Pretty Baby

🤗

Heard that this was a classic. Very well acted by the main character Brook Shields. The movies story line is, questionable. Unfortunately I’m sure this was probably riff back in the day. And the movie certainly hammers home how men are, sleazy 🙄🤣 some parts were…em, difficult to watch to be fare. There’s parts the contain some light nudity and it is based in a brothel 🤷🏻‍♂️ The child element is obviously the main focal point in the movie. Which make some parts difficult to watch. But as long as you remind yourself it’s a movie and a form of art. And they do have her wearing hidden cloths, to leave the illusion of nudity without actually being nude, so they did give Brook some form of modesty. But still a good period piece. Wonder how close to the truth this movie is 🤔 scary to think 🙈 not sure I’d watch it twice. But if old movies and brothels are your thing it’s a must 🤗

Based on a true story documented at the time this evocation of a time and placewas rightfully lauded. Louis Malle may be many things but a pornogapher he is not andneither are his cast and crew. Carradine, Sarandon, pornographers... really ???This movie (based on the photographic book of the story ) could very well havedegenerated into something squalid - but under this directors control we have a beautiful historic picture told with care and consideration.The few seconds of nudity are just that - and devoid of any sexual content. The childs total absorbtion of her environment is perfectly told by her casual use. It's suprising people aren't more up in arms over carradine's age difference - eventually I expect someone will wet themselves when they realisethey can whinge about something extra like the 'un-pretty babies' they seem to be.The british censor James Ferman was annoyed he was forced to cut the film (subsequently restored) . Ferman was renowned for fairness and control - if it was good enough for him it'sok by me.For what it's worth this page gives the same runtime as IMDB but the Bluray special edition lists it as 108 minutes. For a film so daftly attacked it may be worth getting that right so everybody knows at least the basics of what they are talking about.

Fairly dull drama about prostitution in the 30s.Nothing exceptional in it.

As with all Louis Malle's films, subtlety is the keynote to this portrayal of a New Orleans brothel in the early years of the 20th century, and of the lives of one prostitute and her 12-year-old daughter in particular. The performances by Susan Sarandon and Brooke Shields are very natural and hugely impressive, as is the tenor of Malle's direction, which fills in the sense of place with great immediacy. You really feel you are there in this large house for real, the authenticity of it is there in front of you. It is very far from most period recreations in films, and somehow the time difference melts away, even though we can see that the mores were different at that time. The ensemble scenes in the brothel are seamlessly handled, and many of the stills could have inspired a painting by Toulouse-Lautrec or Sickert. Child prostitution seems not to have been so shocking then as it is now, but it is useful to show the shift in attitudes to this as to many other things, in order to give more context to our own time. Malle does this in other films as well, always suggesting how the underlying dynamics in human interaction are the same even if they are dressed up differently. The photographer (Keith Carradine) who falls in love with the young girl is not presented in a moralising way, rather it is left for us to feel the awkwardness of his infatuation, or to feel whatever we feel. In fact it is quite hard not to feel sorry for him, and to see in him a certain purity, really, which had made him so reserved for much of the film. The moment where he realises that he needs to sacrifice his own happiness is a moving one, and means that Malle has been as provocative as ever by, in effect, showing us a sympathetic pedophile, while showing precisely why this is not a good arrangement for the girl, and that she should be with her mother, going to school etc. This lack of hysteria is based in an acceptance of ambiguity at the heart of things and a sense of beauty in life as well, and it gives you a profound sense of truth in the film's closing moments.

Should be banned

They could have easily portrayed the same story without the child pornography.Because make no mistake, that is what this is.I feel sorry for Brooke Shields that at the same age as the character she played (12) she had to act so sexually provocative-I loved Lolita,but moving the age of the girl forward to 14 was a wise choice.As beautiful as Shields is (her face is divine) her naked body is shown and its made clear that she has sex with plenty of men.Its pretty horrific.Having seen Maison Close, I thought this might be similar to that.But nowhere will you see a film anywhere like this-and I'm glad because even by todays standards,its gratuitous and horrifying to see.Child nudity, and a pedophiles delight.It was a form of abuse for Shields to have even been allowed to star in this.Her body is tiny and undeveloped, it's no Lolita but full on sickos, and the sad thing is, not one person truly loves the child, not one.The ending seems tacked on.Haunting and sad and I really wish I hadn't watched it.Based on reviews I was not expecting this.