Jeux interdits de l'adolescence

A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.

The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.

The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no "coming of age" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim.

This is one of the most banned movies or highly cut movies at all times, Cannibal Holocaust was banned in 33 countries, but when the time was right it became available all over the world. Maladolescenza never did. In 2002 there was a movie Ken Park that was discussed and been cut due the fact that adolescents were naked in the movie and Adam Chubbuck was in a controversial shot on the cover that was released. But the film wasn't banned because they were over 18 years old. Back in the seventies and especially at the end of that era everything could be done. The rise of the slashers, the glory days of (s)exploitation and the 42nd sleaze. But one thing people couldn't stand, the use or abuse of children. They still should be innocent. But some flicks dared the viewer to watch something different. In 1975 The Psychopath came out, a story about a looney children's television show host taking revenge when 'his kids' were punished from their parents, shown on screen. Beatings with a belt, what was normal in the seventies was shown. The movie never got a proper release. 1976 took it a bit further, Assault on Precinct 13 came out, a girl is shot in her face by an ice cream man. That scene had to been cut out, nowadays it's funny in some way, then it was a real shocker. 1989 brought us, Beware Children at Play. Children are killing adults but the adults take their revenge by killing the children. Never got a proper release and it was spit out by the journalists. But sometimes their was that special one, 1976, France brought us, Une Vraie Jeune Fille. Charlotte Alexandra played a 14 year old girl going on holiday on a farm with her uncle and aunt. Being bored she starts to exploit her body. One scene was much spoken about, she experiments with a worm running on her private parts. The movie was banned but is now available uncut. The age of Charlotte at the time being was never known, but she must have been around her twenties. The only thing known was that she was born at the end of the fifties. So she was an adult. One year later German/Italie brought us Maladolescenza. Again a story about a boy living in his own world and exploiting young girls to examen his/their bodies. Once it was known that it all was shown in an explicit way the movie became banned. There was nudity in it from the two girls, only 13 and 11 years old, showing their private parts and breasts. The only versions that were available was a cut version of 77 minutes, not the full 90 minutes. But the movie had a problem, showing young girls explicit it was an ideal movie for pedophiles. Well sought by them all copies were destroyed but of course some people had the full uncut versions. It was almost unavailable full uncut until in 2006 Andreas Bethmann brought out the full uncut on his X Rated Kult label as Spielen Wir Liebe only to be sold in Germany, of course that didn't work out and it was banned again. in some countries people went to jail just by buying this flick. There is a lot said about this flick, is it childpornography or not. Just let me tell that it was an official release, and the two girls were never forced to undress. But still, nowadays the word pedophile is a hot item and the movie is still banned. Even on ebay it is on the banned item list. Sometimes it pops up under Spielen Wir Liebe or Puppy Love. And guess what, it goes for a lot of money. So far no retailer dares to sell it. Probeply the most hard to get item on the net and at Conventions. All I want to say, if you can get a full uncut try to go back in those days were everything was possible. And still their will be voyeurs and pedo's searching for it, but it isn't that if you watch a horror you become a killer that if you watch this one that you will go hunting innocent children.

Having grown up in Amsterdam,Holland, where our liberal ideas are pretty much the norm, I have to say that I cannot understand why this movie caused so many problems when it came out! Sure, it is a movie of the 70's when peace and love were still there amongst a lot of old and younger people in Holland. I saw the film on a good DVD version last year and thought it was a love story about youth, rite of passage and growing up. The music in the background was pretty dire and some of the scenes were a bit dull (what was the snake scene all about??) but generally it wasn't a bad film. If some people get wound up about preteen nudity, then all I can say is they should get a life!!

Often beautiful at a visual level, poignant on its directorial style, joyful but nostalgic at the same time, and ultimately a satisfactory experience for the all-rounded, open-minded viewer (you may want to stay clear, and while at it also to spare us from a certain neo-medieval kind of retarded comments, if you happen not to be one).

You may love this movie, you may hate it, or you may simply end up wondering what's all the controversy about and why is it still banned or heavily censored in certain so-called "advanced" countries.

One thing is certain: if you like film in general, you should watch it (there's a great new DVD available from Germany, with English subtitles).

Not only because it's a centerpiece both of cinema styles and social perspectives in change and of its own author's career and I dare say, personal life, but also because it's one of those rare, last standing moments of sheer honesty which are representative of a bygone era, and indirectly also representative of how close-minded and hypocrite our western world has become in the past two decades, in direct contrast with what should be expected from a society which repeatedly acknowledges itself (no one else probably would, and clearly DON'T) as the most "advanced" - making it all the more ironic that this simple but interesting movie IS, after all, all about the loss of innocence and youth.

This film has so much to say about important issues, and does it so well in many ways, that I really do want to believe it was conceived as a serious work of art and not as a sop to the dirty raincoat brigade. I've read all the reviews here by its stalwart defenders, who argue a good case for a unique film, but I remain to be fully convinced.

Did the production team deliberately court controversy by using so much child nudity or were they genuinely taken aback by the reaction to its release? Western Europe in the 1970s was pretty liberal about such things, and still is by American standards (thank God!), but even so the boundaries of "mainstream" films must have been pushed back quite a bit with Maladolescenza. Arguing that so much footage of pubescent sex was essential to the artistic integrity of the whole would have been difficult even then. Nowadays the film couldn't possibly be made, which is probably a good thing overall simply because (in my view) young children should not be sexualised for the benefit of adults. However in the case of Maladolescenza, although the girl actors were only 11 or 12, I think you would find it pretty difficult to assert that they were exploited or harmed in any way, judging from a cursory look at their filmographies; though I am open to persuasion otherwise by anyone who really knows.

So what we have is a curiosity from another age, and it's really rather good. The controversy over its content, which has made it so notorious (and which attracted my attention in the first place, and no doubt many others'), will rage forever, but beyond all that it's a pretty convincing study of adolescent torment and suffering. The locations are stunning and the three young actors are quite beautiful, highlighting all the more the psychological and physical torture they inflict on each other, which is achingly well portrayed and well acted. The film is shocking in its portrayal of children's cruelty, more so than any other I can think of, even Lord of the Flies. This is clearly deliberate, yet the shock value is compounded by the sex scenes — also intentional of course, but necessary to the whole? Sex is clearly integral to the power games being played out by the kids, and again this is a convincing aspect of the plot as a whole. Kids really do behave like that (you deny it at your peril) and a shiver went down my spine as I recalled my own youth — so the film worked in this way for me. It's challenging and that's good. I just recoil a little from seeing so much young flesh in such sexual situations. There's nothing wrong with nudity, yes even child nudity, and nothing wrong with sex; but combine the two and you cross the line at some point, and I think this film does, even though it's tastefully done and certainly not what I'd call child porn. That's my take on it, from my English standpoint. But sorry, righteous Christians and outraged moralists, I don't reckon I'll burn in hell for watching and enjoying it, and I'd far rather live in a society that permits eccentricities like this than your prurient paradise.

So yes, it's uncomfortable and challenging viewing, on many levels, and on these terms the film is undoubtedly successful. It obviously sickens the prudish, and although I can understand why, that actually contributes to its appeal for me. Ban it? Never! You don't have to watch it and neither do I, but I am strangely attracted by its power and sheer oddity. Flaws: yes, plenty of course, it's no masterpiece. The ending is daft for one, the dog pretty pointless for another (when it's around, which is not much). There also seem to be one or two non-sequiturs in the narrative flow, which may suggest some hasty editing (some sources give the original film length as 117 or 127 minutes, whereas the "uncut" version generally in circulation today only runs to around 91 minutes). But hopefully it will survive as a controversial cult classic for those of us with a taste for the weird, and a reminder of better times when the sight of a naked child did not automatically lead to mass hysteria from the self-righteous moral brigade across the pond.

Overall verdict — Great: no. Darned good: yes. Shocking: oh yes. Just don't try and do it again!