Innocence à vendre

Mia Sampson (Sarah Lind) and her friend Chelsea Burns are at the mall looking for a low-paying food court job. Mia is approached by Malcolm Lowe who claims to be looking for a model. Her mother Abby Sampson (Mimi Rogers) goes with her to talk to Lowe. They are convinces by Lowe and the girls led by Simone to join in his internet modeling. It starts off innocently. Mia gains confidence and gets some fast easy money. She attracts the attention of classmate Justin Johnson. She does more and more suggestive photography and joins in live chats as she gains members like obsessive Gabriel who later turns menacing. The situation spirals out of control and she's contacted by Web Watch warning her about Lowe. Gabriel is actually James who works for the volunteer group.

The icky factor is quite high. It's one of those lesson movie of the week. Sarah Lind is compelling and there are some good solid actors to back her up. It's not all believable. She got paid a lot for her first session. I could only guess that Lowe paid her extra to reel her in. Some of the situations are cheesy. As far as a Lifetime TV movie, this is better than most but there are limitations.

I thought this was a pretty good movie overall. Sarah Lind did a good job playing a much younger character of High School student Mia. It also had a nice plot twist near the end that I didn't see coming at all.

On the other hand, the movie's creators went so far trying to make teen modeling web sites look bad that it became unrealistic in places. There is no chance that the students at Mia's High School would have ridiculed her for being a (non-nude) model. Today's teens are much more jaded about sex in the media than that. Britney Spears wears far less in her videos and concerts. If anything, she would have been more popular with the other students for being a model, especially the boys.

Plain-faced, casually-dressed female teen (Sarah Lind, a very good actress) is recruited by a scout to try her hand at fashion modeling; after just one flyer with her picture goes out, the girl's newfound career takes a sordid turn as the agency proves itself to be a front for cyber-porn. Not much different from the "Portrait of" teen movies from the '70s, with the warning that nobody gets a free ride in life without payback. Better, more ambitious efforts, such as "Fallen Angel" from 1981, actually go further with this subject matter while attempting to expose the sleaziest aspects of child-exploitation. This telefilm gets its point across early, and then turns into a crime drama (with our heroine racing down several flights of stairs near the finish in her bra and panties!). Even theatrically-made features run the risk of treating exploitation crassly--here, it's just shucked off for the sake of cheap suspense. I didn't buy it, though the movie's target audience (girls around 14 or 15) probably won't notice.

This movie makes me think of that anti-death penalty bumper sticker: "Why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?" Here's another: "Why do we make movies showing off half-naked kids to show that showing off half-naked kids is wrong?" The hypocrisy is sickening. Do you think they made this movie to "wake people up?" Really? Or, was this a movie made to make money by selling the titillating notion of teens showing themselves half-dressed on web sites? Duh.

It is amazing to me how many people watch this and say, "This is what we need to wake people up!" Please. Hollywood is not known for their altruism for true blue altruistic purposes. But, preachy movies that make people THINK they are crusading against this or that - WHILE EXPLOITING the very thing they are crusading against? Hollywood knows that game better than anyone.

Hypocrisy - plain and simple.

--------------------

This is supposed to be a movie that will show and condemn the exploitation of teens on the web today. It succeeds on some levels, but mostly in the way those Christian or government anti-drug campaigns work e.g. without much subtlety and with forced drama and pathetics.

What angered me the most is the pure hypocrisy of this movie - whoever made this has never turned on MTV or opened a teen magazine in his/her life. Those things regularly have pictures of teens in far more lascivious poses than what the movie tries to sell as ultra-perverse yet it is considered quite normal in our society - better yet, teen models from those magazines are probably the most popular kids in their schools, unlike the movie protagonist who is mocked and laughed upon - plot device that really got a few things wrong with todays teen mentality.

Furthermorem the movie chose the dreaded cheesy approach - a cliché egomaniac web-site owner as the antagonist and a cheap thriller side-plot to keep the audience from sleeping. Oh, and if this movie is really so much against teen exploitation, than there is really too much of that running-in-bra-and-panties schtick.

On the other hand, the actors are all on-par (except Mimi Rogers with her one-facial-expression-fits-all acting ability), the movie doesn't drag too long and the issue it addresses should be addressed. But really in a more realistic and less hypocritical manner.