babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Fat Girl

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Fat Girl
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 02 December 2001 01:57 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ontario film review board to re-examine banned film Fat Girl

Fat Girl, I admittedly haven’t seen the film, was reported to have been banned for the depiction of a rape scene involving a 15 year old girl. I think I can safely predict that this will be very unsettling and shocking for viewer. There is no denying that rape is a very real crime in our civil society. Why? I sincerely doubt it is encouraged by the production of a Fat Girl or Boys Don’t Cry.

Fantasy sex is okay, brought to us by the cable and satellite pay per view or in magazine or online , but the depiction of real life very unpleasant events brought to us in the form of a story film is seen as unacceptable to community standards and good old family values despite the fact teenage sex and sexuality really exists and not always in very pleasant forms.

It feels uncomfortable to have to think about teenagers and sex. In fact it can be downright scary. Wouldn’t it wonderful if adult sexuality was all love and roses? It is scary to know that (some, many, all? forgive me I don’t have statistics) teenage girls will have to face some unpleasant issues of sexuality as it can shatter the innocence of childhood as they enter into the world of adulthood. As a parent, if I don’t talk about the realities of sex in all of its aspects, both positive and negative, who will? There is no use in pretending that the idealistic portrayal of sex brought to us from the cast of Friends and the Young and the Restless is a highly inaccurate, fantastic, portrayal of human sexuality. The scary thing is that Fat Girl might be closer to the truth. I think society needs this type of film and cannot afford to bury it under the carpet. Although, lets see it first and then decide.


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 02 December 2001 02:02 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
was reported to have been banned for the
depiction of a rape scene involving a 15 year old girl

Actually, I heard it was just a scene where two young teenagers were having sex- CBC, from what I heard, didn't say anything about rape- maybe they're talking about statutory rape?

But banning a film because two young teenagers are having sex? stupid.
1) it's not like we don't think about it
2) it's not like it doesn't sometimes happen

Perhaps if the mass media didn't glorify sex to the degree that it's thought of the primary goal in life by many, then adults wouldn't have to worry!

I could go on, but I won't

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 02 December 2001 02:21 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I agree Meades. I heard the same thing too. Whatever we have, it is all speculation as the film has been banned.
I've heard various stories regarding the "rape".
Sidenote: Rape does not always have to be in a violent form to be a violation. Seduction and coersion would qualify under this topic. The discussion I heard on CBC's Ontario Today stated the character in the film had not actually acknowledged that she was raped. This is what I based the comment on.

I wonder what Sue Johanson from the Sunday Night Sex Show on WTN would have to say after seeing this film?
Also I must ask people to please keep in mind this topic can be very sensitive.

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 02 December 2001 03:17 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's okay to see people shot, beaten, stabbed, slashed, kicked, blown up, pitchforked - and that's just the kid-stuff. I've seen rape-scenes, or near enough to be pretty ghastly, on regular television, not much past 10pm.
Yet the sight of a nipple (i don't care how old it is) will corrupt us?
Somebody has their white hat screwed on too tight.

I'm not interested in seeing this film, and i don't know what its merits and shortcomings are. But sex is just sex - a normal, daily human activity. Most of us do it a lot more frequently than we commit murder. The extraterrestrials monitoring our entertainment media would never guess.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 02 December 2001 04:01 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pimji, quite right about the different types of rape. From what I heard on CBC, it was just a sex scene, and they added that it didn't glorify it at all- in fact, they said, it did quite the opposite. If it was rape, I think they would have said so, though. Quite an odd situation, though, isn't it? I guess we'll never know... :
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 02 December 2001 10:36 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Click here to see reviews and most of the plot of the movieYou have to scroll through a few to get to some that are more discriptive.It sounds like a brutish nasty film not worth seeing in any case. My problem with this type of thing is if we say it is ok to use and show teenagers having intercourse or being raped because and artist made the film then how far behind is the argument that all film makers are artists and therefore porn films can use very young girls and or show explict rape scenes without fear of censure. Is this ok? Are we going down the oft mentioned slippery slope? Does this open the doors to making a film about the Paul Benardo atrocities because afterall dipicting the rapes and evil would be part of the 'artistry' of the film.

I realize teens have sex and am more than aware of the probabilities of rape, however, I find disconcerting the rather casual attitude that is being taken in using these young actresses in this manner and white washing it under the guise of art.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 02 December 2001 10:51 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem is that when pedophiles can't get access to porn, they'll resort to the Sears catalogue. Are we going to ban that?

The censor board (let's avoid the "Ontario Film Review Board" newspeak) objected to the scenes involving children.

My question is, if it is that objectionable, then why didn't the censor board contact the attourney general's office? Child pornography is a crime. Not reporting it is a crime. Maybe the censor board is guilty of an offence here.

And if it wasn't criminal in their mind, how dare they say we can't see it?

I strenuously object to the very notion of a bunch of appointed people trying to decide for me, an adult, what I can see and can't see. I find it degrading.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 02 December 2001 10:55 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not saying I disagree with your thoughts on this Tommy, but for the sake of argument (there isn't enough of that around here ) couldn't pedophiles use that exact argument to allow their 'special brand' of entertainment to be shown?
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 02 December 2001 11:07 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, they couldn't.

Child porn, snuff films and such are criminal evidence. Making it, owning it, and not reporting seeing it or finding it is a criminal offence.

I really think the Ontario censor board should be investigated for criminal behavior. They may in fact be obstructing justice, if they are not handing over films they say are child porn to the authorities.

If they don't think they are criminal evidence, and the attourney general office agrees, then they have no grounds to require film makers to withdraw films or sections of films.

And, while we are at it, why the double standard? The film "A Clockwork Orange" features a sex scene involving a 14 year old girl ( at least in the book she was 14 ) and a rape scene so violent and intense I can no longer watch that part of the movie.

Why isn't Stanely Kubric banned in Ontario?

I can order all of de Sade's works at Chapters or any independant book store. de Sade's scenes include things that are a violation of Ontario law. Why isn't "Justine" or "Julliette" or "Euginie de Franvalle" banned?

Seems to me the Ontario censor board's standards have more to do with what the stature of the artist is, and not the content.

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 02 December 2001 11:11 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok good point. I personally still feel uncomfortable with the premise but all things considered as was mentioned in another review if they let Kids be shown, and on tv no less, then if would seem hypocritcal not to allow this also.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201

posted 03 December 2001 12:41 AM      Profile for Dogbert     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite frankly, all the ban is doing to it is giving it more publicity everywhere else- people go to movies because they're banned elsewhere. Guess they want to be "bad."

Besides, the film board itself says it's not exploitive and it's not child porn. So why are we banning it?


From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 03 December 2001 02:17 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure a 15-year-old girl is a child, exactly - and i'm not sure 16 (or even 18) is grown up. Drawing solid lines on a calendar is always an iffy proposition.
Suppose the story is about a girl of 14 having an affaire with a man of 40, but the girl playing the role is actually 17, where does that put it on the child-pornography scale? Or the girl is 16 and the boy is 14, is that statutory rape?

Drawing lines on clothing is iffy, too: an inch this way is okay; a centimeter that way is pornography... Same thing applies to degree of graphic depiction.
Suppose there is a drama about about child- abuse (and there are plenty!). It's okay to show a child (5 or 6 years old) being brutalized, as long as the actual disrobing and rape are off camera. Nevertheless, the very young actor was in that film, did those scenes over and over before s/he got it right. That kid isn't protected from the content of the story, but the audience is protected from seeing something unpleasant.

I suppose it's necessary for somebody to draw these lines, but they often seem to be drawn arbitrarily.
The only effective way to keep the nasty stuff off the screen is to make it unprofitable.
Not go an see it - in droves.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 03 December 2001 11:23 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
This is a movie that would only have run in one or two theatres for less than a week. Because of the ban, oodles of people now want to see it, including those who are turned on by watching teen rape scenes. They probably never would have even heard of the flick if it hadn't been for all this hype.

*sarcasm mode*
Is the film review board run by Heather Reisman or something?
*end sarcasm mode*


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LynnC
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1747

posted 03 December 2001 09:46 PM      Profile for LynnC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've read some of the reactions on the site recommended by earthmother and I have to say, I'm more eager to see Fat Girl than ever. My feeling is that a film--or any work of art--that shocks, disturbs or discomfits us as a society should be applauded for doing it's job so well. Why do we go to see films, after all? If it's for escapism, titillation or a few laughs--great: Go and see Shallow Hal. But if you're looking to experience a work of art, what do you expect to get a out of it? Comfort? Re-affirmation of all the values, ideals and assumptions you already hold? That's why we have people like Stephen Speilberg and Tom Hanks. I don't mean to sound high-handed, and I loves my Planet of the Apes DVD as much as the next shameless escapist, but when I partake of 'serious' cinema, I want to be challenged, shaken, slapped awake. Sounds like Fat Girl is just what the doctored ordered.

I think it must also be admitted that our culture is crippled by some really ludicrous neuroses about sex--female, teenage sexuality in particular. It's a taboo topic, which is no doubt why the film maker decided to tackle it so thouroughly and fearlessly. I say bravo. This is the job of the artist.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 03 December 2001 11:20 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My feelings on the subject exactly LynnC.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca