Pretty Baby

Have you seen the movie Pretty Baby?

It stars Brooke Shields as a 12 year old growing up on a brothel in which she eventually works.
It also feature a relatively positive adult child sexual relationship and child nudity.

Although obviously controversial it is shown on TV so is apparently not child pornography.

I thought the movie gave an admirably neutral depiction of child prostitution where the pleasant and unpleasant aspects of these characters and their experience to emerge naturally and let the audience make up their own mind. I suspect however that the stance is ultimately anti-contact but still sympathetic to all major characters.

I like how we see Violet forced to act independently in what she thinks is an adult way while the adults around are petty and childish.

Haven't seen it but I'd like to see the uncut version. It's also ridiculous that the photos of Brooke Shileds by Gary Gross on the Internet usually have censorship. What are people afraid of? It's just a bit of nudity. What about the cover of that album by The Scorpions, Virgin Killer?

I agree that it's just a bit of nudity. I wonder what the condition is for it to be legal.

I feel a similar why about child pornography in general so long as no abuse occurs to the child.

I've seen it, its one of the best movies I've ever seen. its legal only because of when it was made.

Were child pornography laws not asserted till after that time? Of course there are the variable laws throughout the US. I'm from the UK and they showed it on TV.

I have seen it. I think that it is legal (at least in the US) because it is considered art. I don't know when it was made, but the child porn laws (in the US) don't allow for "grandfathering", so when it was made doesn't matter.

I'm glad that they don't hinder the artistic vision.

All commercial movies are art though.

Maligan12 wrote:Have you seen the movie Pretty Baby?

It stars Brooke Shields as a 12 year old growing up on a brothel in which she eventually works.
It also feature a relatively positive adult child sexual relationship and child nudity.

Although obviously controversial it is shown on TV so is apparently not child pornography.

I thought the movie gave an admirably neutral depiction of child prostitution where the pleasant and unpleasant aspects of these characters and their experience to emerge naturally and let the audience make up their own mind. I suspect however that the stance is ultimately anti-contact but still sympathetic to all major characters.

I like how we see Violet forced to act independently in what she thinks is an adult way while the adults around are petty and childish.

You are not alone and for a lost soldier are still shown on TV and sold in shops. It would still be child pornography if you or I owned it.

I've never watched the movie but I cannot understand how a movie about child prostitution could be artistic.

ElKahn wrote:I've never watched the movie but I cannot understand how a movie about child prostitution could be artistic.

There was a documentary about rent boys in the 90's. It is artistic to me because I was one, so it chronicles the culture of my youth. Art should reflect culture. There was a film called LIE about paedophile too.