Maladolescenza

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.

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!!

I own this movie & am proud of it. I live in the good old USA and had to buy my copy in Europe, so i could get it uncut, the full 93 min version. This movie may be very controversial, but anybody who can't see past the nudity is very closed minded. This movie is a brilliant piece of art. The forest alone, is worth a million words, not to menchine the story. I'm 19, and had a difficult upbringing, especially in junior high, but this movie nails it, the emotions and feelings that i had as a preteen and young teen. I praise this movie for exploring this difficult transition from childhood to adulthood. Anybody who would call this movie pornography, is ignorant, as far as i'm concerned, at most maybe you could argue that it is mild erotica, but even that is a stretch. When are people going to realize that nudity does not equal pornography, and love making does not always equal sex. Anyway, i have to put in my vote as one of the best coming of age movies that i have ever seen, a 9/10. I have seen a lot of movies, spending a lot of my winters watching movie after movie, I'm a huge movie buff, and through my experience i have found that European movies tend to be a lot more honest about feelings, love, and life in general, then do US movies, where ratings are based on sex and violence. This movie remains a favorite of mine to this day on how brutally honest it protrays this adolescent transition. A must see for anyone who loves art or who is struggling through adolescence.

Normally depicting the kind of cruelty that children are capable of is limited to works of fantasy such as William Golding's Lord of the Flies. Maladolescenza, a German-Italian production from 1977, however, deals with it in a way that is powerfully real – showing in graphic terms adolescent bullying and use of sex as an instrument of domination. Because of its depictions of children in sexual situations, however, it has been banned in many countries, most recently in Germany in 2006. While I'm not entirely clear about the purpose and intent of the director, I did not find it to be any more salacious than the films of Larry Clark and even more beautifully realized and honest. Please be advised, however, that Maladolescenza is a very disturbing film and is not recommended for those offended by cruelty to animals (in this case – a bird) or children presented in the nude and in threatening situations.

Set to an original score by Pippo Caruso based on medieval songs and dances, the film takes place in a brooding forest that holds the ruins of an ancient city. There are only three actors in the film and they deliver memorable performances. Two adolescents, Fabrizio (Martin Loeb) and Laura (Lara Wendel), live close to the edge of the forest and spend their summer holidays playing together as they have for many years. 12-year old Laura is in love with Fabrizio and teases him sexually but he responds only by taunting and frightening her. Like most bullies, however, he knows just when to let up in order to reassure his victim and give her a false sense of security. When the two discover the mysterious old city, Fabrizio declares himself to be king, but in order for Laura to be queen, she must first be able to win the cruel tests he has devised.

Among these are having a snake thrown on top of you as you lay on the ground and being chased by a snarling dog through the woods. Laura, like many willing victims, proclaims her trust in Fabrizio in spite of his sadism and his killing of her pet bird. When they at last make love together, however, it is done with tenderness and the film shows Fabrizio as good hearted when it suits his own purposes. When a new 13-year old girl, Sylvia (Eva Ionesco), joins the group on the invitation of two friends, things do not work to Laura's advantage. Sylvia, unlike Laura, is manipulative and cold and soon she and Fabrizio join forces to humiliate and frighten Laura, at one time compelling her to run through the woods while they shoot bows and arrows at her while wearing terrifying masks.

Realizing that Fabrizio and Sylvia have fallen for each other, Laura heartbreakingly begins to dress and act like Sylvia to win back Fabrizio's affection but without success. As the summer nears an end, Fabrizio is determined that Sylvia will never leave him alone and the result is a senseless tragedy that could have been easily averted. Although the setting is idyllic, under the skillful direction of Pier Murgia, Maladolescenza maintains a constant atmosphere of impending threat. While the story can be seen as a metaphor for the confusing currents of puberty, it can also be interpreted as symbolic of the loss of innocence and the misdirection of sexual energy into avenues of power and domination, perhaps an underlying theme in the history of the Third Reich.

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!