I haven't seen it but I've read a lot about it and even from the stills that are on here I wonder how they got away with it. I don't care what anybody has to say about any artistic merrits that this film may or may not have. David Hamilton was in his late forties when he did this. A man in his late forties telling teenagers to get naked in front of a camera equals dirty old man.
"Never eat yellow snow"
If you think this is bad don't even try watching The Tit and the Moon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111403/ I am sure you will have nightmares after watching The Tit and the Moon.
shareI'm intrigued. I have, of course, heard of the film but it didn't seem overly controversial on it's release.
Tell me more?
"Never eat yellow snow"
[deleted]
How do you get 17? If the details here are correct he was born in 1966 and the film was released in 1980. That makes him 14 at most when the movie was filmed.
share[deleted]
I want to thank you, chopper-9, for giving us your opinion and moral judgement about a movie you haven't seen.
Perhaps there are some books you haven't read you could tell us about, too? I'd love to hear your opinions about some music you haven't heard, also!
I want to thank you, chopper-9, for giving us your opinion and moral judgement about a movie you haven't seen.
Perhaps there are some books you haven't read you could tell us about, too? I'd love to hear your opinions about some music you haven't heard, also!
Watch it, and see. Not as much nakedness as you might think, and some clever filming. I don't believe the boy (14) and girl (16) were ever actually naked, although the viewer infers that the characters are naked at various points in the film. The girl is topless twice, and one or two of the older female cast are naked in the presence of the boy. The final scene where the boy and girl seem naked relies on some strategically placed tufts of grass!
I'd be more concerned about the effect of the adult theme of the film on the youngsters, rather than the actual filming, and I hope that was handled carefully with the two of them.
Well, Anja Schute (who surely would have been 15 during filming) was definitely naked in the extra photos that were shot on set and were in the art book that accompanied the movie. Actually, she was definitely naked during the bath scene, and the scene where she is lying in the grass being watched by the older guy (Charles? I forget the name).
sharedepends when it was shot right?
the 70s were alot different with this art type stuff.
I seen some other things more crazy then this.
But when done in a tasteful artistic way
its ok and inetersting.
So is this good then?
some r on dvd some for rent.
alot on vhs at this store near me.
Laura is for rent here, is it any good
is it like the st tropez one
if so id watch it, id like
to know which of his films
are like that.
this sounds like one
only more graphic
Thanks
People had a healthier attitude about teenage sexuality in the late 70's to mid-80's. After that we became hysterical about it. You still see some teenage nudity in movies, but it's much more rare.
share
Hamilton was a perv - his books and films are enjoyed by pervs.
'Nuff said.
I worked in a bookshop in the early 1990s and we accidentally ordered one of his books. It was sold within minutes of going out and over the following month we had no end of phone calls from middle aged men asking if we could get more copies (most of which we were asked to send to PO Box numbers). We sold dozens of copies. The staff didn't want to have it in the shop but the manager (who was a grubby b*st*rd anyway) insisted we stock it.
That was the creepiest thing - not just the books and their subject matter (naked underage girls) but the obvious word-of-mouth contacts that must have spread the news about this book.
OK so this stuff isn't illegal (yet) but I think (IMHO) its borderline and just nasty.
...now I do it just to watch their f----n' expression change.
Way to stereotype people much. And nasty? You think overly romanticized soft focus fluff is nasty? In a society that has a mass media that glorifies violence on a grand scale it just blows my mind that anyone would describe this as nasty.
shareI think it is nasty - prurient sleaze disguised as art. Frankly, referring to the mass media glorifying violence issue is just deflection. Hamilton made soft-focus 'grunt' movies for people like himself who have a thing about young teenage girls. Just man-up and admit it.
...now I do it just to watch their f----n' expression change.
[deleted]
yup its called art far as im concerned
shareA nude girl is NASTY?
You are a seriously screwed up individual.
I'm wondering what sort of unhealthy ideas your mommy put in your head as a child.
No, a nude human of any age is fine. An adult male tugging on his penis to images of nude young girls just a few years out of their Santa-Clause-is-real phase is what's creepy and nasty.
PLOT HOLE: Aspect of a film that is misunderstood, ignored, or missed while using your smart phone.
Yes, I agree. But that's not what were talking about. The person here said
"That was the creepiest thing - not just the books and their subject matter (naked underage girls)"
Meaning that naked underage girls is creepy.
Only uptight Americans see nudity and think SEX!! They aren't the same thing.
and where was this bookshop? Tennessee? Mississippi? Because only "backwater folk" would consider a photo book by David Hamilton to be "dirty," or pornographic. The photographs were always utterly tasteful and artistic. Hamilton never took one photo that was vulgar. From the way he photographed his models it was obvious that he held them in very high regard; he just recognized their beauty and photogrpahed it that way. the pictures were not even sexually suggestive. Of course perverts will gravitate towards this stuff, just because they are photos of naked girls. I'm sure these people buy those teen pin up magazines in the supermarkets for the same reason. But you should not ignore their obvious artistic value; that just sounds ignorant. anyone who appreciates photography, appreciates and respects Hamilton's work.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Wow, nude girls is "NASTY" to you?
I think says a lot about you and how you were brought up. You see a nude girl and see it as dirty.
Its not a question of having guts to watch a movie but it is a question of having a moral compass about what comes close to crossing a line in terms of our society deems an appropriate age. Funny how the defenders of this stuff try to justify it. Just take a look at the postings history of some of those folks who have replied here and you'll see they post repeatedly about teenage girls, actresses' ages and nudity etc. As for name calling - if the label fits...and if you don't want to be regarded as a 'nonce' don't act like one.
If its a question of having guts get yourself to the local school sports field or the swimming pool and let folks know you like watching young girls. I'm sure its likely to lead to a very lively discussion. Get a grip, numpties!
...now I do it just to watch their f----n' expression change.
a moral compass about what comes close to crossing a line in terms of our society deems an appropriate age.
Nudity is not porn, MPAA brainwashee.
shareIf you're normal you watch this movie and simple like it or hate it according your personal reasons. Others will watch it and notice only the naked teens (and guess who's the ones who ask for censorship).
a normal person will watch David Hamilton or others 70's movies like Maladolescenza and see the obvious: they're simple art. But a pedophile will watch it and start to ask for censorship, burning... and sometimes even go to TV and church make a scandal. Some of them will make several hate speech in their church and TV while have a full collection of these movies (and also porn) in their houses (anyone remembered of that religious of People vs. Larry Flint?)
In past certain religious said communists eat children... but today we know who really eat childrens.
Hamilton's films (and books) are titilation dressed up as 'art'. Do you watch them for the storyline, the acting, the photography or the teeny skin on display. Answer honestly and then doublecheck if that's a box of popcorn or a box of tissues beside you.
I don't buy the argument that these were a product of more innocent times (the 70/80s) - as the UK is now seeing with the unraveling Jimmy Savile scandal there was plenty of pedo activity going on back then. But if you like looking at borderline legal cooch then grow a pair and admit it just don't use the 'art' BS to attempt to justify your jollies.
I gotta find out what makes a man decide not to run, why, all of a sudden, he'd rather die
What moralistic rubbish. OK, I'll answer honestly for you: I remember Hamilton's stuff when it first came out, beautiful depictions of teenage girls not much younger than myself. I don't like him now, but that's a reflection of my changing taste, not distaste. Children are beautiful, clothed or not, and have been the subject of fine art for centuries. If you only see filth when you view a child, then the problem is in your head, and maybe you should grow a pair and admit it and not flame others for no reason.
I've not seen this one but I have seen a couple of other Hamilton films, and I think they are rubbish, so I agree with you there. But for me, the only good thing about them is the lovely models he uses; his endless soft-focus style grates after a very short while, and as for the storyline, I've seen more plot in porn films. That's just my opinion, but to condemn them as "titillation dressed up as art" is absurd, and shows that you are seeing something that is simply not there.
A great reply, one of the best I've read around here.
As you say, children have been modeling for artists for centuries, for millenniums and nobody bothered. On the contrary, this pieces of art have been praised, as well as pictures of flowers, religious motifs, portraits, vedutas, royal families, ships...
But today children seem to bother people whatever they do. It is not just movies, it is not just sexuality or nudity, modern people would forbid the existence of children if they could. Kids have been part of families and part of society ever since society started to exist, they were taking part in every day life and in ceremonies, kids were simply around, everywhere. They used to sing alone, in groups, together with adults or alone, and noone objected, this was the way how they were preparing for adult life in years to come, to be together with those that have already become adults because they will be one of them, they will be among them very soon anyway. But today you have age limits for these events, some of former participants or even winners of e.g. Eurovision Song Contest wouldn't be allowed to appear on stage if our modern rules appeared decades ago. The same is in sport, there are age restrictions for Olympic Games, ATP tour etc. So, kids who have lost their childhood training, preparing to become sportmen or musicians from age of 3 or 4 have to wait till they reach a certain number of years determined by some bureaucratic minds. Are they afraid that kids would beat adults in sport, or sing better in contests, or...? Or, simply, kids have to disappear from eyes of average people because they can harm them. (Would adults harm kids or would kids harm adults - no matter which option is correct it is obvious that children should be forbidden.)
[deleted]
[deleted]