Talk:Mysterious Skin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

The synopsis isn't really a synopsis- doesn't explain the plot. I haven't seen the movie but maybe someone else could add to it. Bigpacifisteyes

Does this film depict child sexual abuse, or pedophilia? Recent edits seem ot have muddied the waters. -Will Beback 02:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

At first I reverted when someone changed it from pedophilia to child sexual abuse. Now the more I think about it, the more I think they were right. The relationship between the baseball coach and both of the boys really was abusive. Pais 18:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the synopsis is terribly-written and far too slender to do the movie justice. I will try to work on it when I have time. I think "child sexual abuse" is fine, rather than "pedophilia" (though it's certainly both), but - please, please, please - let's spell it "pedophilia" in the American way for this very American film, and not "paedophilia" or however it's spelled in Commonwealth English. Thanks. Moncrief 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading an article on male child sexual abuse a few years ago, that mentioned a guy who was raped as a child but had fond memories of the rapist including an incident where they poured cereal on their heads. Anyone know where to find this article? 24.222.63.74 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am really disappointed that this film has not received more attention by now - so disappointed that i have actually moved myself and joined up! Early comments address the terms pedophilia and child abuse, is this film "about" one or the other? Both? And therein lies the problem. Furthermore, this film goes right to the root of the problem! "A guy who was raped by a child but had fond memories.." - example - mutual pouring of cereal on heads. ??? Does anyone see the problems in this statement? The term rape here can refer to just about any physical contact, not just penetration without consent. Pedophilia and child abuse are interchangeable terms, depending on one's perspective. TO THE VAST MAJORITY, this film portrays pedophilia AND is a wonderful, powerful, final and irrefutable statement of the proposition that all sexualized contact between adult and child is catastrophic. One victim is a dangerously promiscuous and disturbed young man who prostitutes himself for the kicks but implicitly admits he's gay anyway, the other an arguably even more disturbed lad. In the end the former is able to offer a measure of resolution, but not of the abuse; they find momentary solace, but there is no doubt about the message - there will be no healing. To the minority that subscribes to pedophile activism, the film is about child abuse, not pedophilia. The film might better be described as a horror fantasy movie that is about, AND validates, repressed memory therapy, something that has been almost totally rejected by mainstream (and) forensic psychiatry. Something that eludes all such cases is forcefully present here - the full videotape of the repressed events in the form of Neil, finally made available to Brian. And if you really can't accept it, consider the likelihood of these two events in the first couple of decades of life: a kid gets conned into sticking his arm up to the elbow in your coach's ass, and a few years later some wacko chick seduces him to stick the same arm up to the elbow in a warm animal carcass! Many viewers miss this connection, but it is important to the plot. It is fantasy, and it is extremely dangerous. Were the movie some typical bad-dream Hollywood creation not involving such sexual themes it might be relatively harmless. It is a product of the times, and the problem is that for the world of film viewers and critics to put it into perspective a veritable fortress of attitudes and beliefs must first be completely dismantled. Perhaps that is outside the scope of this project! Peter3011 08:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "trashed"

"The film received extensive critical acclaim, even from critics who had formerly trashed director Gregg Araki's work." "Trashed" doesn't really fit the formal tone of Wikipedia, plus it seems POV. Isn't it sufficient to say that it received critical acclaim and give a citation?Ninquerinquar 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

this movie in general was amazing, i've never cried so much, or had a movie affect me as much as this one did.

they did a great job and i loved every single second of it, it's just too bad it ended the way it did, i was so hopeful for the boys. but i guess not all movies can have a happy ending.