Miss Vicky hated The Music Man but she still made the effort. You have the right to be offended of course, you don't have the right to ban when it doesn't offend others.

With that being said, I liked Pretty Baby and I'll write my thoughts about it later, and while I understand the directors vision to it, and how he wanted to portray this innocent girl being subjected to a horrible life I think he could have been more subtle about it. It doesn't shock me, but the film would actually gain from it, I think. Like the first scene when she's naked in the bed after losing her virginity. You never see anything, there's nothing wrong with it but you still get the idea, and you feel as if you actually saw her exposed, and that's good.. The following scene in the bath, while I understand it, it's not really necessary. It's more of a matter of artistic taste that makes me unlike that scene.

As for the more blatant one, again, I understand where he is going with that, but again, the actress could have been protected. You can suggest without showing. But he wanted to increase the shock effect and make people understand the kids that were born in whorehouses were not kids anymore... That is smthing I can respect, even if I don't agree with the way he showed it.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Pretty Baby (1978)

So there's been a lot of talk about this film and I already spoke a little bit about it in the previous comment but here's a proper write-up.

Violet is a girl who grows up in a brothel. The only reality she knows is that. Her ideas of Love, Family and even children's plays are distorted by her own reality. She's 12 when she first loses her virginity, sold by the Madame. She takes it naturally because that's what she learned to do by seeing her mother and the other prostitutes. This happened very very often, and art has looked at this stories more than often. Every other cabaret song tells a story similar to this one. So, how would a director portray it? How would you show that these kids are not kids anymore, but they aren't exactly adults either?

I don't think Malle could have used an 18 year old girl. It's simply not believable that an 18 year old girl passes by a 12 year old, and it's pretty obvious that Malle wanted us to see a child here, or else the effect of the film would be lost. It's not the same as Lolita for instance, who in Kubrick becomes a 16 year old femme fatale, even if Nabokov writes it as a 12 year old.

And this dichotomy is, for me, the best thing about this film and that Malle nails perfectly. The cinematography is also very very good, and the perfomance by the young Brooke Shields is marvelous.

Now, about the nude scenes... As I said before, there are ways to suggest nudity without actually showing nudity, and perhaps the film could have gained with a little more subtleness. The first semi nude scene, I thought it was beautifully shot and it worked. You saw her fragile and exposed while actually not seeing her naked. There are a couple of more where this happens and I feel the director could have gone more often to it.

Then she appears taking bath and you see a frontal shot of her topless. My first thought was: well, this is totally unnecessary. But then I realized: what I think Malle is trying to do is to show she's now one of the prostitutes so there's no limit to what she can show. We had seen her mother taking a bath fully naked before with the door open, so to show Violet following her steps works well. And the fact that she first covers herself when she realizes someone's entering the bathroom tells us she's still not used to the rules of the game. She eventually gets used to it as we see her again later taking a bath with no problems in being seen. This is important for the character arch. Now, did Malle have to show her topless? That can be discussed. I understand why he didn't but I'd understand also a contrary opinion. Ultimately, it's the director's and the actress' (and her family) choice and here it appears everyone was on board.

Then you have a more blatant nude scene when she's being photographed fully naked. I understand this letting people uncomfortable, but I think Malle was again trying to show how she had lost any kind of taboo about her body. The fact that people think it's wrong actually works in favour of the film because the stories that inspire these films are in fact morally wrong and no kid should be subjected to this, and that's what I think the film is trying to convey.

Louis Malle could have chosen another way of dealing with this subject. He went with his view and it works. To be honest I felt more uncomfortable watching Leon than this. I don't think films like these should be banned. Malle was a fine director and this is a very solid film.




Yeah, no. When you sign up for a HOF - ANY HOF - you do so while acknowledging the risk that you may have to watch movies with content that you find objectionable or just difficult to watch. Whether it's child nudity, animal abuse, or - such as in the fight gbg is referring to - a horror comedy with cartoon violence and gore. If you can't accept that risk, either don't participate or wait until just after the nominations are announced then research each nomination and then make a decision whether or not to join.

BTW, the copy of Pretty Baby I watched came from my local library. I don't think the cops are going to raid them for kiddie porn.

My next nomination will Garbage Pail Kids the Movie. Everyone suffers.
I'll take that over Kubrick.



I don't think Malle could have used an 18 year old girl. It's simply not believable that an 18 year old girl passes by a 12 year old, and it's pretty obvious that Malle wanted us to see a child here.
I beg to differ. There are plenty of short, baby-faced, flat-chested women in the world. They're not hard to find.

Having been an 18 year old girl myself and having seen plenty of other 18 year old girls' bodies in the gym locker room, I can assure you there were plenty of them just at my high school.




Pretty Baby (1978)

I thought this was a pretty darn good movie and I was surprised by just how well made it was. My wife liked the movie too and she usually likes mainly G or PG type movies. I think both of us were expecting the worst after hearing about the controversy that surrounded Pretty Baby. But to our surprise, Pretty Baby was an introspective look into the world of the women who worked in New Orleans brothels at the turn of the 20th century.

The movie does world building quite well and we see in detail the inner workings of a brothel and from the women's viewpoint. Had this been made by another director the story might have been focused on a man's point of view, and the 'whores' would've been nameless bodies with no real value to the film. So many films are made from the male only viewpoint, leaving the stories of women in the shadows, but not Pretty Baby.

Brooke Shields did an excellent acting job as a young girl entering puberty...and entering rather nonchalantly into the world of a prostitute. The script brilliantly handles what happens to young girls who become sexualizied at a too young of age. It's an honest description of how being exposed causes young Violent to act out overtly sexual, when she's clearly not old enough to be doing so. Most of what she does is in the form of boasting and trying to be grown up. The most clear example of that is when she tries to force a younger boy to have sex with her and is stopped by the boys mother with the warning that whites and blacks don't mix. At the end of the film her mother and new husband comes to retrieve Violent who's now married to the adult photographer. The film reinforces to the viewer that Violent despite her upbringing is still a child who wants only to be with her mother. I liked that the film never builds Spielberg like sympathy for these characters and neither does it demonize them...it simply shows us the end results.

There are a lot of deep themes in Pretty Baby about the damage that sex abuse causes to women. It's too bad a couple brief semi nude scenes of Brooke Shields has overshadowed an important movie.




Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	prettybabylpback.jpg
Views:	663
Size:	57.9 KB
ID:	59424  



What is more inappropriate:

The nudity in Pretty Baby or the nudity in American Beauty?
Neither should have been allowed, but I do think American Beauty's is somewhat less egregious as 16 and 17 year olds are at least past puberty and many are already sexually active at that age.

But again, I don't think either is okay.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Ellen Page was 18 when she portrayed a 14 year old in Hard Candy.
Yeah, and when compared to Brooke Shields on this, she looks 18. I am sorry, but in my opinion, it's not the same thing. A 12 year old is a 12 year old, you can't fake it.





Moonstruck (Norman Jewison, 1987)
Imdb

Date Watched: 01/05/2020
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 21st MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by edarsenal
Rewatch: Yes.


One of these days I might watch an edarsenal nomination and really love it and be thankful for having been exposed to it. Today is not that day.

Granted, this is technically a rewatch. I'd seen it a few times as a child, but I remembered almost nothing about it so it might as well have been the first time. Now, don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the film. The story was fine. The performances were fine. It looked good. It had a nice soundtrack. But damn were those people f***ing annoying and I didn't give a crap about any of them. I just don't get the appeal of watching a bunch of loud-mouthed, superstitious, and overly dramatic people fight with and cheat on each other.

But I suppose it could've been worse. There weren't any naked kids at least.

-



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
If Siddon, or anyone else is offended by a R rated mainstream movie nomination, that was released nation wide in America and is currently available from Amazon and other legit streaming sites, then they should just drop out.

I mean people drop out all the time anyway. But if they are going to drop out for ethical reasons, then they need to do so at the beginning of the HoF and tell everyone that they have dropped out. Under those circumstances I wouldn't complain if some one chose to quit for ethical reasons.

I understand what you're saying about dropping out, but someone shouldn't be forced to drop out of a HoF because they are being forced to watch a movie that shouldn't be in that HoF anyway.

I dropped out of a Comedy HoF, that I had been looking forward to participating in, because someone nominated a horror movie that was called "the bloodiest movie ever made", and it was banned in several countries due to excessive gore. I'm not objecting to a random horror comedy movie being nominated in Comedy HoF if it's legitimately a comedy, but that movie was just too extreme. It should have been nominated in one of the Horror HoFs or Slasher HoFs, not a Comedy HoF.

The point that I'm trying to make is that there's a limit to what should be allowed in certain HoFs, and IMO that movie crossed the line.

.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



The trick is not minding
By the time I get started I'll be talking to myself in here.
Nah, I’ll be doing the bulk of these during February. I still have to finish Comedy and Western first. I’ll probably squeeze a few here and there, but it’ll be mostly later



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
I have yet to watch it, so I can’t comment on it myself, but I really hope we don’t resort to banning certain films due to subject matter.

I haven't watched Pretty Baby either, so I'm not talking about banning that specific movie.

I'm not even talking about banning any movies from the HoFs. I'm just saying that certain movies that are too extreme for some reason belong in specific HoFs, so that people who don't want to watch those types of movies aren't forced to either watch them or drop out of the HoF when the nominations are announced.


I agree discretion should be exorcised when nominating a film, however. Problem is, I’d hate for limits to be implemented, but I’d also hate for some people to not join as a result of a controversial nomination that made them uncomfortable.
Maybe something can be done in the future to help curtail this before hand? I’d hate for this to divide the HOF and lead to non participation.
Rather then dismiss each other’s opinions, take it into account and learn for future HOFs. Maybe check with someone, like the host and think about if it’s worthwhile. There’s a lot of other, worthy films out there afterall.

Unfortunately for me, it has already affected my participation. Before that Comedy HoF, I used to join a bunch of HoFs, including the General HoFs. Since then, I've pretty much stopped joining the HoFs unless they are "safe" HoFs. I can probably count the number of HoFs that I've joined since then on one hand.

You weren't here back then, but I tried asking for some type of rules to make the movies that are nominated appropriate for specific HoFs, but I got bashed so hard that I left the forum for a while to get away from the fighting.

.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Even if most of the regular HoF participants wanted to, the problem with adding a rule to exclude "banned films" is that many countries will ban or edit films for reasons that general audiences in Western countries would not find offensive. We'd need to consider the context of each individual ban. For example, Christopher Robin is banned in China because people online had previously compared Xi Jinping to cartoon images of Winnie the Pooh, but that film's existence would not cause any controversy here.

Films like Back to the Future, Battleship Potemkin, Brokeback Mountain, The Great Dictator, Persepolis, Raise the Red Lantern, and Waltz with Bashir that have all been nominated in previous (or ongoing) HoFs would have been excluded with a blanket "no banned films" rule.

I'm not talking about banning all movies that have been banned somewhere. I'm just saying that movies that have a valid reason for being too extreme or offensive shouldn't be allowed in some HoFs. There should be a limit to what is allowed, and if someone nominates a movie that is offensive for a legitimate reason, then maybe they should be asked to change their nomination for that HoF, rather than expecting someone to drop out because of something that's not their fault.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Ya, let's cover the nudity on greek statues because Iran doesn't like it. Let's censor or stop consuming art because some government thought it would be unapropriate. That went well in the past.
People in these HoFs are very different tastes, and that's part of the magic, because they show a huge array of films. Sometimes something will offend you, or you will simply hate it but you still watch it out of respect to the other person's choice and taste. The same way Miss Vicky hated The Music Man but she still made the effort. You have the right to be offended of course, you don't have the right to ban when it doesn't offend others.

I never said to ban movies with nudity in them, or movies that some people hate. I watched a movie in a past HoF that I hated, and I rated it zero stars, but I never complained about it being nominated.

This is only about putting certain movies in the right HoFs, not outright banning anything.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Yeah, no. When you sign up for a HOF - ANY HOF - you do so while acknowledging the risk that you may have to watch movies with content that you find objectionable or just difficult to watch. Whether it's child nudity, animal abuse, or - such as in the fight gbg is referring to - a horror comedy with cartoon violence and gore. If you can't accept that risk, either don't participate or wait until just after the nominations are announced then research each nomination and then make a decision whether or not to join.
That wasn't just a random horror movie. That was an extremely gory movie that had been banned in several countries for excessive gore. It did not belong in a Comedy HoF. Within minutes of the nominations being posted, there were even comments from other people about how much I would hate that movie, so it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that I was upset about that nomination.

But I never asked for it to be removed from that HoF. I just immediately dropped out of the HoF. Then I tried to get people to understand why I was upset about it, and make simple changes so that type of situation wouldn't happen again, but everyone, (except SC), was against me, so I dropped it. And now we're back in that situation again because someone else is upset about a similar issue.