Tadpole

[Dixon Carter Lee]

In this not bad Indie film starring Sigourney Weaver, Bebe Neuwirth and John Ritter a fifteen year old boy has sex with a 40 something woman, who nearly brags about it to her girlfriends at lunch, some of whom mention that they too will call on the kid. They like his passion and youth. Even when the boy's dad and stepmom find out about the fucking they come to accept it. It's all very sophisticated, and very New York intellectual, and played real. I was 15 in New York, and if I'd had sex with a much older woman I wouldn't have thought squat about it. (At 16, I did.)

When the film ended my wife and I talked about the difference between New York and what the rest of the country call "America", and whether we could have enjoyed the film if the character wasn't a boy, but a girl, and 40 year old men were casually discussing making trysts with her.

The wacky stories we read here are not to be taken seriously. Fanstasy is fantasy, and drama is drama, and the same rules that govern what we whack off to at Literotica do not apply to feature films. I should have been outraged by the film, but I wasn't. The whole thing was presented as very wholesome, and almost normal (for New York).

Anyone see the film? Anyone think New Yorkers deserve their depraved status? Anyone hoping to go and catch some Bebe booby? (You don't -- sorry.)

 

[badasschick]

In this not bad Indie film starring Sigourney Weaver, Bebe Neuwirth and John Ritter a fifteen year old boy has sex with a 40 something woman, who nearly brags about it to her girlfriends at lunch, some of whom mention that they too will call on the kid. They like his passion and youth. Even when the boy's dad and stepmom find out about the fucking they come to accept it. It's all very sophisticated, and very New York intellectual, and played real. I was 15 in New York, and if I'd had sex with a much older woman I wouldn't have thought squat about it. (At 16, I did.)

When the film ended my wife and I talked about the difference between New York and what the rest of the country call "America", and whether we could have enjoyed the film if the character wasn't a boy, but a girl, and 40 year old men were casually discussing making trysts with her.

The wacky stories we read here are not to be taken seriously. Fanstasy is fantasy, and drama is drama, and the same rules that govern what we whack off to at Literotica do not apply to feature films. I should have been outraged by the film, but I wasn't. The whole thing was presented as very wholesome, and almost normal (for New York).

Anyone see the film? Anyone think New Yorkers deserve their depraved status? Anyone hoping to go and catch some Bebe booby? (You don't -- sorry.)

Didn't we have this movie some 40 odd years ago....Lolita?

 

[Guest]

Yea, make the reverse version and station FBI agents at the entrance.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: Re: Tadpole

Didn't we have this movie some 40 odd years ago....Lolita?

The 95 remake was better.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Re: Re: Tadpole

Didn't we have this movie some 40 odd years ago....Lolita?

No. Very different themes and presentation of love and lust.

 

[badasschick]

Re: Re: Re: Tadpole

No. Very different themes and presentation of love and lust.

I realize the difference between the two films, but in Lolita, if one saw and understood what was going on. It envoked a sense of feeling very sorry for Humbert, rather than outrage.

Of course, most of middle America's interpretation of Lolita only gets us...the word "Pedophillia". Cause most of them didn't bother to get to the end or even read the book.

 

[Lancecastor]

Wasn't Tadpole released 6 months ago? Is it on video already?

 

[sunstruck]

I've never even heard of it, but it's now on my list. I think presentation is they key. But yes, there would be more outrage if the genders were reveresed. Which opens a whole new cnoversation on sexism. Did you want to go there?