August, 1963; Alice, 14, an only child, and physically well developed, is home for vacation. She's moody, silent, keeps a diary, and explores tactile sensations with broken eggs, candle wax...
See full summary »
Although deeply in love with her boyfriend - and indeed sleeping in the same bed with him - a schoolteacher cannot handle the almost complete lack of intimacy he will allow. Increasingly ... See full summary »
A young writer becomes intrigued with a mysterious dark-haired woman who claims to be his long-lost sister and he begin an unusual relationship with her prompting a downward spiral involving his domineering mother and lovely fiancée
Sculptor Paul meets a former great love again after a long time -- but is much more impressed by her 15 years old daughter Laura, who looks now like her mother when Paul was in love with ... See full summary »
A failed London musician meets once a week with a woman for a series of intense sexual encounters to get away from the realities of life. But when he begins inquiring about her, it puts their relationship at risk.
Tinto Brass - The maestro of Italian erotica is back! Lies, subterfuge, betrayal and mischief - FALLO! is a collection of six stories based on the joys of sexuality and the eroticism of a new generation of women.
William De Vito
August, 1963; Alice, 14, an only child, and physically well developed, is home for vacation. She's moody, silent, keeps a diary, and explores tactile sensations with broken eggs, candle wax, ear wax, vomit, urine, blood, and, perhaps, if the summer goes in one very possible direction, semen. Without her underpants, she walks about, rides her bike, and sits on the shore as the tide comes in. She drifts to her father's sawmill and makes eyes at Jim, a 20-something hand with a lean body and a model's face. What will Jim do, and does Alice want to do more than stare and fantasize? Meanwhile, pop music fills the air and the TV screen, and Alice's parents have their own drama. Written by
The movie was filmed in 1975, but was not released to the public until 1999 because of the production company going bankrupt, as well as the controversy surrounding the shots of Charlotte Alexandra's vulva. See more »
The calendar inside the doorway of the Bonnard home indicates that it's August, 1964; however, TV shows pertaining to the death of Monseigneur Fernand Maillet and the resignation of George Pompidou's first government suggest that it's only 1963, and a TV broadcast of Jacques Anquetil's fourth Tour de France victory suggests that at least one scene with the calendar is set on July 14 (Bastille Day), 1963. See more »
One has to trust the auteur, this is extremely valid art
The auteur took a risk on this one and got screwed for it. But to invalidate it as art, especially in the light of compelling but questionable films such as "Baise Moi," is wrong.
This film is beautiful, well made, very artistic, has great thematic depth and makes a statement. What more are we looking for when we define something as art?
The first clue should be in the title: "A Real Young Girl.' Our culture (male dominant still,) is fascinated with sexualizing what are in our cultural context, inappropriately young females, that is, pubescent, underaged, or more gracefully put "blossoming." This is a complex issue not for discussion here, but the point is, artistic treatments of this subject have been predominantly male. So a "Real Young Girl" may be a statement indicating that the director is going to show you early adolescent female sexuality as it truly is, from someone who has experienced it first hand, and not as it is eroticized by male artists.
I think a big point of this film is that it is not pleasant and not easy, not fun or romantic, but painful, confusing, and filled with difficult feelings and disgust.
While the film is beautiful and leaves one with a not unpleasant feeling (it's a good film, the ending is abrupt and funny, but no more so than other great avant-garde or new-wave filmmakers.)
The eroticism can in no way be seen as pornography, though. Despite the explicitness of its photography (of the vagina especially,) there is no actual sex, and these explicit scenes are mixed with other aspects that open them to complex interpretation.
For instance, the main character undresses and experiments by putting red ink on her erogenous zones, but during the whole scene, a fly is very persistently buzzing around the room. I'm not going to go into detail interpreting, but you get my point.
Another very explicit scene, the character in her fantasy, bound with barbed-wire, spread eagled naked on the ground. We see very explicit close-up of her vagina, but this is concurrent with her fantasy lover dangling a live worm over it, and eventually pulling the worm apart and dropping the still squirming bits on her pubis.
Or a scene where walking on the beach to another fantasy, she drops her panties on the decaying corpse of a dog.
Again, interpret for yourself, but you'll see not only a depth of symbol, but a unity of theme in the natural world and decay as related to this young girl's perception of her vagina: something akin to stinky, swampy pit- far from the ripe, juicy peach of male imagination.
It gives what seems to my male mind, a convincing portrayal of early adolescent female sexuality from the perspective of a woman.
The director clearly loves the female form but the film is no more explicit, and certainly less shocking, than say Pasolini's "Salo." (In fact, if Pier had been attracted to women, I suspect he would have given us similarly graphic views instead of tending to orient on penises of extraordinary size.) It's hard to find this film exploitative in comparison to such celebrated films as "Last Tango in Paris."
I could go on and on but the point is, this is not a gray area somewhere near pornography, but a valid, necessary, and probably important (though only history will tell,) work.
72 of 79 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?