Talk:Pederastic filmography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.

I removed the film I piso porta from the list. Having seen the film, I can tell it has nothing to do with pederasty.

I have never seen "Les amitiés particulières" and "La ville dont le prince est un enfant", so I wonder if they really belong in this list. I removed "Der Unhold", since I had the impression that Malkovich's character is a pedophile, but not realy "also a pederast". Fulcher 19:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen the movies in question, but from my readings Peyrefitte belongs here because the relationship is analogous - there IS an age difference, and it is the relationship that set the tone for his life-long pederasty. Bewteen young boys even small differences loom large.

As for Der Unhold, I have no info about the age of the youths involved but I would suggest reading this review here [1] since it suggests that it may indeed be appropriate - if not complimentary. Why did you delete all those other movies too??? Haiduc 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as we give the reader a definition of pederasty that involves an adult man and a male youth, descriptions like "A love between an adolescent and a child" must be confusing and the argumentation against using pederasty as a synonym for pedophilia will look hypocrite to some people. I think the people from the french wikipage had a good idea, when they mentioned "Les Amitiés particulières" a bit seperatly from the other movies and explained it why.

Ironically, I even saw "Der Unhold" at its premiere in Munich and asked Schlöndorff a (boring) question. As far as I remember, the main character Abel adores little children, mainly boys. There were also a lot of teenagers in this so called NaPola, but I'm not sure, if he was attracted to them. Okay, you should maybe ask someone, who has seen it more recently.... :-)

Okay, ze ozzer films... I guess director Mel Gibson, known for his homophobia and extrememly conservative views, would fall down from his chair, if we believe that his character really had this erotic feelings for this boy. I heard the original story was quite different from the movie, but we are here to talk about the film and and not about the book. So where is a scene in this movie, where you can get the feeling that this teacher believes his student is "sexy"?

"The Boys of St. Vincent" is a sensationalist, half pornographic movie about a pedophile priest and the boys seem to be very little (I haven't seen it more than once and I would not even have done that, knowing how hypocrite and graphic this TV-film would be). "Happiness" is a similar case, one of these typical wannabe-art-movies of directors like Solondz. Fulcher 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not care if Mel Gibson would fall down from his chair by reading this article and I don't know how Mel Gibson's views have anything to do with compiling a list on films regarding pederasty, unless I am missing something. "The man without a face" movie makes it clear that the McLeod character gets in trouble because of allegations of sexual activity with young Chuck. What Gibson thinks of the boy or what Gibson wants us to believe about his movie character is completely irrelevant. Most people who saw the movie saw the relationship between McLeod and Chuck as pederastic, even if chaste. Therefore this movie should be back in the list.

"The boys of St. Vincent" may be sensationalistic but is by no means "half pornographic". I would, however, accept you deleting it since it focuses mostly on pre pubertal boys. I am still missing the reason behind the removal of "Return to innocence", however...Kes77 22:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"The boys of St. Vincent" probably had the most explicit scenes of sexual abuse that were ever shown on TV and really rises the question, whether such movies actually serve as some kind of "indirect childporn" for those, who would never consider themselves as pedophiles. They went way too far with that movie. It's like: "Oh, we really don't want to show this, but well... we have to..." I think the hypocrisy is quite obvious.

Okay, the movie with Mel Gibson.... How do you know that "most people" saw it like that? I didn't. For me it's the typical example for a film, where somebody was "falsely accused". Maybe I missed a scene, where you get the impression that the Gibson-character is attracted to the kid. And of course, it's relvant what the director of a movie, in this case Mel Gibson, wants to show us (even if that is very different from the original story). Fulcher 02:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not having seen any of the movies you mention, I will recuse myself, but I will say that where there is doubt we should be as inclusive as possible, simply because different people will see different things in these movies. Haiduc 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)