Drama : The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane

The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane

It's been a while since I've seen a movie, but this drew me in pretty quickly. Psychological thriller/suspense. I went to the archives to read about this movie and passed by an interesting conversation. When I read a few lines, I thought "This must have been said years ago" and it was 12 years ago, when it was the conservatives who were complaining about everything. Now it's 98%. "Progress is our most important product" - General Electric

https://www.filmboards.com/board/p/1681732/

I have a feeling some won't click on it (imaginary viruses) so I'll paste some of it.



ozz1121
If they did the scene without actually showing her naked ass and side boob shots, it wouldn't have taken away from the movie at all. It was a totally unneeded. Even if the stand in was an adult, who wants to see a naked child or even have the appearance of a naked child? And the fact that it totally added nothing worthwhile to the scene or movie makes it all the more disturbing.

ozz



R-W-Watkins
Check your puritanical nonsense. How do you determine what is a child? Age is relative. There are women of 12, 13, and 14, and dogmatic, undereducated girls of 30 and 40. Personally, I am slightly taken aback by these scenes myself, BECAUSE they were faked. If then-13-year old Foster had done them herself, they would have a far greater air of authenticity about them today, and would certainly resonate more positively in European and Far Eastern countries. The fact that knowing those scenes were faked by sister Constance and therefore somewhat compromises the genuineness of these films is probably the main reason why the stand-ins were covered up for so long–Jodie would not have been taken so seriously in educated, liberal countries if it was widely known that her early nude scenes had been faked–she would have been seen as just another product of 'dumb, sexually phobic America', or whatever. Come to think of it, to compensate for these instances of cinematic lying may have been the modus operandi behind the nude photos which Foster posed for two years later, at the age of 15. These photos were taken under the insistence and supervision of her (somewhat conservative, believe it or not) mother, according to most sources. These photos are readily available all over the internet, in magazines, and have been used in the repackaging of some of her earlier films for VHS/DVD.

My best advice to anyone who cannot handle childhood or adolescent nudity, or sex entering the equation of any physically/emotionally/socially mature teenager, is simply to lie at home with a coffee table book of Norman Rockwell paintings, and make sure never to visit Japan, The Netherlands, France, Sweden, Denmark, or even central and eastern Canada–believe me, the attitudes and many of the laws in these countries would not be your cup of (poisoned) tea.

Sometimes, you know, I think rock star Gene Simmons and his partner Shannon Tweed were right: Maybe we should invite 12-year olds to come strip naked on The Tonight Show in order to wake everybody up to the dogmatically repressed realities of human biology and sexuality. The Western world is in a sad, backwards state when we have to go suggesting extremes like these, isn't it….


I appreciate your lenghty response and you have demonstrated one thing…in your entire lengthy write-up, you were also unable to come up with one reason that the nudity of a supposed 13 year old contributed to this movie. I generally prefer a little nudity, depending on the type of movie, but not in the Borat sense, if you get my drift. However, when nudity of youngsters is thrown on the screen for no reason(unless it turns on an older sicko, perhaps yourself?), then why display it? Sure, I admit it…I love some nudity in movies. I'm a big fan of Italian Horror and they are genius at this idea, but they also realize it generally doesn't add to the content of a film to flash teen and child nudity…they generally refrain from it. You are indeed correct about one thing…sexuality/maturity are age-relative, but society, generally, accepts the idea that people under a certain age, 16 or so, are more likely to not be fully equiped with the adequate tools of discernment to make the most logical choices concerning sexuality. I found this to be fairly accurate in life…and it seems many others have as well. There's something to be said about being "safe, rather than sorry". Jodie Foster is a unique example of this…she chose not to do it and the fact the director put in a wig wearing "double" just to get some child nudity in a film indeed says a lot about him. Not a wonder why his career was pretty well done after this one.

https://www.scribd.com/document/382737647/MortSahlFan-Song-List

Re: The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane

You sound like you've bought into all the ridiculous dogma–extreme left, extreme right, or whatever. Like I've said, age is relative, and the psychological maturity status of a person, country or religion is reflected by its acceptance of this fact. Older people who are sexually attracted to teenagers–not prepubescent children, mind you–are not necessarily sickos, and are not regarded as such by the legislative and academic establishments in the majority of civilized, modern, secular countries. In fact, I would very seriously question the mental stability of someone who goes out of his or her way to argue that, NO, they're not sexually attracted to any teenagers; from my own experiences, they tend to be hiding some of the biggest skeletons in the biggest closets (and many are just plain conformist liars–afraid to speak the normalcy of their minds for fear of upsetting the Oprah Winfreys and the Mark Foleys: people who are genuinely abnormal, sadly, either through experiences of REAL abuse, or years of homosexual self-denial). There's also the jealousy factor: many people are simply envious of sexually active adolescents ("Hey! I wasn't gettin' any when I was that age–Why Should You?!!!", etc.)–especially if they have older partners. This sort of phenomenon is particularly popular among white, middle-aged politicians and evangelicals. These sort of people love to go on and on about "protecting your teens" and what-have-you; frankly, from examples I've seen in Canadian and American politics and evangelism in recent years, I wouldn't trust these hypocrites under an outhouse with a spoon–they talk about 'protecting' your 15-year old, for example, while they dream about seducing your prepubescent 9-year old.

There is also a connexion between acceptance of things like child and adolescent nudity, pornography, extramarital relations (i.e., 'swinging'), intergenerational sex, freedom in the arts, etc. and the level of one's I.Q. The only people I've ever met w/ an I.Q. in the 140 or higher range who could not accept under any circumstances some of the things I've just outlined were either victims of oppressive religous families and schools (the sort who become the Mark Foleys and Pastor Teds), or victims of genuine abuse, such as parent-child incest, sexual assault, pimp exploitation, etc. (these become your Oprahs and [so sadly, because I grew up loving this man's work] Henry Rollinses).

Something else you must seriously consider (rather than bury your head in the sand as many folk do) is the fact that if you disapprove of things like, say, teenaged nudity in the arts and the relativity of mental and emotional age in sexual relations, then you must also discredit the vast majority of professors in all the major universities (any psychology or sociology professor who HAS taken a conservative stance on such issues is almost guaranteed to have been bankrolled by a government or church–I know, because I know these people), virtually every solicitor and judge on our countries' supreme courts, and about 90% of all artists and entertainers who have ever lived. Yes folks, it's true–accept it: If you disapprove of the things I've been discussing, then, by all means, go home and throw out your books by Shakespeare, de Sade, Oscar Wilde, Poe, Walt Whitman, Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Anais Nin, Henry Miller, Gore Vidal, Katherine Harrison, etc.; throw out your records by Elvis Presley, The Stones, The Doors, Iggy Pop, Leonard Cohen, Motorhead, Sonic Youth, etc.; and then lie back, tune in the Rev. Billy Graham or Oprah, and get out that Norman Rockwell coffee table book. It's as simple as that. This is the sexually open-minded way that smart, creative people who have been raised liberally in secular environments tend to think and behave. Quite often, people who have been raised conservatively–usually in the aforementioned religiously oppressive homes–have trouble grasping or dealing with this. They tend to live in a state of dogma-fuelled denial–almost as if they were under hypnosis–and when they finally realise the truth, it can be incredibly painful or confusing for them. As Donald Sutherland tells Kevin Costner in Oliver Stone's JFK, "Kings are killed, Mr. Garrison, kings are killed."

Take myself in comparison to you (ozz1121), for example. As you have more or less stated, you grew up buying into the ridiculous, biologically ambiguous nonsense that was fed to you (by schools, churches, legislative bodies, possibly parents) about having to reach some magical age of 16 (a nonsensical chronological cut-off point in the U.S. and U.K., which finds its origins in the 19th Century sexist antiquities of Salvation Army founders William and Catherine Booth–people who, as even Nietzsche in all his syphilletic madness had sense enough to point out, had severe problems and issues) or higher before becoming sexually developed and aware, or whatever. Myself, on the other hand, I grew up in a sexually liberal, fairly well educated, arts-appreciating family, and attended secular institutions of learning. I became sexually active at around 7, and attempted to write my first porno novel (with my same-aged then-lover) at age 8; our manuscript dealt with the sexual comings and goings of a transvestic stripper. This may sound strange and possibly ungodly to you (believe me, I had a rather conservative sexual background compared to many other poets, musicians, intellectuals, etc. I've met or grew up with, some of whom remember participating in gigantic pansexual orgies when they were in the 8 to 11 age category), but this is not by any means atypical of the sort of background which lurks behind your favourite author, artist or entertainer–Who knows? Maybe even Jodie Foster. After all, as I've pointed out, she posed nude for those shots when she was 15, and had a lover in his 20s in Paris around the same time; according to legend, she still wears the same brand of cologne as what he wore.

And that's all I'm going to say regarding this subject matter, for the simple reasons that (a) it's embarassing that I should have to be explaining this sort of stuff to (presumably) educated people in this day and age, and (b) this subject is actually dull as dishwater for me; it's about as lively and interesting and directly relevant to the filmmaking process as all that other drivel I hear constantly about "Jodie Foster…Is she or isn't she…?" Yeeesh! Sitting around continually contemplating nothing else but the nuances of an actress's sexual orientation–How dull, uncultured and Grade-4 can one get? Now I think I know whom all those damnned tabloids and contemporary American sitcoms and police dramas cater to. The only other thing I can possibly say is simply stay away from the early work of Foster, Glynnis O'Connor, Brooke Shields, etc. if one can't handle the child or teenage nudity and/or sexual exploration contained in them; either that, or watch as much of this stuff as one can possibly get a hold of, and ask one's self, Why does this offend me? What is it about myself or my past that I cannot accept? Who erected this foolishly illogical barricade in my brain to such a degree that I cannot even tolerate the nude beauty of a prepubescent from a non-sexual angle, let alone the sexual desires of a post-pubescent teenager?

Now that I've gotten all that boring stuff out of the way, let us discuss the actual merits of the nude scene and exactly why I am not too crazy about its inclusion in this latest DVD cut (which is still not the original French cut, no matter what they try and tell you). Watch the scene again. Observe Connie Foster's beautiful bronzy Californian tan, noting the white outline of her little bikini-wearing backside. Now, taking the film (and original novel's) plot into consideration, ask yourself this: Just what in hell is a 13-year old, homeschooled, shut-in, artsy-fartsy, bohemian daughter of a poet doing with the tanned outline of a Californian beach bunny? And remember, she's been living in London, England–not exactly a hot spot for two-piece bathing suits amidst all the rain, drizel and fog. Seriously, people; this is the one major flaw of this nude scene, and the entire new DVD cut in general….


https://www.scribd.com/document/382737647/MortSahlFan-Song-List

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane

Yes, its too bad when a few assholes fuck everything up for everyone else.

https://www.scribd.com/document/382737647/MortSahlFan-Song-List
Top