"A girl is Innocence playing in the mud, Beauty standing on its head, and Motherhood dragging a doll by the foot." – Alan Marshall Beck

Cypriot Cinema: Emanuelle Queen of Sados

Posted on October 10, 2022 by Bob Freely

4

*** WARNING/SPOILER ALERT ***

The following post discusses a film which contains several scenes of simulated physical and/or sexual abuse, some of which involve a minor. While no images of such abuse are included and I have made an effort to be as tactful as possible when discussing such scenes, sensitive readers are urged to proceed with caution. Naturally the discussion of certain scenes necessarily involves some spoilers.

Where’s the line between art and exploitation? What if a film arguably has elements of both? Can the artistic elements redeem the exploitative ones? Such are questions posed by the 1980 film Emanuelle Queen of Sados (alternatively known as Emanuelle’s Daughter or I Mavri Emmanouella, among other titles; here I have used the on-screen title for the English language version. The U.S. DVD cover titles it Emanuelle’s Daughter: Queen of Sados, which is how it is listed in Pigtails’ Pipeline).

Directed by Ilias Milonakos, this Greek/Cypriot production is an not-quite-official entry in the the long-running Emanuelle series staring Laura Gemser—itself an offshoot of the Sylvia Krystal series. Probably due to Gemser’s involvement, this is one of the better-known Greek exports. Like the other entries in the series, Emanuelle Queen of Sados features simulated sex and violence, and co-stars Gemser’s real-life husband Gabrielle Tinti, here playing her love interest Tommy. Harris Stevens plays the main antagonist, Mario. However, what makes this particular film relevant to the site is the young actress Livia Russo, debuting in her first film. Very little is known about her, particularly her exact age at the time of filming, and this appears to be her only screen appearance¹.

The overall plot of the film—a crime drama—involves Emanuelle’s problems after hiring a hitman, Mario, to kill her long-abusive husband, Victor. After the deed is done—being ruled an accidental death by the police—she becomes guardian of her minor stepdaughter, Livia, and executor of her inheritance until Livia is of age—Victor having left everything to his daughter in his will. However, the hitman pursues the pair from Athens to Cyprus wanting the rest of his pay, and her husband’s associates suspect his death was no accident. Eventually things come to a head in a violent manner.

While Emanuelle is the main character, Livia is central to the plot and what happens to her determines the final outcome, so the scenes detailed below focus only on her part of the story, and just the highlights at that.

We first see Livia (other than in a brief flashback) when Emanuelle drives with her to the airport to board a plane for Cyprus, as Victor has his business and an estate there. Initially, they don’t get along, as Emanuelle is only interested in Livia as a means of accessing her late husband’s fortune, and bosses her around—perhaps because Livia is a reminder of the hated Victor.

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (1)

Unfortunately, someone else becomes interested in Livia: Mario. On board the plane, he briefly flirts with Livia before Emanuelle realizes he’s there. Livia doesn’t think anything of it; Emanuelle, however, is disturbed, knowing he is dangerous.

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (2)

At a hotel, while Livia showers, Emanuelle explains her feelings about the deceased Victor, having married him only to escape a life of poverty. While Livia did not think highly of her father either—having seen some of the abuse he directed toward Emanuelle (shown in flashbacks)—she doesn’t think Emanuelle is any better. Of course, she doesn’t know Emanuelle is responsible for his death.

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (3)

That night at a disco, Livia meets a nice young man named Mike, and a sweet romance blossoms. Like Livia, Mike is played by a novice actor, Vagelis Vartan. Their romance is one of the best elements of the film.

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (4)

But Mario turns up again not long after, creepily complementing Livia on her youth and beauty before Emanuelle intervenes. Livia naively thinks he is merely being friendly, and doesn’t understand why Emanuelle doesn’t want her to see him again, since Emanuelle can’t reveal that she know Mario.

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (5)

Arriving at Victor’s estate, Emanuelle and Livia fight over photos of Victor—which Emanuelle wants thrown away—and when Livia objects to their removal because he was still her father, Emanuelle slaps her and demands Livia obey her, causing Livia to run outside crying.

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (6)

However, things look up for Livia when Mike arrives to take her to the beach, where they get to known each other better. Initially in swimsuits, when they are alone they strip and admire each other, but otherwise things stay pretty tame between them².

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (7)

Afterwards, Emanuelle expresses her approval of Mike to Livia, inviting him over, and Emanuelle and Livia becomes friends. In addition to visiting the estate, Mike is also invited along on a tour of various Cypriot landmarks (while at the estate, we see that Emanuelle has restored Victor’s photos to their place, in a concession to Livia’s feelings—a nice touch showing that Emanuelle is beginning to care about her stepdaughter as a person).

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (8)

But when Mike and Livia visit the Tomb of the Kings by themselves, and the two become separated, things take a very dark turn.

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (9)

Out of nowhere, Mario appears, grabbing Livia. When Mike approaches, Mario hits him and knocks him unconscious, which gives Livia a chance to run away. However, Mario soon catches her on a secluded stretch of beach, and after a brief struggle, he selfishly rapes her in a harrowing scene which spares almost no details³.

I must caution, this is a very difficult scene to watch, and it may be too much for some viewers. Because of the nature of the scene, I have not included a screenshot.

Afterwards, Livia and Mike return to Victor’s estate, where they tell everyone what happened. Emanuelle comforts Livia before going to confront Mario for what he did—having come to care about her stepchild. That confrontation brings the film to its finale.

Ilias Milonakos – Emanuelle Queen of Sados (1980) (10)

Of course, there are many scenes involving the other characters which I have left out here, such as Emanuelle’s romance with Tommy or the actions of Victor’s associates to investigate his murder. I also had to leave out many nice scenes of the Cypriot landscape and landmarks which add to the film’s appeal, but which didn’t affect Livia’s portion of the plot enough to justify showing them as screenshots. The music and cinematography are good.

That the film features ample sex and violence is not of itself surprising, given it is an Emanuelle movie and that such is typical fare for Gemser even in her non-Emanuelle flicks; however, the inclusion of a young minor girl—whatever her specific age—in such a film and including several nude scenes and particularly the rape scene raises some questions, though not one you might expect.

For those wondering about the legal aspect, I’ll point out that the film was shown theatrically in a wide number of countries in the ’80s, including the U.S.—for instance at the Budco Midtown Theatre 2 in Philadelphia in 1982, now the Philadelphia Film Center —then made the jump to VHS and eventually DVD, often uncut. It’s still widely available to view for free on the internet, a link of good-resolution and a complete version. An uncut, English-language DVD was released in the U.S. in 2005 and sold on Amazon and other major outlets, and the film was shown as part of an Emanuelle film festival at Quad Cinema in New York in 2019. So potential concerns along those lines are groundless. Perhaps it can simply be chalked up to the fact that despite her appearance, with no birth certificate her age at the time of filming can’t be pinned down.

As to the director’s thinking in casting Livia for the role, it can’t be known for certain as he doesn’t do interviews about his work, but we can speculate based on what else was being released at the time. During the late ’70s and early ’80s a number of controversial films featuring minor girls were made, such as Immorality , Little Lips and Pretty Baby—with the aforementioned titles debuting before Emanuelle Queen of Sados was filmed. Since the director has, to my knowledge, never before or since cast such a young actress in one of his erotic films, he may have simply been trying to imitate certain elements (i.e. youthful nudity) from those movies in hopes of attracting audiences. Also, it’s rumored that Livia was suggested for the role by a relative working on the production, and after auditioning her perhaps the director felt she was too good to pass up. Plot-wise, it was not necessary to cast an actual minor for the role; he could have selected a young woman of age eighteen or so and stated her character’s age as a few years younger in the film. Possibly he felt using an actual minor would make the film seem more authentic, but we’ll likely never know.

In conclusion, while there are elements of the film that I would prefer to have seen done differently, I believe the film merits a look, to see the performances of Livia Russo and Vagelis Vartan as well as that of some of the other cast (while Mario as a character is despicable, Harris Stevens does play the role well). Despite some of the dark things that happen in the film, there are enough pleasant scenes to keep the film from being depressing. It’s a shame that neither Russo or Vartan appear to have done any other films.

¹Various dates of birth are cited online, giving August 11th as the month and day and listing 1966, 1965 or in one instance 1963 at the year, making her anywhere from twelve to fifteen at the time the film was shot (1979). While I can’t prove which, if any, of these are correct, suffice it to say I do have solid evidence that fifteen is probably the upper limit for how old she could have been. As for the character Livia is playing—also named Livia—no age is specified in the film, other than the fact that she’s too young to control her father’s fortune and requires a guardian.

²While the scene does end kind of ambiguously, with Livia and Mike appearing to either sit or lie down, this is the kind of film where if the characters did have sex it would definitely be shown. So I infer they did not, and believe the director intended the audience to understand that Livia remains chaste until a later scene, where that sex takes place is unequivocal—and unfortunate.

³Which I have omitted to avoid making this post too graphic, though to be clear, it’s just acting. Not even Gemser and Tinti, who were married in real life, actually had sex on screen. Nevertheless, some may find it uncomfortably realistic, as no body double is substituted for Livia, but it’s clearly her throughout. Plot-wise, the scene does follow from what was built up before, sad though it is. However, one could question whether it was necessary to film the scene quite so explicitly.

(NOTE TO COMMENTERS: While I appreciate comments on the post, I would prefer that they not focus on the rape scene. While it is perhaps understandable that people would want to comment on it, I would rather you did not unless you have something of significance to add beyond the obvious. There are other areas of the film to discuss.)

Random Images: Xaver Bergmann

Posted on January 5, 2021 by Ron

5

A reader came across this unusual figurine for auction. The really remarkable thing about it is that it is overtly erotic and looking at the physique of the girl, she is clearly very young. It would have been interesting to get into the head of the artist to understand the logic for composing this kind of subject for a Vienna Bronze. I own a very small one of a girl with a mandolin and so it must have been quite common to feature nude subjects in this medium.

Xaver Bergmann – Orientale mit Katze (1850s?)

I believe the title (Easterner [Arab] with Cat) was meant to be suggestive implying an erotic subject. Although there is no date indicated in the auction, Vienna Bronzes were made starting in the 1850s.

Daddy’s Girls and Beautiful Boys: Children’s Sexual Encounters in Graphic Media

Posted on July 16, 2019 by Pip Starr

17

WARNING: The following article contains images of child sexual abuse which may offend sensitive viewers.

[20210617] I am pleased to announce that because we are now no longer in UK jurisdiction, the two images that were removed have been restored. The only versions I could find online were a bit smaller but you can still get the idea and Pip is sending me the comic book for me to make new scans within the next few days.

[20191118] It is ironic and unfortunate that graphic media cannot do its job in the name of protecting people’s sensibility. Due to police action and the UK courts, we must temporarily err on the side of caution in order to protect this site and its host. Therefore, until the legal matter is settled, it will be necessary to remove a Debbie Dreschler image and one other from this post temporarily. My apologies go to our readers who are accustomed to “seeing things for themselves” instead of assuming that the government and courts have our best interests at heart. The text is not at issue at the moment and has been kept intact. -Ron, Editor-in-Chief

You’ll have to excuse me, because this article will be long. But I think it’s warranted and long overdue.

I must confess, my recent discussions with a respondent to our blog who goes by the deceptively mundane, everyman moniker “a parent” has gotten under my skin in a big way. The underlying accusation, though not put into these words exactly, is that Pigtails in Paint is guilty of “sexualizing” children. This we do, according to “a parent”, by repeatedly claiming—whether doing this directly or indirectly he does not say—that children are worthy objects of the sexual attention of adults, or in terms of art, by attempting to “normalize” what some critics refer to as the “pedophilic gaze.”

Let me be absolutely clear here: I object nearly outright to the concept of the “sexualized” child, as well as to “normalization.” These words are loaded language, armchair psychobabble/political spin designed to instill by default the opposite notion that the “normal” child is by nature asexual, a being entirely without carnal thoughts, feelings or motivations, their minds and bodies veritable blank slates upon which only pubescence justly and impartially writes the erotic code that makes them into what we designate in our culture as a full-on adult.

The problem with this viewpoint is three-fold: first and most obviously, there is a ton of evidence that contradicts this supposition, as almost any reputable expert on children can tell you; second, it neglects to incorporate the fact that authorities—parents especially—control the dialogue and shape children sexually whether they believe they are doing so or not; second, it ignores the reality that the moral panic surrounding child sexuality, child sexual abuse and pedophilia (which are related but not inseparable issues) have grown in strength over the last few decades, to the point that we now have an aegrescit medendo situation where children and adults alike are being harmed as much or more by the overreaction of society as by the folk devils to which it is responding.

In one of my replies to “a parent” I held up as evidence for this two major examples: the side effects of conservative regions where girls are more likely to get pregnant because of lack of decent sex education, lack of access to birth control, and so on (not to mention getting stuck with a baby before she’s ready thanks to harsh anti-abortion measures in those places), and kids themselves getting arrested as sex offenders after being caught up in sexting cases. I will add to those the following:

The sex offender registry, which has resulted in more problems than it’s solved, foremost among them that it creates a perfect hit list for legal, physical and social persecution.
The courtesy stigma, name-calling, threats, and educational shutting-out and funding issues that many scholars and researchers face when exploring these issues, especially when their conclusions do not match social and cultural expectations or feed into the biases of politicians.
The growth of a powerful and unduly influential victim culture surrounding sexual abuse which often exploits the moral panic for its own gain at the expense of many innocent people and organizations.
The blatant exploitation of the sexual abuse moral panic by political entities and demagogues, particularly on the right but also on the left, utilizing it as propaganda against their political rivals. (See: Pizzagate and Qanon)
The largely unhelpful “stranger danger” myth, which invests in children a lifelong dread of mostly benign strangers and takes the focus off the real source of most sexual abuse, the child’s own family.
The unhealthy guilt complexes, body image issues and fear of intimacy that many children learn as a result of being taught that good/normal children are sexually (read: morally) pure, a personification many of them are simply unable to live up to, and which our society goes to great lengths to enforce, one way or another.
And, of course, the irreparable harm that has been done to artists such as Graham Ovenden and Jock Sturges and their subjects, forever tainted by their names being dragged through the thoroughly raked muck—not to mention art as a whole, the entire history of children in art being reinterpreted through the child pornography/child exploitation lens, and many artists unwilling to tackle what has traditionally been a favorite subject for them, the nude child or youth, due to fears of social stigma and/or legal reprisals.

There are others, but these are quite sufficient, I think, to get the point across. We at Pigtails are primarily concerned with the last one.

The thing about “a parent” is that he comes across as quite reasonable in general, and that concerns me more than a thousand trolls posting death threats or idiotic insults ever could. Those types of people tend to be so broadly ignorant and clownishly obnoxious that their take on these matters cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, “a parent” has positioned himself as an admirer of simple child nudes, which is understandable. As I have said on a number of occasions, child nudity cannot be equated with sexuality across the board. The conflation of those two things is mainly a Western conceit, predominantly in the Anglophone West: Great Britain, Australia, Canada and the United States. So far, so good.

Another thing is that “a parent” does not believe in the asexual child (or so he claims), and so none of what I wrote above is directly applicable to him. But he plays into this prejudice regardless, because one cannot extricate the idea that children are asexual from the position that they should be seen as such when we look at art featuring them. How is “a parent” able to compartmentalize these two conflicting ideas? His argument basically boils down to this: the artist and the art observer can think such things in an abstract way, but an artist who acknowledges this directly in their work is in violation of the all-important taboo and that must remain forbidden lest it endanger children. In essence, then, intellectual recognition of this scientific fact is fine, but woe to the artist who explores this concept directly in his or her work, who has the unmitigated gall to present the sexual child in imagery. That can only be, according to “a parent”, a sign of a pedophilic wet dream expressed on paper or canvas. Artists who present children erotically must be pedophiles, or why else would they create such work? Moebius? Pedophile. Tamburini and Liberatore? Pedophiles. Neil Gaiman? Obviously a pedophile. I mean, not only did he create the Lantiman of Sauk, he also wrote a rather stirring defense of lolicon with his essay Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech? on his web journal.

Examples of the traditional arts (drawing, painting, sculpture—I’m purposely avoiding dipping into photography here) that either play with eroticism or where children and sexuality meet in some sense are Paul Peel’s A Venetian Bather, Jules Marie Auguste Leroux’s The Mirror, Egon Schiele’s Mädchen mit Federboa, Donatello’s David, Louis Ricardo Falero’s The Planet Venus, works by the Die Brücke collective featuring Fränzi Fehrmann, and Ramon Casas i Carbó’s Flores Deshojadas (Depetaled Flowers), to name a few. But what I want to focus on here is what all of the links in the paragraph above this one have in common: they all feature work from comics artists and writers.

More than any other medium, these have been the target of would-be censors. It’s probably no accident that the one time in American history where an artist was actually convicted on obscenity charges it was for his comics, a medium that has long been viewed as little more than children’s funny books or superhero fantasies by ignorant snobs who don’t understand it. In any case, Mike Diana‘s story is fascinating and should be studied by anyone with an interest in free speech issues and legal precedent. In the late eighties and early nineties the teenage Diana wrote and drew a series of comics with extremely gruesome content—graphic violence and mutilation, rape and child sexual abuse, incest, and likely the most damning offense in the small Florida community where he lived and worked, religious blasphemy—published them in very limited runs at his own expense, and sold them via mail to about three hundred customers around the US for two dollars a pop. Diana had the bad luck of producing his ostentatiously subversive and distasteful work at the same time as the Gainesville Ripper was operating. Diana even became a suspect in those murders, though he was eventually exonerated there. Still, the obscenity charges stuck.

While I cannot defend Diana’s work on its merits (I’m not going to share any of it here; just google it if you’re curious—honestly, it’s so badly drawn and noxious in content that it makes my head hurt to even look at it), the idea that an artist who created something which involved no actual children and that’s about as far from erotic as one can get seems patently absurd to me. I mention this case because it is the extreme, and because, far from accomplishing the goal of “protecting” children from Diana’s work, which almost certainly would’ve been ignored otherwise and slipped into obscurity, all his Kafkaesque trial and conviction really accomplished in the end was putting the spotlight on him and his atrocious art, and now any child who has access to the internet can google it for free. Diana has even had his work shown in international museums. Ho-hum.

Okay, I’ve rambled on long enough. Let’s get to the examples (besides the ones I’ve already linked to). Here is a single panel from a comic I will wait to identify. Out of context, all we can really discern about this image is that it is sexual. The female in bed is performing fellatio on a man, who hovers over her. I will clarify further, because it may not be immediately obvious: the female is a child. Take a good look at it, and withhold judgment if you can. Is this the sort of thing “a parent” would have the government censor?

Debbie Dreschler – Daddy’s Girl (panel)

Now I will identify this image. It is a single panel from the Ignatz Award-nominated semi-autobiographical comic Daddy’s Girl by Debbie Dreschler. This image comes from my own copy of the comic, the square-bound softcover first edition published in 1996 by Fantagraphics. It’s a comic that deals frankly with a young girl’s sexual abuse at the hands of . . . well, a father (not “a father”) during the late fifties and early sixties. In between episodes of sexual abuse, the girl’s life is filled with moments of irony and pathos, such as when her parents take their four children to present gifts to a poor black family during Christmas. The fact that the comic is not subtle about the abuse and does not shy away from depicting it gives Daddy’s Girl a disturbing power that simple fiction could probably never achieve. By design, you cannot look away or consider the abuse as an abstraction. Dreschler forces you to confront it head on. Here are a few pages of this sequence—called Visitors in the Night—for context.

Debbie Dreschler – Daddy’s Girl (1)

Debbie Dreschler – Daddy’s Girl (2)

Debbie Dreschler – Daddy’s Girl (3)

Debbie Dreschler – Daddy’s Girl (4)

I ask again: is this the sort of image that “a parent” would have the state censor? Perhaps. He says:

So my view is that this particular highly specific kind of expression (a drawing graphically depicting sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) should be illegal, even where there’s no proof of direct harm.

He offers a specific set of criteria by which he judges what should or should not be illegal. Many of Dreschler’s images would fall into that category by default. That would be a huge shame, because the work would lose much of its shock value without these scenes. In fact, I’d say it would be nearly impossible for this comic to exist as what it is without such scenes. Maybe “a parent” would differ on that point, but there can be little doubt that these scenes make the work more disturbing than it would otherwise be. And that is the point of them.

Says “a parent”:

Suppose, for example, there is a pen-and-ink drawing in comic-book style of graphic sexual abuse involving an older adult and a prepubescent child. And suppose the artist did not work from photographs or live models in making this drawing, so it can be claimed that there was no “real, direct” harm done. (I’m pretty sure such a thing would be illegal under our current laws, but I’m not absolutely certain, and I’m definitely no expert.) Besides serving as child pornography, what’s the purpose of such a drawing?

I offered an example which fits this description exactly. (And no, such images are not illegal per se, at least not in the US—this has been tested multiple times, and with the exception of Mike Diana, all those artists won their cases.) So, what is the purpose of such drawings? According to “a parent” they can only serve as pornography to stimulate pedophiles. I wonder what Dreschler would think of such an accusation? Maybe I should ask her.

Here is another example from a different comic, Phoebe Gloeckner‘s A Child’s Life. This too is semi-autobiographical . . . and disturbing. Gloeckner’s character Minnie Goetze is a thinly disguised stand-in for her, though Gloeckner herself has never confirmed this, referring to her work simply as fiction. That’s understandable, as she doesn’t just tell her own story—she recounts events from other girls’ lives as well, including a girl called “Tabatha”:

Phoebe Gloeckner – A Child’s Life (1998)

Is this image erotic? Would it turn some folks on? Possibly. But that is not the intent of the artist. Calling this or Dreschler’s blatant depictions of sexual abuse “child pornography” is ignorant and insulting to both of them. Alright, “a parent” might say, so biographical work which clearly isn’t designed to titillate the viewer might get a pass, but what about examples which are less obviously negative?

Okay, let’s take one from Neil Gaiman’s (that perv again!) multiple award-winning series The Sandman, from the one-off issue Ramadan, drawn by the fabulous P. Craig Russell. (Side note: I have the first three of Russell’s Fairy Tales of Oscar Wilde books, and they are absolutely gorgeous.) Ramadan is not really about child sexuality or abuse (you can read a summary of the story here if you’re interested, though I recommend reading the actual comic), but it does feature a relevant scene which I remember being somewhat controversial at the time the comic came out in the early nineties:

P. Craig Russell – The Sandman – Ramadan (detail)

Here is the full page for context:

P. Craig Russell – The Sandman – Ramadan

So now we have an example of straight fiction, nothing autobiographical here. There is a single panel (with an inset) in the whole of the story that fits our topic, and unlike Dreschler’s or Gloeckner’s comics, it does not portray it negatively. In fact, the description written by Gaiman makes the “beautiful boys” sound quite appealing. We see no actual sex there, but arguably the boys are drawn sensuously. Is this, then, child pornography? Of course it isn’t. The drawings reinforce the text, but the intent here is certainly not to arouse the viewer. They are presented as part of a larger tapestry, a lovely scene to reinforce that the narrator is a man who enjoys the pleasures of the flesh, be it women or boys. Since the story’s point-of-view character is Haroun al Raschid, the caliph of a medieval-era Middle Eastern city, it makes absolute sense that his perceptions are not modern, and that Gaiman and Russell, presenting us this scene through Haroun’s eyes, would give us boys that are sexually provocative, not presented as victims but as willing and knowing partners, even if they are technically sex slaves. Now, I’m quite sure Russell does not approve of child abuse, and I know Gaiman doesn’t. Nevertheless, it would’ve been ridiculous to offer this scene judgmentally, through modern eyes. It would’ve been obvious and clumsy, taking the reader out of the story.

“Okay, but why include the images at all? Surely they weren’t necessary,” I can hear “a parent” grumbling now. That is beside the point. It is not an artist’s job to go out of their way to avoid triggering sensitive readers. No one doubts that the abuse of young boys occurred in harems like the one described. That’s a historical fact. To gloss over that detail is to feed into political correctness, and the more artists do that, the more they will be expected to do that, until they face arrest for not doing it. Censorship will not stop where “a parent” thinks it should. It doesn’t work that way. It never has. As Gaiman himself said in Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?:

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don’t. This is how the Law is made.

Whether I find any images of children sexually provocative or not (some might find that image by Dreschler to be arousing; I certainly don’t), my tastes should not be the deciding factor on whether something is illegal or not. Nor should the tastes of “a parent”, nor should the tastes of any particular person or group of persons.

Says “a parent”:

Well, I feel that freedom of expression is very, very important. But it’s not really freedom of expression that’s at issue. It is freedom of a highly specific and narrow range of expression, namely depiction of children as objects of sexual desire. Out of all art and ideas, I think this is an exceedingly tiny slice of a huge pie. Any legislation in this area would leave the vast, overwhelming majority of artistic expression completely unimpeded.

I doubt very much that “a parent” actually believes this, or that he would stand against it if, say, adult porn was on the censor’s chopping block. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I doubt it. He adds, in defense of his view:

It’s critical to realize that child pornography is not on even ground with other “ideas.” We not talking about appealing to the thoughts or the emotions. Appealing to sexual urges–particularly to urges that must harm children if they are fully gratified–is a different basic kind of thing from other types of expression.

Okay. Disregarding for a moment the fact that this is special pleading, I have to ask why is “child pornography”—remember, we’re talking about drawings here—different? Because it is the image of a crime? No, I’ve seen actual photos of murdered children (I wish I hadn’t, but they’re out there)—those are also images of actual crimes, yet they aren’t outlawed. But images of violence do not encourage some unspecified fraction of humanity to commit more crimes, right? Do we know this for a fact? I mean, there have certainly been murderers who have claimed that violent imagery pushed them towards their own murder sprees. Who’s to say it isn’t true? Ah, but it’s a very small percentage of humanity who would be influenced to those ends, eh? Well, “a parent” himself says that pedophiles are such a meager minority that censoring images that might influence them shouldn’t be considered on the same level as other sorts of images, and he says “normal” people, which he defines as the vast majority of humanity, is appalled by such images, and certainly aren’t turned on by them. In other words, not only is he guilty of special pleading, he’s also spouting the bandwagon fallacy as a defense.

Are there folks who get off on violent imagery? Unquestionably. But “a parent” suggests that sex is somehow very different from other provocative concepts like violence, because it doesn’t appeal to thoughts or emotions. Well, what the ever-loving fuck does it appeal to then? A base drive? Is violence not a base drive in us too? Are some people not compelled by their lizard brains to violently destroy that which they hate and fear? Of course they are. But that’s different, because . . .

Because why? Because it doesn’t appeal to pedophiles. That’s it. That’s all it comes down to in the end. They are a tiny minority says “a parent”, and children are too precious and vulnerable to risk them being abused by those few weak souls who might be (not have been, not definitely will be, but might be) encouraged to offend. Look, the only reason to outlaw actual child porn is because it’s consumption encourages the production of more, and we are talking about actual abuse in that case. Children are offended against for the explicit purpose of the production of child porn. In other words, it can only exist because sexual abuse has been committed, and the producer(s) did so with that express purpose in mind. But to extend that argument to drawings, paintings and the like where no real children were actually harmed in its production, on the grounds that it might cause a few people to act out on their sexual urges, is a clear example of thought-crime. You can argue that pedophilia is more than thoughts or feelings all you want to. Hell, I’ll even agree with you on that. But the fact is, when you get right down to it, you are outlawing a thought, an idea, a concept. Make no mistake: if we can outlaw erotic drawings of kids on the grounds that it might cause some people to commit sexual abuse, then it’s not a stretch to suggest that adult porn could likewise be outlawed because it might push some people into rape (sex drive, right?), but we don’t outlaw it on those grounds. Not in America anyway.

Ah, but that’s not why adult porn exists, “a parent” will say. And around and around the circle we go. Most artists, even those who deliberately draw pedophilic erotica, aren’t sitting there thinking, “Ha! I’ll make drawings in order to push people into molesting kids! Mwa ha ha ha!” To make that argument is to assume that anyone with the least bit of interest in such content is inherently immoral, prone to abusing kids and seeking to make others like them. “A parent” says if such content is allowed to exist, kids will be abused because of it. He states it as fact, yet offers no evidence to back it up. Well, I know of a country where a great deal of such content exists, is legal for purchase, indeed is found in comics and magazine shops all around the country. I don’t think I even need to name it. And yet there isn’t scads of child rape and abuse happening there. In fact, that country has low crime rates all the way around. Moreover, many studies show that where porn exists legally, sex offenses tend to plummet. Why would it be any different for child erotica? After all, sex with kids is forbidden across the board, unlike sex with consenting adults. Clearly, having such outlets is more beneficial than harmful. But, by all means “a parent”, offer me evidence which demonstrates that I’m wrong and I’ll reconsider.

Finally (whew!), I will offer this. Here is a comic which actually condones child abuse, brought to you by way of the Kids Tract Club. You reckon it’s been influential?

Artist Unknown (Kids’ Tract Club) – Lil’ Bess (1)

Artist Unknown (Kids’ Tract Club) – Lil’ Bess (2)

Random Scenes: Desire

Posted on December 18, 2018 by Ron

5

The criteria for whether a film portraying a little girl gets reviewed is pretty straightforward: they are the lead of the film or are in an important role as a catalyst to the story. Sometimes there are noteworthy short scenes (or montages) in films—usually in the form of flashbacks—which are important in informing the story. Many of these are worth mentioning but do not really warrant a full film review.

In this case, because of a recent controversy, I have the materials for Desire (Desearas: Al Hombre De Tu Hermana, 2017) on hand and thought I would begin with it. The film is an Argentinian erotic thriller directed by Diego Kaplan. Predictably, the director got into hot water for shooting a scene with two little girls—one of which is depicted as experiencing her first orgasm. A reasonable argument can be made for including the scene as it informs the motivations of one of the protagonists in the rest of the film which, after all, it is an erotic drama.

There is an article by Erin Nyren in which Kaplan responds to accusations of child pornography. In it, he insists that the girls had no idea what they were portraying and were properly supervised at all times. One of the director’s statements is quite apt:

Everything works inside the spectators’ heads, and how you think this scene was filmed will depend on your level of depravity. -Diego Kaplan, Variety, June 30, 2018

Two sisters, Ofelia and Lucia, are watching a John Ford film.

Erika Halvorsen and Diego Kaplan – Desearas: Al Hombre De Tu Hermana (2017) (1)

Erika Halvorsen and Diego Kaplan – Desearas: Al Hombre De Tu Hermana (2017) (2)

One of them gets the idea to build a horse out of pillows and begins riding. The sister follows suit, somewhat less enthusiastically.

Erika Halvorsen and Diego Kaplan – Desearas: Al Hombre De Tu Hermana (2017) (3)

Erika Halvorsen and Diego Kaplan – Desearas: Al Hombre De Tu Hermana (2017) (4)

The sister is confused and alarmed by the behavior and reaction of the other girl. When the girl (rather comically) falls of her ‘horse’, mother is called.

Erika Halvorsen and Diego Kaplan – Desearas: Al Hombre De Tu Hermana (2017) (5)

Believing the girl had an epileptic seizure, mother rushes her to the hospital. In the narration, the protagonist explains that after that day, she has been seeking that experience of ‘fire’ ever since.

Far from being child pornography, as some claim, the scene does nonetheless make some valid comments about sexuality: 1) girls often do experience their first orgasm at such an age—sometimes incidentally while riding horses, 2) in the story, it is explained that the girl was medicated and that speaks to how our society pathologizes sexuality, 3) the reference to an epileptic seizure is also interesting because it is now understood that, biochemically and neurologically, such a seizure closely resembles that of a real orgasm. Some speculate that epilepsy is simply part of the normal orgasm reflex gone haywire.

Sublimated Sexuality in Modern Surrealist Girl Art, Part 1

Posted on August 28, 2018 by Pip Starr

4

I said in my post on Arwassa that I would do a series on Lowbrow artists with a focus on young girls, and I have every intention of honoring that. However, I’ve been mulling it over on how best to approach this, and I’ve decided that rather than focus on individual artists who fit within that movement, I’m going to do this another way, at least for the first few posts (the Arwassa post aside). What interests me most about this type of art, and art in a similar vein, is that there are several recurring elements and themes throughout, and I propose that they are ultimately in service to an important psychological phenomenon currently proliferating through Western culture. To put it euphemistically, now that it’s been well-established that children and sex don’t mix very well, what do we do with the sexual insecurity caused by the inappropriate feelings towards children that I believe almost all adults are prone to from time to time?

Now, please note that I am not suggesting that nearly everyone on the planet is a pedophile or potential pedophile. Pedophilia is a medical designation with a fairly specific set of criteria, and it clearly doesn’t apply to most people. But it is my contention that nearly everyone has had the occasional thought, fantasy or impulse to be sexual with someone who is physically and/or emotionally immature. Despite what detractors may say, human sexuality is primal and complex, with a lot of gray areas, unplanned quirks and latent motivations we don’t always understand, and these deep-rooted devils can result in some fairly convoluted mental gymnastics to repress or deny to ourselves what we have felt. I think such feelings, as much as they may disturb us when we face them head-on, are fairly common and normal. Nevertheless, they are obviously not discussed in the open and give rise to psychological phenomena such as projection and sublimation, including into artistic expressions.

But given how controversial and taboo such feelings are in today’s world, we rarely see these expressions presented as is. What happens instead is that these impulses are somewhat disguised or transmuted into safer or less objectionable representations, or they are thematically linked with other things or events which thoroughly repulse the artist (and by proxy the consumers of his or her artistic output), a bolstering of the desired reaction to such a verboten concept. This is not a new occurrence, of course, but it’s ongoing—and rising—popularity, despite its fringe nature, can only be explained as a growing awareness of the ways in which a phenomenon built on the back of a moral panic is processed both by individuals and by society as a whole, so that the feedback loop becomes self-reinforcing, which is how I imagine an otherwise marginal movement becomes mainstream, or at least no longer on the social periphery.

At any rate, having examined a huge range of this art, I have determined that there are twenty-one recurring themes that link this “movement” (like Symbolism, the erotic girl-child in modern surrealism is not so much a movement of its own as it is mainly a trans-movement that happens to be largely contained within a movement yet is not limited to it), and I shall present examples of each from an assortment of artists over the course of several posts. This is not to say that individual artists will not get their own posts. Some will, particularly those with a large range of applicable pieces and important artists in the pop surrealist movement overall. But it’s important, I think, to familiarize ourselves with the common symbols and themes that link these images, and to examine their relevance with respect to my thesis.

One last thing: I am not at all saying that these trends are always a conscious goal to sublimate unwanted pedophilic desires. In fact, I suspect it rarely is, and it’s entirely probable that the artists are barely aware of the instincts they may be sublimating. That does not, however, decrease their power. Alright, so let’s get started.

(1) References to sexuality or sexual acts – It’s essential in comprehending this work that we recognize that not all of the sexual features of this art are entirely rendered into symbolic or allegorical form. Indeed, it is our first and foremost clue as to what purpose the art serves for its creators and fans. Thus . . .

An eye can become uncomfortably vulvic if arranged perpendicular to its normal orientation, especially if said eye isn’t paired with another. Speaking of eyes, Ana Bagayan’s works fits comfortably in the big-eyed waif/baby doll tradition, but we’ll get to that.

Ana Bagayan – Vega

Ana Bagayan – Fae

Ana Bagayan (official website)

Children confronting adult sexuality shows up occasionally in this work. There is an interesting connotation here. Could “Sebastian” be a homosexual who was persecuted by the 50s-style father, who has turned his children against LGBT folks as well? In any case, the resemblance of the nude male to Michelangelo’s David is unmistakable, and the Amors caught in the crossfire of the little archers suggests love is also a casualty of this execution.

Scott G. Brooks – Sebastian of the Suburbs (2008)

Scott G. Brooks (official website)

Stu Mead – Bedroom Dance (1998)

Stu Mead (official website)

Often it is animals that bring attention to the girl’s sexuality, either as harbingers of it or as direct participants.

Jana Brike – Book of Taboo – Five Sins of Amelia

Squarespace: Jana Brike

Notice the cherries on the ground here:

Rene Lynch – Icons – The Messenger (2006)

Rene Lynch (official site)

Fetishistic outfits and accoutrements become satirical when worn by children.

Jana Brike – The Wet Dreams

trevor-brown-bondage-bear-rubber-doll-2005

Trevor Brown – Bondage Bear – Rubber Doll (2005)

Baby Art (Trevor Brown official site)

There is also a male companion piece by Taillefer for the little female cherub below. You can see him here. Incidentally, an oenophile is a lover of wine. I have no idea what that has to do with the image though, other than a suggestion of general hedonism.

Heidi Taillefer – Oenophile

Heidi Taillefer (official site) [link broken]

(2) Humor and satire – But most of the child sexuality in these works isn’t nearly so overt and confrontational. That it surfaces directly from time to time is perfectly understandable. Sexual instincts are messy. But even when such blatant eroticism makes its way into these works, it tends to be packaged as satire, as is the case with all of the above images. Without its most provocative side showing, much of this young girl art remains satiric in nature, and we can therefore add this as the second of our common characteristics.

Ron English’s clown kid art is the prime example. Clowns serve basically two purposes in modern culture: as satire and as fodder for horror. English embraces the former by presenting clowns as children who indulge in adult pursuits like drinking, smoking and gambling. Sex is merely subtly implied (by the extremely short dress worn by the girl clown in this image).

Ron English – Clown Kids Smoking

Ron English’s Popaganda (official site)

On the other end of the spectrum (but no less absurd) is Mike Cockrill’s clown-murdering Lolitas. Underlying this theme is the pervading fear of many modern parents that they are little more than ineffectual clowns in the face a society where their children are becoming increasingly more worldly and empowered, and the kids will eventually replace all of us hidebound fuddy duddies with their New World Order.

Mike Cockrill – Gossip Girls (2010)

Mike Cockrill – Target (2009)

Mike Cockrill (official site)

Another satirical angle is the adoption of light pop culture elements like cartoons and classic comics juxtaposed against general weirdness. This style was of course exemplified by Robert Williams, founder of pop surrealism, but as his work rarely features little girls, we will instead focus on the work of KRK Ryden (older brother of Mark Ryden, who may be better known, but KRK, ten years Mark’s senior, became an artist well before Mark did). Both brothers’ work is laden with little girls, but for different reasons. In KRK’s work they serve as the moral and spiritual center of an otherwise out-of-control culture, though they certainly aren’t spared KRK’s satiric touch.

KRK Ryden – Rendevouz (2007)

KRK Ryden – Shitzville

KRK Ryden (official site)

(3) Cartoonish body exaggerations, particularly of the head, face and eyes – This leads naturally into our third common trait. You should have realized by now that much of this art features more than one of these traits, but of them all, this may be the most universal. Of course, not all of the figures in the art have this trait, but a solid majority appears to. Cartoons are cute and nonthreatening, and that’s partly the point here. Does it become more troubling when the cartoon girls are behaving more humanly? More… grown-up?

Audrey Kawasaki – Lick Face (2005)

Audrey Kawasaki (official site)

LostFish – My Melody Dolly (2011)

LostFish (official site)

The references to Orwell and the modern surveillance state gives this next piece even more relevance in light of our thesis. One common fear among those who have had erotic thoughts about the underaged is that if they aren’t careful and pursue the thoughts too far on the internet, they might be exposed and labeled for life. Overcompensation is common, but these fears still manage to be expressed in symbolic ways, even if several steps removed from their original aspect.

Mario S. Nevado (Aégis) & Liran Szeiman – Big Brother (2013)

Aégis Strife (Mario Nevado official site)

Liransz (Liran Szeiman official site)

Mark Ryden’s name has of course become synonymous with this style.

Mark Ryden – St. Barbie

Mark Ryden (official site)

(4) Girl-women; actual age or maturity level of figures difficult or impossible to discern – And finally for this post, another recurring theme in this work is the girl-woman, a being not quite child and not quite woman but something in-between, and not necessarily adolescent either, but rather an almost alien or mutant form that could be either but feels almost ageless. The cultural value here is similar to that of the kawaii concept in Japan: it is the ability to give anything, including adult sexuality, a sheen of child-like innocence and cuteness without surrendering entirely to a pedophilic instinct. Not that it would be a problem for most people anyway, if only they accepted it for what it was and moved on. But as a species we seem doomed to never move beyond our sexual hangups. How fortunate for fans of subversive art!

Audrey Kawasaki – Horsegirl (2006)

Jana Brike – Parallel Lives – Beekeeper’s Bride

Pay attention to the details of this John John Jesse piece:

John John Jesse – Petit Lapin

Instagram: John John Jesse

Kukula – Wind-Up Girl

Kukula (official site)

Most of these artists will appear again in future installments of this series.

Egon Schiele’s Mädchen mit Federboa

Posted on March 28, 2018 by Pip Starr

4

I have said before that exploring the concept of the erotic child in art is not necessarily pornographic, and the work of German Expressionist painter Egon Schiele is a good example of what I mean. Though he generally focused on adult women in erotic poses, he did sometimes paint young girls as well. Even at the time his work was controversial, and pieces like the following have only solidified the controversy.

I must confess that I do not generally like Schiele’s work. With their sharp angles, garish colors and attention to unpleasant details, his portraits frequently border on the grotesque. But Mädchen mit Federboa, despite its shocking content, is actually somewhat artistically restrained for Schiele. The colors are still bright, but other than the borderline clownish crimson smears at her cheeks, they don’t feel out of place or overdone. And the little girl is properly proportioned and not overly angular nor posed obscenely. Some have called this a masterpiece. That might be pushing it, but I do think it’s one of Schiele’s better pieces.

This painting, which was estimated to sell for somewhere between $660,000 and $880,000, went up for auction at the Ketterer Kunst in Munich, Germany in 2015. If anyone can track down how much it actually sold for, I would be appreciative.

Edit: A reader has generously responded with an answer to my query. (Thank you, Patricia!) The final sale price appears to have been around €625,000, which is approximately $770,000. So right smack in the middle of the estimate range. Nice! – Pip

Egon Schiele – Mädchen mit Federboa (1910)

Bonds of Blood: Two Adaptations of a Vampire Story

Posted on January 31, 2017 by Ron

10

* * * Spoiler Alert * * *

For some reason, one of our readers took me to task for reviewing the film, Le tout nouveau testament. One of the titles he suggested I review instead was Let Me In (2010), a British-American film directed by Matt Reeves. In the mean time, a good friend of mine told me about a film he had just watched called Let the Right One In (2008), a Swedish film written and directed by John Ajvide Lundqvist. When Pip informed me they were based on the same story, I was curious why there were two similar films produced in such close succession.

I had hoped to find a clue in some interview, but Matt Reeves’ explanation was not forthcoming. He knew that the Swedish film was about to be released. Did he not think there would be a dubbed English version in due course? The main motivation of the story revolves around a 12-year-old boy being bullied and hoping—but being too afraid—to get his revenge. In a roundtable interview, Reeves explains:

Sure. Well, I was bullied. And I grew up at that time, and my parents went through a very painful divorce. And I identified with that sense of being incredibly confused and the sense of humiliation and the sense of isolation. There’s tremendous shame with being bullied. I think there’s a level at which you think that there’s a reason that you’re being singled out, that you’re being chosen. As a kid, I was always mistaken for a girl. -Reprinted by Michael Leader, November 4, 2010

A telling difference in the two versions of the film was that Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) was called “piggy” (such an insult does not suggest fatness as it does in America) while Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) was called a “little girl” and in the latter film the violence of the bullying was more explicitly violent and humiliating.

Apart from a teaser in Reeves’ version which the filmmaker must have felt was necessary to interest an American audience in the movie, the two films follow the story almost word for word. The story begins in the early 1980s with an older man and a young girl—also appearing to be 12 years old—moving in next door to a boy who lives with his divorcing mother. In Reeves’ version, the mother is especially religious. Those observing this scene are supposed to assume the man is her father with the peculiar fact that the girl is walking around with bare feet even though it is outside.

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (1)

In Lundqvist’s novel and film, the girl is called Eli (pronounced “Ellie” and played by Lina Leandersson) and in Reeves’, it is Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz). They first meet when the boy is sitting in the courtyard. She appears behind him and immediately tells him that they cannot be friends. He is playing with a Rubik’s Cube and invites her to try it. He comments that she smells funny, apparently a trait of vampires who need to feed. Due to some bad luck, her caregiver was not able to secure her some blood and she has to fend for herself this night. He gives her the puzzle to play with and later finds it sitting in the courtyard, mystified that she solved it so easily.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (1)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (2)

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (2)

Despite the girl’s admonition, a bond does seem to form. Her caregiver has noticed this and strenuously advises her not to see the boy anymore.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (3)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (3)

Since the two live next door to each other, a kind of Morse Code is created so they can communicate through the wall. Still unaware of the girl’s true nature, the boy offers her some candy. At first, she declines, but she wants the boy to like her and tries one piece. It does not agree with her and she is momentarily sick.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (4)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (4)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (5)

The Swedish film is more subtle in its presentation which is why I favor it slightly. In fact, the revelation of what is happening is all implied and depends on our own understanding of vampire lore. Lundqvist’s version does not even mention the word vampire throughout the film. No stranger to violence, the girl advises the boy that he needs to hit back hard, even though he is outnumbered. All the while, he fantasizes in the privacy of his bedroom that he confronts his aggressors with a knife.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (5)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (6)

On a field trip, the bullies once again threaten him and tell him he will end up in the frozen pond. To defend himself, he finds a stick. When confronted, he explains that it he will use it to hit back. Given his track record, the other boys do not believe him and he suddenly lashes out and strikes the leader on the side of his head, giving him a serious injury. The adults unaware of the context of this attack come very close to suspending him. Upon his return home, he explains to Eli/Abby what he has done and she says she is proud of him. After another night of feeding, the girl appears on Oskar/Owen’s windowsill and asks to be let in. The boy is half asleep, but she explains that she must be invited in—another vampire trait which the boy does not immediately catch on to. She disrobes and gets into bed with him. She still has blood on her face so she tells him not to look. He comments that she is ice cold and wonders why she is naked. She asks if he finds that gross but he does not object. He decides to ask if she wants to go steady but she does not really understand. She finally agrees based on the promise that there will be no basic change in their relationship and it is a way to get him to like her.

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (7)

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (6)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (8)

In the Reeves interview, it was explained that the decision to change the title in the English version of Lundqvists’ novel was because the publisher though the American audience would not be sophisticated enough to understand the metaphor of the original title. New editions have since changed the title back to Let the Right One In. Of course, the correct title offers a greater depth of meaning. Not only does it refer to the requirement that vampires be invited in, but also refers to the risks of inviting a new person into one’s intimate personal life.

Meanwhile, the caregiver has made a serious mistake and his capture is imminent. To avoid being identified, he spills acid all over his face, a shocking clue to the his devotion to the vampire girl. Was his advice to the girl more about keeping her out of trouble or was it a form of jealousy? Eli/Abby learns he is in the hospital under top security. She finds out his room location and visits him from the windowsill. Because of his injuries, he cannot speak and invite her in. In one last act of love, he extends his own neck out the window so he may offer her one last meal.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (7)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (9)

This turn of events has brought her closer to the boy and she decides she must risk revealing what she is. He hesitantly accepts her but not until she makes a most extraordinary leap of faith. She visits his home and asks to be invited in. He teases her about this ritual and asks if there is some barrier preventing her from entering. She walks in without the invitation and shortly begins convulsing in pain, blood seeping out. The boy rushes over and urgently tells her she is welcome to come in.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (8)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (10)

He lets her take a shower to get cleaned up and offers her one of his mother’s dresses. Now Oskar/Owen begins to assume the role of helping the girl get food. In both films, a man investigating the peculiar happenings of the town is lured into the girl’s home and ambushed. The boy is shocked by the viciousness of the attack and walks out in distress. She comes out afterward and tries to show her gratitude with a little affection.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (9)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (11)

Eli/Abby, not being able to stay in any one place too long, informs the boy that she must leave soon. In the mean time, the older brother of the lead bully is planning revenge and manages to draw the coach away from the swimming pool where Oskar/Owen is working out. He is told that if he can stay underwater for three minutes, he will be spared, if not, he will have his eyes gouged out. We then see him underwater with the brother’s hand firmly grasping his hair while he does his best. Suddenly, there is a lot of commotion and we see bloody severed body parts. The boy emerges to see that he has been rescued by the vampire girl.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (10)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (12)

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (11)

In the final scene, the boy is sitting on a train accompanied by a large trunk on the way to a new hunting ground, the two communicating with each other with the knocks and scratches established earlier in the film.

John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let the Right One In (2008) (12)

Matt Reeves and John Ajvide Lundqvist – Let Me In (2010) (13)

I know I am not the first to make this observation, but the whole development of the vampire idea had as much to do with the terrors of sexuality as with that of violent murder and the metaphor of consumption. This plays very well in this film since there is ongoing tension about the ambiguity of the relationship. Presumably when one is infected, one keeps one’s appearance forever thus Eli/Abby is both a little girl and yet very old. But despite her long life, she still has some naivete regarding matters of love since she would not have had much occasion to practice and learn. There is also a strong accent on the morality of a vampire’s violent lifestyle versus the hateful bullying that children can inflict. A society might frown on a vampire feeding on its citizens, but is it really any worse than the psychological trauma and humiliation that bullied young people suffer? So it is ironic that Oskar/Owen should find affection not from the warm-blooded denizens of his neighborhood, but from the icy embrace of a vampire who understands and appreciates him.

Without Hypocrisy: Maximilian Esposito

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Ron

1

Maximilian Esposito was born in Milan in 1969 and developed a passion for drawing and painting as a child. He attended a Liceo artistico (artistic lyceum) high school, receiving his bachelor’s degree in 1988. His early works represent populated dreamscapes of fantastic and mythological characters inspired by traditional fables of Europe.

Maximilian Esposito - Le Figure di Fantasia (1996) (1)

Maximilian Esposito – Le Figure di Fantasia (1996) (1)

Maximilian Esposito - Capitolo Primo (1989) (1)

Maximilian Esposito – Capitolo Primo (1989) (1)

In 1992, he discovered the mural and had the opportunity to decorate private apartments and public places in Milan and surrounding areas. His style expressed his talent and interest in theatrical stage effects. In 1994, he traveled to New York City where he discovered a restaurant named Trompe l’Oeil (Optical Illusion) in Greenwich Village. Intrigued by the name, he managed to get a contract to completely repaint the walls and ceiling of that restaurant.

Maximilian Esposito - Capitolo Sesto (Alice in Wonderland) (1994) (1)

Maximilian Esposito – Capitolo Sesto (Alice in Wonderland) (1994) (1)

Afterwards, he returned to Italy and began to practice yoga, opening a new chapter in his life. He dedicated himself to this craft and began teaching in Milan until 2012. Making another big change, he moved to Paris, initially devoting himself to photography but then rediscovering the pleasure of drawing, illustration and painting. Between 2013 and 2015, he produced several murals and illustrations, mostly in black-and-white. Yoga and art complement each other in his life—yoga serving as an art form and painting, a form of discipline and meditation.

Maximilian Esposito - Mural, Chaville, France (2013)

Maximilian Esposito – Mural, Chaville, France (2013)

In his youth, he loved to draw young girls—the classic Lolita one might say. But however provocative and erotic these may have been, they were never vulgar. The artist finds pornographic drawings banal and completely lacking in artistic depth. His greatest passion has been his indoor murals featuring female figures exclusively. Some have the quality of woodcut illustrations.

Maximilian Esposito - Capitolo Settimo (1995) (1)

Maximilian Esposito – Capitolo Settimo (1995) (1)

Maximilian Esposito - Disegni vari (1996) (1)

Maximilian Esposito – Disegni vari (1996) (1)

Two stories that have fascinated him the most were Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz. Although both stories have a fairy tale quality, they were creations of the last couple of centuries which carry with them a more modern perception of childhood. He had the idea of creating an illustrated version of The Wizard of Oz in the early 1990s but never fully developed this project. Here are some conceptual drawings that reflect his special emphasis on medieval tradition.

Maximilian Esposito - Capitolo Sesto (Alice in Wonderland) (1994) (2)

Maximilian Esposito – Capitolo Sesto (Alice in Wonderland) (1994) (2)

Maximilian Esposito - Dorothy e altri Disegni (1990) (1)

Maximilian Esposito – Dorothy e altri Disegni (1990) (1)

Maximilian Esposito - Dorothy e altri Disegni (1990) (2)

Maximilian Esposito – Dorothy e altri Disegni (1990) (2)

After moving to Paris, he resumed his work as an illustrator and painter but this time focusing on the figure of the young boy. This little boy is androgynous, much more feminine than masculine, and its eroticism is a refined and dreamy. The artist cannot explain why his artistic sensibility has lead him to the young boy. It is simply a product of his imagination, having no parallels to his personal life.

Maximilian Esposito - Le petit garccedilon egravearmi les eacutetoiles (2015)

Maximilian Esposito – Le petit garçon parmi les étoiles (2015)

Although his subjects and backgrounds are fantastic, the artist manages to express his personality through his characters. They perform the role of pre-adolescents placed in different contexts. This age range offers the greatest emotional tension as they represent the transition between childhood and adulthood. It is the stage of life where the innocent games of youth give way to the anxieties of adult responsibility.

Maximilian Esposito - Dorothy e altri Disegni (1990) (3)

Maximilian Esposito – Dorothy e altri Disegni (1990) (3)

Maximilian Esposito - Disegni vari (1996) (2)

Maximilian Esposito – Disegni vari (1996) (2)

What makes his illustrations stand out are the intriguing compositions and the surreal elements incorporated into the works.

Maximilian Esposito - Capitolo Settimo (1995) (2)

Maximilian Esposito – Capitolo Settimo (1995) (2)

Maximilian Esposito - Capitolo Primo (1989) (2)

Maximilian Esposito – Capitolo Primo (1989) (2)

Maximilian Esposito - Capitolo Quinto (1993)

Maximilian Esposito – Capitolo Quinto (1993)

Unfortunately, very few seem to appreciate this kind of artistry today. And finding people and publishers to hire him has been a frustrating endeavor. Finding a site like Pigtails in Paint has given him some hope that some may appreciate his style. Whatever the future may hold, he is determined to continue to express his artistic universe sincerely and without hypocrisy. Should he gain sufficient recognition, he will be able to continue working on projects for which he is best suited—namely those that feature older children with a delicate disposition.

Maximilian Esposito - Le Figure di Fantasia (1996) (2)

Maximilian Esposito – Le Figure di Fantasia (1996) (2)

Although the artist often chooses popular subjects, readers will undoubtedly have questions about context and interpretation. Pigtails will be delighted to publish some of the more apt examples. You can visit these sites (here and here) for more samples of the artist’s work or for contact information should there be a suitable commission available.

Given the large time and conceptual gap between Esposito’s older and newer work, the artist has decided to establish a web page focusing on his older unpublished material which may be of interest to Pigtails readers.

Spanish Cousins: Carlos Saura

Posted on September 20, 2015 by Ron

Reply

In order for Pip to get screen shots for his film posts, I have had to dig up a number of films for him. In the case of Carlos Saura (b. 1932), director of Cría cuervos, there was some interesting biographical information. Not only was he an avid photographer before deciding to become a filmmaker, but he seemed to be specially compelled by his child subjects. Most probably because of his own childhood experiences, Saura speculated that it was de rigueur for Spanish boys to get their first education about girls and the erotic world via their female cousins. In fact, two films—La Prima Angélica (My Cousin Angelica, 1973) and Pajarico (Little Bird, 1997)—dealt specifically with the childhood romance between cousins. Some mention should also be made of Ana y los Lobos (Ana and the Wolves, 1972) because even though the girls in that film perform the bland role of dutiful children, there are interesting clues about family dynamics which inform many other Saura films.

Lobos is about a young woman, Ana (Geraldine Chaplin), hired by a family to serve as governess for three little girls—Natalia (Nuria Lage), Carlota (Maria José Puerta) and Victoria (Sara Gil). Three brothers and their mother live on the estate and over time, Ana learns that each of these four characters have terrible neuroses which she takes in stride with both curiosity and amusement. The men react badly to this and, in the end, punish and murder her. The girls are in the background during the entire film, but do not stand out as characters, performing their roles as well-behaved stereotypical little girls. There is one distressing incident when the girls find their dolly buried in mud and her hair cut by one of the brothers. As the drama plays out, there is always this tension in the back of one’s mind about how the girls will develop and be treated when they grow up.

Carlos Saura - Ana y los Lobos (1972)

Carlos Saura – Ana y los Lobos (1972)

Angélica seems an autobiographical account of Saura’s own late childhood. The lead character, Luis, is interring his mother’s bones in the family crypt, staying with his aunt, with whom he spent some memorable summers. During the visit, he recalls incidents from his first summer there almost forty years earlier. The flow of the story is confusing at first until one realizes that the same actor (José Luis López Vázquez) is playing Luis and the young Luisito and you have to pick up clues from the scene to keep it straight. An additional ambiguity is that his beloved cousin Angélica (Lina Canalejas) has a little girl Angélica (Maria Clara Fernandez de Loaysa, who also played her mother as a little girl in flashbacks). The elder Angélica seems always to be wearing a kind of proper uniform during reminiscences. The presence of an older adult actor playing a child makes him appear like a developmentally-delayed adult. It is disconcerting at times when he leers with fascination at Angélica as in one scene where the family thinks nothing of undressing and dressing the young girl within eyeshot of her cousin.

Carlos Saura - La Prima Angélica (1973) (1)

Carlos Saura – La Prima Angélica (1973) (1)

There is a lot of fun interplay shown in the film between Luis and both Angélicas. In one scene, he is dressed in a Roman uniform and told to stand like a statue while Angélica makes faces at him, seeing if she can get him to crack up.

Carlos Saura - La Prima Angélica (1973) (2)

Carlos Saura – La Prima Angélica (1973) (2)

The younger Angélica is curious about Luis’ old relationship with her mother, asking a lot of questions about it and seeing if she stacks up to her mother.

Carlos Saura - La Prima Angélica (1973) (3)

Carlos Saura – La Prima Angélica (1973) (3)

A strong friendship is rekindled with Angélica and her family and Luis forms a pretty strong one-on-one bond with the daughter. One day, he takes her to where her mother etched their names on a tombstone.

Carlos Saura - La Prima Angélica (1973) (4)

Carlos Saura – La Prima Angélica (1973) (4)

The young Angélica jokes about how the boys take no interest in her because she is not well-developed, supposedly unlike her mother at the same tender age of 9.

Carlos Saura - La Prima Angélica (1973) (5)

Carlos Saura – La Prima Angélica (1973) (5)

Luis then flashes to a time when the elder Angélica showed him her first bra, with him begging her to show him again.

Carlos Saura - La Prima Angélica (1973) (6)

Carlos Saura – La Prima Angélica (1973) (6)

Although Luis seems to be enjoying his visit, a lot of bad memories of the war are associated with it as well. He decides that he has had enough self-indulgence and decides it is time to leave. The younger Angélica is outside riding a bike and Luis asks if he can try it before departing. He pedals with her riding along and we get one final flashback of him having done the same thing with her mother. Apparently, it was part of a scheme to runaway together, but the youngsters’ plans are foiled when they encounter a patrol who brings them home where they are then punished for their folly—never to be together again.

Carlos Saura - La Prima Angélica (1973) (7)

Carlos Saura – La Prima Angélica (1973) (7)

Carlos Saura - La Prima Angélica (1973) (8)

Carlos Saura – La Prima Angélica (1973) (8)

Saura’s view of life seemed quite pessimistic in the 1970s with characters expressing all manner of dysfunction with only one precious memory of romance. Even in Lobos, the matriarch makes mention of the scandal of a family member falling in love with his cousin. Over the years, the director must have mellowed as he attempted a more modern version of this family romance in Pajarico. The three brothers seem to be modeled after those from Lobos, but in nobler forms. This time the girl is called Fuensanta (Dafne Fernández) and the boy, Manuel (Alejandro Martinez), is played by a 10-year-old. There are a number of similarities to Angélica with Manuel being “abandoned” by his parents for the summer and needing to stay with his extended family in Murcia. The film is divided into three chapters, each dedicated to one of the uncles. The first is Juan, who picks up Manuel. His namesake in Lobos was a womanizer with dark erotic fantasies, but this one is an artist and appreciates women in an aesthetic way. He makes his living running a tailor shop and a number of women work there. Manuel has three girl cousins but we see very little of the other two, Amalia (Rebeca Fernández) and Sofia (Andrea Granero) . Fuensanta makes a big entrance at the shop wearing a fancy dress. This worm’s-eye view is the result of her being picked up and placed immediately on the counter by her father.

Carlos Saura - Pajarico (1997) (1)

Carlos Saura – Pajarico (1997) (1)

Juan takes Manuel and Fuensanta to draw and learn the finer points of color and composition. Later, he shows them some art books and expresses some envy at the skills of past artists—the way they were able to add mystery to their work.

Carlos Saura - Pajarico (1997) (2)

Carlos Saura – Pajarico (1997) (2)

Fuensanta playfully coaxes Manuel onto the roof where they bond and share some secrets.

Carlos Saura - Pajarico (1997) (3)

Carlos Saura – Pajarico (1997) (3)

Fuensanta’s first big secret introduces us to the second uncle, Fernando. His namesake in Lobos is quite disturbed by his homosexual proclivities and devoted himself to meditation and penance in a whitewashed cave. He was the one who cut the dolly’s hair and buried her. This Fernando is seen making love with his boyfriend, Tony, in the cellar of a pastry shop where he works. The children are bemused by this spectacle.

Carlos Saura - Pajarico (1997) (4)

Carlos Saura – Pajarico (1997) (4)

Fernando is an artist too and plays the cello beautifully. Unfortunately, his lover has fallen in love with a woman and is planning marriage. In a state of despondency, Fernando has a heart attack and is sent to the hospital. The third uncle is Emilio and, like his counterpart (named José in Lobos), is the de facto head of the household even though the decrepit grandfather still lives. He is a scientist, an optometrist of sorts who practices the rare craft of iridology. The children wander into his office and explore a bit before coming upon him. He explains that the iris tells a story about each person and asks Fuensanta to sit in front of a machine so he can examine her iris.

Carlos Saura - Pajarico (1997) (5)

Carlos Saura – Pajarico (1997) (5)

He finds a mysterious pattern in one region he cannot explain. It is meant to hint at Fuensanta’s telepathic abilities. For example, the grandfather is only partially lucid and so sometimes makes strange-sounding requests. Whenever this happens, she quickly explains that he is simply asking for orange juice or wishes to have the blinds closed. Mistaking Manuel for his favorite son, Antonito, and knowing he will die soon, grandfather decides to reveal a secret he has never told anyone before.

Carlos Saura - Pajarico (1997) (6)

Carlos Saura – Pajarico (1997) (6)

Apparently, one of the secrets Fuensanta shared with Manuel was her telepathy. The rest of the family only learn of it when grandfather inexplicably disappears and only Fuensanta knows how to find him. He is discovered in a park and he says he got lost while trying to get to the sea. Emilio promises to take him there and there is a final idyllic scene with grandfather sitting in a chair staring into the sea while everyone else frolics on the beach. The instant he passes away, Fuensanta senses it immediately and turns around to look back at him.

Carlos Saura - Pajarico (1997) (7)

Carlos Saura – Pajarico (1997) (7)

Manuel might have had more time with his uncles and cousins except for the funeral compelling his parents to return and then take him home. Looking one last time at Fuensanta, Manuel realizes he will never see her again as she is now.

Carlos Saura - Pajarico (1997) (8)

Carlos Saura – Pajarico (1997) (8)

The Girl as Unrequited Lover: Ana Torrent, Pt. 3 (El Nido)

Posted on August 22, 2015 by Pip Starr

2

This post comprises the third and final entry in our Ana Torrent film series. Before we begin, I would like to point out that, because the quality of film available to me was relatively poor—bleary, washed out and dim—the stills taken from it are not as good as I would’ve liked. Nevertheless, I took over 120 stills in all and sifted through them to get what I believe were the finest examples from the bunch. Anyway . . .

Although El Nido (The Nest) was a contender for Best Foreign Language Film at the 1981 Academy Awards, the Oscar instead went to Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears. El Nido is an odd little film directed by Jaime de Armiñán and is widely considered his best film. It stars Victor Alterio as an aging but spry widower and the then 13-year-old Ana Torrent as the young girl he becomes infatuated with. Torrent won Best Actress for her performance at the 1980 Montreal Film Festival, as well she should have. Though Armiñán lacks the artful flair of Erice or Saura, this was a solidly directed film, and I find it strange that I had never heard of it before, only discovering it when I began to look deeper into the early career of Ana Torrent. So imagine my surprise when I discovered she had starred in Spain’s answer to Lolita!

The film opens with Alejandro (Alterio), a wealthy and reclusive widower, listening to classical music in his living room and pretending to conduct the orchestra. We see him first in silhouette; when we first see him in the flesh, he’s riding a horse through the forest. Again, he seems to be conducting an orchestra, though this time the music is in his head. Alejandro is something of a dreamer and a rebel, a man who walks to the beat of his own drum, and the drum he hears is distinct in his head. It isn’t a drum, actually; it is Joseph Haydn’s oratorio The Creation, a piece based on the Book of Genesis and inspired by Milton’s Paradise Lost, a poem that is, in part, about the Fall of Man. Foreshadowing perhaps?

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (1)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (1)

Alejandro’s cerebral concert is interrupted by an egg striking his head. Befuddled as to its origin, he rides away, only to find a red scarf monogrammed with a ‘G’ attached to a tree limb. Back at home, Al amuses himself by listening to his music and playing chess against a computerized board. He tells the game, “I see you coming. But I will not fall into your trap.” Definitely foreshadowing. Meanwhile, the scarf still intrigues him. To whom does it belong? Amparo, Al’s housekeeper, comes in, interrupting his reverie. Al has an antagonistic relationship with the woman, who puts up with his moodiness and eccentricities with great forbearance. The two exchange shouts and insults more often than not. Al really doesn’t want her there, and only tolerates her presence because she manages the household affairs, leaving him to his daydreams, the only thing that makes him happy since his wife’s demise. Amparo berates him for letting basic household upkeep slip, using his dead wife’s memory to guilt trip him, but Al is not interested in such things.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (2)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (2)

Again Al wanders into the woods, this time finding a note with a feather attached that says, “The goldfinch feather will take you to the great tree. G.” He can’t help but follow the clue. His curiosity stoked, he climbs up the remains of the ancient dead tree he frequently visits, only to find another note pinned to the top, again with a feather. “The jay feather will lead you down the stream. G.” At the stream, Al finds yet another note and feather, this one stuck to a limb out in the midst of the stream. Having to traverse the swift waters to get to it, Al is both amused and a little exasperated. The note reads: “The feather of the hawk will take you to the tower. G.” Who would go to such trouble to torment the old man so?

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (3)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (3)

Back at home, Alejandro tries to figure out where the clues came from. After a lead he’s given by Amparo turns out to be a dead end, he decides to visit his only real friend in town, the local parish priest, Eladio. Although Al is an atheist with a dim view of religion, and he and the priest often exchange insults, it is clear that the two men are quite fond of each other. Al brings Eladio a box of chocolates and asks for his help in identifying the handwriting from the notes. The priest is a scholar and has some knowledge of graphology, among other things. He identifies the writing as that of a young girl, and suggests she is stubborn and uneducated but has some native intelligence, sensitivity, passion and a sense of humor. These qualities suggest someone who is a good match for Alejandro, if not as a lover then at least as a companion.

The priest also identifies the tower referred to in the final note as the bell tower of his own church. He and Al decide to climb the tower to look for the next clue. Here Al wonders why the girl has chosen him. What exactly does she see in him? The priest says it’s because he’s a fool and that she’s toying with him for her own amusement. They find the clue, which says, “Falcon feathers will take you to the performance. G.” Eladio warns Al that this game could lead to trouble, and informs him that the local school children are putting on a performance of Macbeth. It seems that Al’s mystery girl may be even younger than he anticipated.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (4)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (4)

And here we get our first glimpse of the girl, Goyita, (Ana Torrent), who is portraying Lady Macbeth in the play, a difficult and nuanced part that requires great acting skills. Al is immediately taken with the girl’s performance even in the rehearsal. It is evident now that this is no ordinary young girl. She is precocious, spirited and beautiful. I must say: how differently Ms. Torrent looks here than she did in her earlier films! She reminds me a bit of the young Natalie Portman. As Lady Macbeth, some of her lines are provocative. “Come to my woman’s breasts and take my milk for gall, you murd’ring ministers,” she says. These are not words one would ordinarily hear coming from the lips of a middle school-aged child. Al is a captive audience, and Goyita is, in turn, distracted by Al’s presence to the point where it begins to affect her performance.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (5)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (5)

Having been ejected from the rehearsal by the teacher, Al waits for Goyita outside until the rehearsal is over. Their first meeting is in the town square, in the street. Alejandro walks Goyita home, quoting lines from Macbeth himself. Meanwhile, Goyita’s teacher spots them walking together and is obviously concerned. Al—and the audience—finds out here that Goyita is only 13 years old. No wonder her teacher is worried. We also learn that Goyita has been aware of Al for years, and it is only recently that she has decided to get his attention, although she did so coyly, through her little game with the notes and feathers. Isn’t that exactly like something a 13-year-old girl would do? Usually their affections are reserved for boys much closer to their own age though.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (6)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (6)

They soon arrive at Goyita’s home. It turns out that her father is a policeman. This certainly complicates things. Before they part ways, Goyita mentions that she also knew Alejandro’s wife, yet another element that will cement their bond. And as she is ascending the stairs to her family’s apartment, she whistles. What do you think the tune is? None other than Hadyn’s The Creation, of course. Is it deliberate? Well, Goyita has said that she knows where Al lives. It’s possible—even likely—that she’s heard him listening to this same oratorio. So, it seems she knows very well what she’s doing. The last thing she does before entering her home is stomp several times on the floor, an act which indicates that, although preternaturally bright and mature, she is still a kid after all. Kids tend be noisy when they’re happy. What is the source of Goyita’s joy?

Immediately she is confronted by the police sergeant, who criticizes her for being too loud. Goyita’s relationship with the stern and unpleasant sergeant is one of mutual dislike and mistrust, as we will see.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (7)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (7)

Back at home in his study, Al asks Amparo if anyone has come to visit. He is eagerly awaiting a visit from his new little friend. He dials the number of the police station, but when someone answers, Al doesn’t speak, afraid to reveal his identity and why he’s calling. The officer on the other end hangs up on him.

We cut to Goyita’s home, where her family is eating dinner. She is in fact the oldest of four children. Psychologists interested in birth order might suggest that this accounts for at least some of Goyita’s high intelligence and early maturity. During dinner, Goyita’s mother criticizes her for climbing trees, calling her a naughty tomboy. It seems poor Goyita is constantly being attacked from all sides. One might say she is the typical misunderstood teen, only she is anything but typical. Goyita’s mom also uses this opportunity to criticize her husband, Goyita’s father, whom she considers a lazy and ineffectual disciplinarian.

Soon the sergeant appears, inviting himself into the house. Goyita’s dad rises when the sarge—his boss—enters. Since the family lives over the police station, the sarge is apt to appear at any time. The sergeant insinuates that Goyita has been climbing to the building’s roof, and the girl curtly answers, “That’s a lie,” earning her a smack to the back of the head from her mom. We find out that Goyita’s given name is actually Gregoria; Goyita, or sometimes Goya, is a diminutive nickname. The sarge accuses Goyita of leaving the attic door open and of breaking out a window. She denies it, but her mother takes the sergeant’s side. She ends Goyita’s meal and sends her to her bedroom as punishment for these offenses.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (8)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (8)

Alejandro prowls around Goyita’s school, waiting for her to get out of class. Goyita’s teacher, Marisa, spots him and addresses him. Their conversation is warm and friendly. I can’t help but think that, if such a thing occurred in this day and age, the teacher would likely call the authorities immediately, and she certainly wouldn’t be friendly towards the man. In fact, she apologizes for being rude to him the other day when she chased him away from the rehearsal. Meanwhile, Goyita watches the conversation from a nearby window. She seems worried. What are her teacher and her new friend discussing?

Well, Marisa is inviting him to the performance of Macbeth! The old man isn’t sure he’ll be able to make it, though of course there is a powerful drawing card in the form of Goyita. He wonders if Goyita was assigned this difficult role as some kind of punishment. This isn’t a bad assumption. Goyita certainly has a tendency to be mischievous. But no, she is studying acting and volunteered for the part. She’s the real deal, Al realizes, a girl truly interested in the arts. His fascination for her only deepens.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (9)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (9)

Later, Alejandro enters an artist’s studio that’s full of old paintings and objets d’art. It should come as no surprise that Alejandro is an aesthete, an admirer of beautiful things. The artist turns out to be a young woman he is well acquainted with by the name of Mercedes. Indeed, the two are lovers and their relationship is something of an open secret. Yet, their relationship is well organized, with Al showing up at certain times each month. This time, however, he has shown up early. Something—or someone—has stirred up his passion, causing him to break out of his usual routines. I wonder who that someone could be?

When a young couple shows up at the studio to invite Mercedes to some film event, she casually informs them that she and Alejandro are lovers. Al feels like she is mocking him because she doesn’t really want to be seen with the old man. She promptly informs him that he doesn’t understand her at all. She’s right, for, although the two are lovers, they aren’t really compatible, though not because of their age difference. They simply have different temperaments. Anyway, to prove her sincerity, Mercedes drags him into the street and kisses him passionately before all and sundry. There can be no doubt now that she cares about him, but what are his feelings toward her? Note that she’s wearing red, the same color we usually see Goyita in. Red has long been associated with passion and sexuality; so it is here.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (10)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (10)

Goyita shows up at Al’s home on her bicycle. The gardener nearly sends her away, but Al happens to see her ride up and alerts her to his presence and meets her on the lawn. His joy at her presence is obvious. This is a man in love, no doubt. Though Al is pleased to see her, he also takes time to lecture her about leaving home without her parents’ sanction.

Today this same story would be spun another way: Al would be a selfish sexual predator, a one-note villain who doesn’t really care about Goyita and manipulates her to get into her pants, and Goyita would be a lonely innocent who doesn’t understand what she’s getting into. It would be a cautionary tale about the dangers of underage girls meeting up with strange older men. But this film is far too classy and nuanced for that. Alejandro does care about the girl, and while his emotions are running high, sex is the farthest thing from his mind at this moment.

Unfortunately, Al’s scolding, though gentle, upsets Goyita and she storms off. But Al intercepts her; he doesn’t want her to leave, of course. She says she came by yesterday and he was gone; she asks where he was. He was in Madrid, he tells her, a bald-faced lie. He was actually in Salamanca (which, incidentally, suggests their town is somewhere in the vicinity of Avila), meeting his lover. Perhaps, then, Goyita has another reason to be upset. Does she intuitively understand that he has been with a lover? Maybe she is jealous after all. Yet, she decides to stay.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (11)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (11)

As the two walk through the woods, Goyita insists that Alejandro not visit her at the school, or talk to her teacher for that matter. More jealousy? It must be said, the young teacher is quite beautiful. Or is Goyita simply worried that word of their meetings will get back to her parents? Whatever the case, Al promises to do neither of those things in the future. Next she wants to know why he wears a beard, telling him that it makes him look old. This is our first real hint that Goyita’s feelings about Al are more than emotional. She desires for him to look younger, more pleasing to her eye, which means she has been assessing his appearance as someone of the opposite sex. And yet, when he asks her if she’d like him to get rid of it, she emphatically replies, “No.” She is confused by her own feelings, perhaps even fighting them. They hear a bird chirping in the vicinity. Is it a goldfinch, Al wonders? Goyita identifies it as a coal tit. She is forever correcting him on his bird identifications thereafter. The girl definitely knows her birds! Is she equally adept at identifying the bees? Well . . .

Goyita asks about his necklace, which he tells her is a talisman meant to remind him of the concentration camp he was put into by the Francoists during the Spanish civil war. It’s interesting that all three of the Ana Torrent films we have examined are connected to the Spanish Civil War in some way; few outside Spain can imagine the impact of that event on the lives of those who lived through it and through the Franco regime. Al in turn asks Goyita how she knew his wife. As it so happens, she was, like Goyita, a bird nest enthusiast.

In one of the most poignant scenes in the film (which kicks off an extended montage sequence set to music of The Creation), Alejandro and Goyita stand near what appears to be a broken monument in the countryside, both pretending to be conductors. This is a metaphorical manifestation of their love for each other and their perfect compatibility, as they work together to conduct their imaginary orchestra. In their minds they are perfectly in sync; but, of course, the realm of the imagination is not reality. Previously Al had occupied the raised spot in their relative positions, but in an act that conveys multiple layers of meaning, Al steps down and leads Goyita to the higher position. He is not only demonstrating his true love for the girl by literally placing her on a pedestal, he is also stepping down from his post as representative of his generation and allowing the next generation to replace him. He’s old and he knows it, soon to die. More foreshadowing.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (12)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (12)

As the montage continues, they dance. Couples dancing has a semiotic relationship to sex. This doesn’t mean that Alejandro and Goyita have had sex (or will), only that if they did, it might look something like this—honest, attentive, joyful and elegant. We will see the dancing again, and each time it happens, the camera moves in a little closer as their relationship becomes more intimate. In another kind of dance, the two circle and weave around each other on their bicycles. Their relationship is being forged and strengthened with these actions.

The montage continues with skeet shooting, Al shooting the skeet while Goyita works the skeet thrower. He’s a crack shot. Remember that, because it will be relevant later. This is also another sexual metaphor. Al then teaches Goyita to fire the shotgun. Again, these activities do not imply actual sex; they merely indicate what a sexual relationship would be like between them, a perfect give and take. Despite their huge age difference, they are perfectly compatible in their shared world. Would that this was all there was. But it isn’t. The reality is, they must contend with the rest of the world, and there is where their compatibility breaks down, for their huge age disparity will inevitably mean heartbreak for Goyita.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (13)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (13)

The montage continues to unfold, and we see our pair riding horses together, a bit more dancing, and then they play Leapfrog. It is interesting to note that, among the activities supposedly enjoyed by Edgar Allen Poe and his own 13-year-old bride was this game. The couple lived in New York City (specifically, Fordham) for a brief time, and there are accounts of Poe and Virginia playing Leapfrog in Central Park with friends of theirs. Finally, Alejandro and Goyita climb a tree to examine a bird’s nest before the montage ends.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (14)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (14)

Later, as they prepare for bed, Goyita’s two younger sisters, as small children are wont to do, tease their elder sibling about having a boyfriend. Goyita denies that Alejandro is her boyfriend, and the sisters call him a holy fool. They have no idea what that means; they’ve only heard the sergeant refer to Al by this term. It starts an argument between Goyita and her sisters.

Back at Alejandro’s place, Al proclaims to Father Eladio that he’s a normal man, and yet he’s obsessed with this young girl. The implication here is that Al is no pedophile or sex deviant; he has never been interested in young girls before, but now he finds himself in love with one. To be fair, Goyita is hardly an average girl. But what a quandary to be in! Eladio tells him that if he didn’t know Al, he would’ve reported him to the authorities, yet he knows his friend would never hurt the girl. Eladio suggests that Al should marry his lover Mercedes to get his mind off the girl and put an end to his loneliness. Eladio asks how old the girl is, to which Al replies “110 years,” a joke referring to Goya’s precocious nature.

When they meet again, Goyita asks Alejandro what a holy fool is, to which he describes himself to a T, right down to the clothes he wears. Goyita has the gardener call the police station to inform them that “Goya Menendez is eating dinner with her school friend.” Again, Al lectures her about lying, especially to her parents. Goyita dons Al’s headphones, a gesture meant to convey that she isn’t listening to Al’s lecturing. When he removes the headphones and repeats his point, she again threatens to leave. She has no patience for Al treating her as an elder treats a willful child; she sees him as an equal and wants him to treat her the same way. Again he stops her from leaving and agrees with her point that they must lie about their relationship. Perhaps he is finally seeing it for what it is, whereas Goyita, with youth’s ability to pierce instantly through facades, had seen it that way all along.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (15)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (15)

Alejandro tells Goyita that he dislikes the civil guard (police). This seems to make her happy; she dislikes them too. She asks to see his deceased wife’s bedroom, a request that makes Al uncomfortable for a couple of reasons, but he agrees to do so nonetheless. At this point Goyita attempts to properly seduce Alejandro. She picks up his wife’s brush and begins brushing her own hair with it. She tells Al that his wife was unattractive in comparison to her, describing the woman as short, stocky and small-breasted!

She then goes through his wife’s old things, finding a beautiful blue dress that she holds up to herself. She clearly has plans to replace Al’s absent spouse. She says that it’s rumored that Al married for money rather than love. This accusation finally pushes Al past his breaking point, and he becomes angry, but Goyita quells his anger by pointing out that she never actually believed the rumors. She asks why they never had children. Al says it was because his wife was barren, an answer that satisfies Goyita, who may be thinking about having kids with Al herself. Finally, Goyita wonders if his wife suffered as she was dying. Al says that he suffered more than she did.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (16)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (16)

Then they have dinner. The meal is elaborate, but only because Goyita is there. She is flattered that Al would go to such trouble for her. Later, while the two are looking at bird nests, Al asks why Goyita chose him. “For everything,” she tells him. Giving up the pretense of cautiousness, Al decides to drive Goyita home. On the way, her teacher spots her in Al’s car and is obviously worried about her student. Before she leaves his car, Goyita asks him if he likes her. He tells her that she’s a child, albeit a bright and sensitive one. But that’s not what Goyita wants to hear; she wants to know if he likes her as a woman, and says that if he doesn’t, she will leave and never speak to him again. She’s giving him an ultimatum: either love me on my terms or don’t love me at all. Al tells her that he does indeed like her as a woman, but that it isn’t normal for someone his age to be attracted to a 13-year-old girl. She asks for and receives a kiss from him (a chaste one on the cheek). He says to her that if people tell her bad things about him, she shouldn’t believe them. She agrees wholeheartedly.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (17)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (17)

While speaking to Goyita’s teacher, who has ostensibly come to ask him about music for the play, Al asks her why she agreed to let the girl play Lady Macbeth. “Because she is evil enough to understand the role,” the teacher insists. The teacher then asks him why he chose Goyita. He never really answers her, but he points out that Goyita forbade him to talk to her, so he is violating his promise by even speaking to her.

He and Goyita meet again in the woods. They swear a blood oath, mingling their blood in an act that mimics consummation. They each carve their own first initial into the palm of the other and rub the wounds together. Goyita then gives Al her red scarf, and Al gives Goyita his talisman. Goyita then asks him to burn all of the pictures of his wife as well as her clothes and other belongings. This he refuses to do, and she leaves.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (18)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (18)

Back at school, the teacher asks to see Goyita’s hand. When she asks what the ‘A’ means, Goyita says, “Nothing.” Because it is a letter A, the teacher asks all the boys whose names begin with A to stand. But none of them have an initial on their hands. She then asks all the children with an initial to raise their hands. Every child laughingly raises their hand. The kids are making a joke of Goyita’s love, but the teacher still believes it is another child who shared the blood oath with Goyita. She tells her students that childhood romances are normal, though she does have some concerns about the cutting because of the risk of infection.

Later, as Marisa is painting props for the play, Goyita pays her a visit. While getting her to help with the painting, the teacher also devises a plan to get Goyita to reveal what’s going on with her: she will ask Goyita a personal question, and for every question she asks her, Goyita will get to ask Marisa a personal question in turn. Goyita agrees to these terms.

After a few throwaway questions, Marisa gets down to the nitty-gritty. “What does ‘A’ mean?” inquires Marisa. Goyita replies, “You already know,” but she admits it stands for Alejandro. Goyita asks what will be on the next test, which, by the established rules, the teacher must answer and does, but she isn’t happy about it. How clever our girl is! The teacher then asks if Goyita has the ‘G’ on his hand, which of course he does. Goyita then wants to know why her teacher went to visit her friend. She responds that she wanted to know if he was a trustworthy person. The teacher then asks what it is Goyita and Alejandro do together. Goyita lists the things they do, which does not include anything sexual. The teacher advises Goyita to end the relationship, but Goyita claims it has already ended because he refused to do everything she commanded him to do. (Despite the stereotype, it is clearly Goyita who is in charge of the relationship and doing all the manipulating.) Even so, this is a lie on Goyita’s part—her relationship with Al may have undergone a temporary setback, but it is hardly over.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (19)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (19)

The film cuts back to Alejandro’s place. Although he had refused to destroy his wife’s belongings, in the end he does as Goyita asked, burning her clothes and the photos of her in his yard. It seems that no matter how much he resists, he cannot refuse Goyita in the end. This is what true love has done to him.

The next morning, Goyita discovers that the sergeant has released her pet falcon, which rightly enrages Goyita. She then happens upon the sergeant screaming at her father, presumably about his daughter’s shenanigans. Goyita confronts the sergeant about her bird, but he simply shouts at her and calls her an idiot, then chases her out of his office. Goyita, visibly upset, vows to kill the sergeant. It’s an empty threat, of course; she is no murderer. But she despises him that much.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (20)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (20)

Al visits his wife’s grave, and the priest finds him there. Eladio tells Al that the townsfolk, including the girl’s family, all know about their little romance. Most people think Al is a bit koo-koo but basically a decent guy. A small minority think he’s a sex maniac, however, and that he should be taught a lesson. Eladio says he should beware of the latter group. Alejandro tells Eladio that for the first time in his life he is really living.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (21)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (21)

When Goyita returns home for supper that night, her mother informs her that she is being shipped off to her aunt’s, and sends her to bed without her supper. Her father too has had enough, it seems. He removes his belt, preparing to give her a lashing. Goyita wants to know why she’s being punished. After all, it’s not like she and Alejandro are hurting anyone or doing anything wrong. All they do is ride horses, listen to music and so on. As it so happens, the anger from her father is all a front to fool his wife. He doesn’t actually whip Goyita but repeatedly strikes the bed beside her instead. This makes her mother happy, as she thinks her daughter is finally getting her long-deserved punishment, but her dad seems to understand his daughter better than her mother does.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (22)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (22)

Later, Alejandro tells Goyita that he bought a bird guide. It seems Goyita has instilled in him her love of birds. But now she is upset, for she is being sent away on Friday to live with her aunt. This will be the last time they will get to be together. She tells him too that the sergeant released her bird and took away the talisman Al gave her. She asks him to kill the sergeant for her.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (23)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (23)

Back at home, Alejandro’s reminiscences of his times with Goyita are interrupted by Amparo. In the past this would’ve made him angry, but it’s clear from their exchange that he is a changed man thanks to Goyita. He treats his servant much better now. Moreover, he is a broken man. The loss of the love of his life has ripped the heart out of him.

In their final meeting, Al reveals to his priest friend that he spent five years in the seminary. They share a laugh over that. Al decides to track down Goyita to her aunt’s place. Of course, she can only watch him through the window, but she is very happy to see him. It will be his final view of her, and he will take it to his grave.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (24)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (24)

Alejandro next goes to the police station, where he challenges the sergeant to a duel. The sergeant thinks he’s joking, but he is quite serious. He assures the sergeant that he is a terrible shot, but of course we know better. Later, Al waits on the cliff to ambush the sergeant, who brings Goyita’s father with him. They both carry machine guns, hardly a fair gunfight. But Al doesn’t care about this anyway. He fires on the sergeant and apparently misses. He then stands in the open, waiting, and the sarge easily mows him down. After killing Alejandro, the officers discover that Al was using blanks. The thing is, Al had had the advantage because he was on higher ground, and he saw the sergeant well before the sergeant saw him. Plus, he was a great shot. He could easily have killed the sergeant if he’d wanted to, but he’d never intended to do so; his plan had been suicide by cop all along.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (25)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (25)

Many of the townsfolk show up for his funeral, including the policemen, the teacher and the priest. Goyita later visits his grave, which has been erected on the same site where the old monument once stood and where he and Goyita first danced. She vows to never give herself to another as long as she lives. She says that he taught her a new word beginning with A: Amor. She carves another A into her palm and places it against his grave. The final shot is of Goyita conducting The Creation from Alejandro’s gravesite.

Jaime de Armiñán - El Nido (1980) (26)

Jaime de Armiñán – El Nido (1980) (26)