The Tin Drum

In the movie, The Tin Drum, the life of a stunted 16-year-old boy named Oskar is portrayed. Though Oskar looks like much younger than he really is, he has the same mental capability and mindset as an adult—the only “handicap” that he has would be his physical appearance. Oskar suddenly meets a young girl named Maria who becomes his babysitter and soon after, begins falling in love with her. Maria, who is also 16, starts seducing him, which eventually leads to sexual intercourse.

Should this be considered child pornography if both of the individuals in the movie were the same age of 16? Personally, I don’t think many people would jump to the conclusion that this is considered child pornography when both people are of the same age and the intercourse was consensual—even if Oskar had a stunted appearance, he was still 16. However, in reality, the actors playing the characters in these roles have a much bigger age difference. The actor playing Oskar is only 11 years old and the actress playing Maria was 24. In this case, should this movie be considered illegal since the actor is not of age? Though they might not have actually had sexual intercourse or anything of that nature during the actual filming of the movie, stimulated and portrayal of sexual acts by children and the speech of these acts should be considered illegal.

According to both Osborne v Ohio and New York v Ferber, the movie would have been found guilty of child pornography. New York v Ferber specifically “prohibits producing or distributing speech which depicts an actual or stimulated sexual conduct by minors under 16)”. Since the actor, David Bennent at the time was only 11 years old and engaged in stimulated sexual conduct with an older female, the film and the director should be charged with child pornography. Though Osborne v. Ohio states that “actual or stimulated sexual conduct is not required”, it does say that possession and viewing is also illegal. In this case, this movie should be banned since (I feel like) it has a lewd exhibition of nudity.

In the defense that this movie should be legal since it is of artistic value, the ages of the actors should not matter. They could have easily casted two people who are both actually 16 (or close in age), or two people who are both at least 18 years old. The age of the actual actors would have no affect on the message or artistic value of the film as long as the same idea is kept: that one of the actors are stunted or have a younger appearance than the other. In my opinion, it seems very clear to me that this is child pornography since sexually explicit conduct was depicted involving a minor. I do not find child pornography or even the portrayal of child pornography artistic and I don’t think it should be considered a form of art. The Tin Drum film itself is a movie about an unstable boy from a family filled with affairs and their struggles in the World War II era. The message of the film has nothing to do with the age difference of Maria and Oskar nor does it imply child pornography. If anything, the casting on the director’s part, took away from the message of the film and directed controversy to the child porn aspect of the casting for the roles.
Also, in conjunction with the aspect of child pornography taking away from the actual message, Zechariah Chafee’s worthless versus worthwhile speech as discussed in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire would prohibit this type of film since this would technically be considered worthless speech. The huge age difference in the actors was completely unnecessary, and as mentioned before, probably took away from the powerful message of the film. At least for me it did. The way it was portrayed seemed almost lewd and very comfortable for the audience to watch. I feel that Chafee would consider this case to be worthless speech because the stimulated sexual intercourse with a minor is not beneficial to anyone nor is it of great interest to the public.

Another philosopher I would apply in this case would be John Stuart Mills’ offense principle. Since child pornography is illegal, the stimulated acts and the portrayal of a minor engaging in sexual conduct would be considered offensive to many people. I personally would not be comfortable watching this movie, knowing that a minor was involved in these acts. Though the 11 year old actor at the time may have agreed to do these scenes at the time, he was a child and thus had no idea of what the repercussions may be. I think children at the time would not have the mental capability to think straight and understand the consequences of their actions. A movie like this, or anything pertaining to child pornography, can be very damaging to their development. Therefore, I feel that Mills’ offense principle should also be applied in this case.

In conclusion, I feel that The Tin Drum should be banned and be considered child pornography due to the fact that it involves fairly lewd and disturbing scenes of sexual conduct involving a minor. It would make most viewers uncomfortable to watch and the age difference of the actors take away from the message and the artistic value of the film itself. Even if the actors themselves did not have any type of intercourse, the stimulation of the act should be enough for the film to be punished.