"Spielen wir Liebe" is not kiddie porn, nor illegal except in germany. "
-
przgzr — 17 years ago(December 10, 2008 04:26 PM)
First paragraph: yes, I am a nudist and I took my family to naturist beaches, and if there was a sex offender among us enjoying what he could have see, there have been 999 "normal" naturists (not naturalists but it's just a matter of education to know who were or are naturalists) to help my daughter if he tried to do anything, what is much safer then being fully dressed alone with a sex offender.
As for second paragraph, " that's just pure sophism masquerading as a coherant answer " that was just a pure avoiding to write any answer. -
harryposter — 20 years ago(January 06, 2006 07:44 AM)
Not sure of USA, but DVD is available with canadian net store.
Ask guys from http://rarefilmfinder.com. They know where to find those movies like Maladolescenza. -
flipendo666 — 20 years ago(January 24, 2006 01:53 PM)
You must be kidding!
5-40 years for what? for watching a movie, where people under 18 acting nude? watch out for watching the news, there mite be a chance u see a beach footage where a youngster running on the beach with out clothes. Sigh. Plz dont use this movie as a bat in a discussion about child porn. Its a movie. It contains underage actors, and yes, they appear nude. But to compare that to childporn is just ignorant.
my 2 cents
Skaata -
mocoslocos_667 — 19 years ago(May 25, 2006 04:14 PM)
Weird, i was thinking about getting this movie untill i noticed the content..
Looks pretty disturbing to me. Having a child at that age makes me think about the people out there. And why anybody would want to see a movie with naked children in the first place. Call it "art" if you will but, adults have no buisiness watching such a movie. I googled the name of this movie and child porn sites came up. If it seems perfectly natural to see a movie with kids beep in it, i would like to keep my kids out of europe. -
kalvinharp — 18 years ago(May 31, 2007 02:25 PM)
The reason you get child porn sites when you google it is because some people, mostly pedophiles, watch the film and look at it in a sexual way. However, the films main purpose was to protray the struggles preteens and young teens struggle with during emerging adolescence. If you have a mature child, i would say let them watch the film because it can be used as a tool to which your son or daughter can relate to, knowing that such feelings are natural at "that age" but that in most cases it can be dangerous to act on such impulses, just look at what happens at the end of the film. Another great film to show kids that they are not alone in feeling certain feelings and being totally confused is: Thirteen (2003), You Are Not Alone (1978, Angela (1995), Elephant (2003).
Such films can be very real to a preteen, or a teen, and can be used to either show kids what needs to be done or what should not be done. Many of these kind of issues dealt with in these films has never really been addressed in mainstream media, if a kid acts out we dope them up with drugs for ADD and ADHD instead of trying to solve or locate the source of the problem.
However, if you feel that these kinds of films are not right for your child, I would reccomend that you, yourself watch them. I would say that it would help you become a better parent, being able to better understand what a person going through adolescence or preteen age kids are going through.
Remember that none of these films were made to be a child erotica or child porn platform (however some choose to see them that way), they were made to explore many untalked about subjects and taboo subjects that need to be addressed.
I, myself, went through many harsh times during adolescence and if I would have seen one of these films, I think I would of been able to cope better knowing that I was not the only one thinking and feeling and going through certain things. -
gusleon04 — 19 years ago(September 03, 2006 07:02 PM)
I NEVER SEE THIS MOVIE BEFORE, I LOVE ALL CULT AND EROTIC MOVIES IF HAVE CONTROVERSY BETTER I LOVE IT, BUT IN THIS MOVIE ( ONLY I SEE THE PICS OR SCREENSHOTS ) AND I READ THE ARTICLE, THE NUDITY IS NOT OBSCENE IS ART AND WE HAVE TO SEE IT THAT WAY, IS JUST A MOVIE, PORNOGRAPHY IS MEAT ,THEY ARE ACTORS THEY PRETEND, ONLY THEY ARE NAKED BUT IN THE PORNO MOVIES THEY NOT PRETEND THE SCENES, THIS MOVIE IS NOT PORNOGRAPHY IS EROTIC , YOU REMEMBER THOSE MOVIES: LAGGON BLUE,KIDS AND SOME OTHERS . SEE IT IF YOU WANT TO , IS JUST MOVIE ,KEEP INTIMATE TO YOURSELF.
-
kalvinharp — 18 years ago(May 21, 2007 02:15 PM)
http://www.azovfilms.com/default.asp
is the site that is selling it. Read their disclaimer it is legal. Plus I have talked to 2 FBi agents and a sheriff about the film, it is 100% legal. -
lonebear-1 — 18 years ago(May 28, 2007 10:00 PM)
The reason you get several different opinions from people who should know is inconsistency in the laws. It is what I call situational ethics.
Examples:
A parent posts pictures of there teen age daughter on the internet dressed in a bathing suit you'd see at the beach or underwear you'd see in a magazine ad from Abercrombie and Fitch. A judge makes the subjective decision that the pictures are suggestive and the parent goes to jail. This is happening in the USA right now!!! The reasoning seems to be that the Internet is for porn but what large corporations do is OK.
The movie Hounddog with Dakota Fanning has caused a little bit of an uproar but a judge has ruled it as not child porn. Why, large company, well known actress. Try to do the same thing at home and post it on youtube and I'll send you a card in the federal prison.
We have passed strong laws to fight the War on Terror which I think is great. But then the FBI uses them to go after child pornography. This makes a mockery of the very important problem they were made to prevent.
We send our kids a confusing message. We want them to live up to some sort of artificial morality but all around we show them role models like many of our athletes, actors and yes presidents who flaunt the fact that they don't follow this same morality.
Now don't get me wrong. I see nothing wrong with nudity. I have seen Maladol and it is a well photographed but very boring movie. In my opinion this attitude towards sex is one of the few things that the Europeans have us beat on.
I'm an old photographer who has pretty much retired. For the last two years I have been renting out my studio space as I don't have much use for it. Not a month goes by when a photographer is not shooting nudes or partial nudes of models 14 or younger almost always with the models mother in attendance and usually at her request. These photographers tell me that this is a necessary part of shooting a portfolio for the better agencies.
Let us be consistent people!!! -
officer1044 — 16 years ago(September 17, 2009 12:43 AM)
I WOULD LIKE TO TELL EVERYONE NOT TO LISTEN DESMINOT. I AM INVOLVED IN LAW ENFEORCEMENT IN THE USA AND I CAN TELL YOU WITH 100% ACCURACY THAT THIS MOVIE IS COMPLETELY LEGAL TO OWN IN ALL 50 STATES AND ALL US TERRITORIES. THATS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES INLUDING FBI, DEA, AND US CUSTOMS. I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS FILM OR ITS CONTENT MATTER. I AM ONLY GIVING THE LEGAL FACTS THAT EVEYONE IS DEBATING. THANK YOU.
-
Falconeer — 16 years ago(October 23, 2009 11:07 AM)
yeah, that's why they seized my copy at JFK airport, flying in from Netherlands.
One look at the nude form of 12 yo Lara Wendel sprawling against the hot pink backdrop was enough for authorities to deny its entry. Im glad that there was no legal action taken against me, and I realize that they search a bit more dilligently for this kind of material when you fly in from the Netherlands. My advice is to just be careful when trying to obtain or transport this movie. Everyone seems to have a different opinion. It is an excellent movie incidentally, and 11 yo Eva Ionesco turns in a ferocious performance as the cruelest pre teen vixen of all time. Eva was no stranger to nude modeling before she hit the age of 10 even, however I was suprised just how far she went here. They really leave nothing to the imagination, and i think that this is what upsets people so much about the film. They can't figure out if it is art or pornographic exploitation. IMO, it is a little bit of both -
ultumaphoenix — 13 years ago(November 18, 2012 02:27 AM)
Basically: Use discretion.
Technically, it is legal since there is no official judgement banning this film here. The film was created and distributed as a movie with political undertones told in an artistic, fantasy dream-world and not as a pornographic or erotic film, so it doesn't fall under the child porn ban. However, these laws can be largely discretionary. All it takes is for some neighbor to see it on your TV through an open window and call the police. A terribly closed-minded judge can screw you good, but chances are, you'll win your case. Unfortunately, your neighbors might think differently of you.
I have no attraction to anyone under 25 years of age, so I certainly find nothing erotic about this film. I only see the nudity as a plot device. I particularly like the scenery and music and appreciate the artistic value. But I live in a neighborhood with lots of kids and nosy neighbors. I make sure to draw the shades when I watch this or really any movie that might have overly graphic sex scenes for my own reputation and common courtesy for the kids who can see my big-screen through my large windows. I would just rather not have to defend myself against public opinion. This film is controversial for any number of reasons and will always have supporters and haters.
Trying to import the DVD can raise suspicion since the box does it make appear as child-erotica. But being legally classified as a film will likely result in its seizure without criminal penalty. I was fortunate enough that it really can be argued that it falls under public domain in this country at this point and was able to purchase it from a domestic distributor it came from Michigan