The Genesis Children (1972) User Reviews

Roman holiday au naturel

[pauls-room · 5/10 · 13 September 2005]

This a kind of Roman beach holiday for boys, with philosophical overtones. In a kind of reality play acted without a script, a group of boys discover freedom on an Italian beach and analyse the conventions that they otherwise obey. Religion is ever present by a character who first advertises for actors in a play and then appears in many guises throughout the film. In their freedom the boys (early teens) frolic on the beach and carry out their 'roles' in a naturist fashion - i.e. without clothes. But the boys are relaxed with their nudity and not at all embarrassed. It is evident that these boys are not professional actors and this, combined the nudity should not be misread as gay movie. The countryside is beautiful and the beach cliffs, dramatic. It's an unusual film and the type that would be considered an art-house film. But if you end up confused and disgusted, then you're watching in the wrong way. This is a film that does have a message, but one that we frequently obscure.

Pathetic yet brilliant

[swekarl · 6/10 · 26 December 2005]

Judging from comments on other sites, people either love or hate this movie. I was warned that it would be crap, but I was even more enticed by the theme: A bunch of teens doing what they are best at - being beautiful.

And that was exactly what it was. There is no story whatsoever and the so called philosophical theme is just there as an alibi - its naive statements make you laugh. What's more - the acting sucks. The Genesis Children really is a pathetic movie, by normal movie standards.

The only point with The Genesis Children is to show teenage boys naked. And God, that's a great point! That is *radical* in today's society. I watched the movie smiling, both at the boys' beauty and at the fact that such a film has been made at all.

Good boys movie, but not much plot

[reformer5 · 6/10 · 16 November 2005]

This movie is worth seeing if you like to watch films about boys. However, I've fast-forwarded many parts that were pretty trivial. The sensual parts of young male nudity seem to be well compensated by little adventures that the boys have, although the adventures seem uninteresting. If you're someone who wants a well-thought-out plot and more action, you probably don't want need to waste your time on this film. After saying all this, however, there does seem to be an overarching plot that is not too imposing on the general subject at hand, which is simply to show the boys as they are. Interestingly, the viewer may be just as confused as the boy actors are about the main reason for their activities.

Revolutionary

[Sorof · 26 July 2001]

Its amazing that a movie like this was ever made in prudish America, although one has to exclude the 60's and 70's from that label. The boys in the movies (ages 10-16) are completely nude for many scenes, and make no attempt to hide any frontal nudity. While it is unusual for boys of this age to show any nudity in American films, European films regularly show situational nudity of all ages. It would be nice to see American film-makers, and the general public relax with nudity in films (and in general), which somehow always gets related to sex (thanks to religious paranoia). There are no sexual innuendos in this film at all, and it is basically no different than watching a European nudist film, albeit there is at least an attempt at a plot here. Hard to find film, but still available through some distributors. The "leader" in the film (Peter Glawson) starred in another film (Peter & the Desert Riders) around the same time, but that film is almost non-existent.

Lord of the Flies meets Otto from A Fish Called Wanda.

[atticseethr · 2/10 · 19 December 2010]

So, I wanted to know what the fuss is about. Nothing. I give it two stars for the music, and one quote. "I am homesick for a place I've never been". It is art, but watered down. It should be lost again.

From there it just gets more pretentious, and melancholic. Experimental film? I don't know. Much of the muse is just schitzo. I was neither offended, nor turned on by the nudity. Bored is the word.

At the start, I thought it was a metaphor. Youth, innocence, and strength embrace nature as they conquer the water. Diving deep into the waters of self-discovery, and coming of age...all that tired stuff. Nope, turns out I smoked too much weed.

I can see why it was on the shelf so long. It sucks. Also, sadly people get turned on by watching what was tedious. I was never taught shame I guess. Besides, I've watched many genre of film, and nudity does not shock me(except Basic Instinct). We are all supposed to be mature about these things. This movie was pretty overkill.

I may be naive, but I want to believe there was art in the heart of the director, and this was not made to exploit children. If it were meant to exploit, I hope it puts those pedos to sleep.

This movie was REALLY bad

[davidg1721 · 1/10 · 2 March 2005]

I bought this movie off of Amazon.com and threw it out after I watched it. I wanted to see it because it looked like a good boylove movie, and its been listed as one of the films with the most boy nudity (who wanted watch it, right? hehe) Well the stories of everyone saying how there's no plot is absolutely true. The actors don't even talk that much. One of the boys (which you don't even know who) tells the story in the background only during certain parts of the film, and hes not even telling a story. More like just rambling on about "hate is bad, so why does a person hate?" and stuff like that. More than half the movie there's no one talking and there's just background music playing while the kids run around on the beach. Oh, and if you watch the movie for the nudity, you don't even get that good of a shot of the "good parts". Most of the shots are from behind the boys, so all you pretty much see is their butt. I would not recommend this film to anyone.

An utter nonsensical mess

[jeff-foley-b · 1/10 · 23 October 2008]

I'll forgive any movie for being low-budget, but it ought to at least have some semblance of plot or even a point. This movie is devoid of either. It's as painful to watch as your aunt's home movies, and probably filmed on the same 8mm camera. When there is any dialog that is discernible (and most of it is narrative), it has no comprehendible context. The location of the filming is obviously a nice spot, but even the awful camera work fails to display it. We have no way of knowing if any of the good-looking boys in the film can act, because they have no script at all to work with, and likely little direction. If its the boys you want to see, skip the movie and download some screen captures.

Strange and lame

[the boss-2 · 3/10 · 30 June 2002]

Well this film was just strange. Boys around teens just running around naked and something about God and Christ. No it had no meaning, must have been made of some nutcase who enjoys looking at teenboys naked. It was purely stupid and meaningless.

"The Genesis Children" expresses a mystical naturism

[seeker3 · 8/10 · 19 January 2001]

`The Genesis Children' is a legendary film that I was lucky enough to have seen in it's initial (very brief) release in the early 70's. Quickly withdrawn because of hostile critical reaction, it was released on video several years ago after having been regarded as `missing' for decades. Despite a somewhat pretentious script that is nonlinear and difficult to follow on first viewing, it is a very earnest expression of naturist philosophy and is rather mystical in its approach.

The plot, such as it is, concerns eight American lads (ages about ten to sixteen) living in Rome, who are lured to a small Italian coastal town by a newspaper ad calling for boys `to act in a play.' Along the way, they encounter a man (played by Vincent Child) who appears to them in various guises: a priest; a teacher; a policeman; a politician. Directed by him to a secluded beach and finding themselves alone, they hang out for several days, swimming and sunbathing au natural. Indeed, this may be the ultimate skinnydipping movie. While there, they have some adventures. They explore a cave. They raise and repair a sunken rowboat, only to have it sink again. They attempt to steal food from a local farmer. They drive an abandoned van and end up wrecking it. Much of Genesis Children is Tom Sawyerish, but ends more like a milder `Lord of the Flies.'

On the surface, it's quite innocent except for an act of vandalism near the conclusion, which causes the boys to argue and breakup, some returning to civilisation and some choosing to stay. Also, there is a brief, ambiguous conversation between one of the younger kids and an older boy implying sexual activity.

On the downside, the production is rather amateurish and the acting a bit wooden. The cast is obviously made up of nonprofessionals.

On the upside, the color photography is outstanding with gorgeous shots of Rome and the Italian towns, countryside and coast. There is also a catchy musical score.

It must be said that Genesis Children is not intended for all audiences. Many would be offended by the extensive nudity parts of the film. I would think its appeal would mainly be for those interested in naturism and lovers of unconventional movie making.

Surreal picture of innocence

[Falconeer · 7/10 · 15 November 2014]

Strange, dreamlike film is more a glimpse into the secret, fantasy-laced world of children, than a narrative movie with a story. And "Genesis Children" recreates that brief time like no other film in memory. Filmed in Rome, among the ruins and on the lush seaside, this poetic study of adolescence involves a group of boys, mostly in their teens, and a few younger, who answer an ad posted by a mysterious stranger, about taking part in a play based on a Greek Tragedy. The boys become fast friends, in a way that is only possible at that age. As a group they embark on a series of adventures, through the streets of Rome, into idyllic forests, and mysterious, dark caves, which they explore by torch light. The film is non-linear and random, exactly like the lives of children. The simplest things are laced with symbolism, usually religious in nature. When the oldest boy Jack lifts a loaf of bread above his head and offers it to the others, he becomes somewhat like a 'Jesus figure,' as the other kids take to following his lead. As the film moves forward, their adventures become more tinged with mystery, and danger, and ultimately, violence.

From reading some other comments about this obscure film, it seems that few seemed to grasp what the filmmakers were trying to do. "Genesis Children" is merely showing the difficult journey that we all take at one point, from innocence into adulthood. That journey is usually filled with confusion, frustration, and anger, as well as a natural fear of the unknown. One by one, each boy faces a certain conflict, and this leads to each one letting go of their innocence. In the end, some of the boys suddenly feel uncomfortable with being nude on the beach, while others in the group decide to stay by the sea, living in the primal way that only kids are capable of. I found this movie to be quite brilliant in many ways. The creators obviously have an almost reverent love and respect for this special time, before we must accept responsibility and conform to a fixed schedule. I think most people forget when the only thing they were required to do, was run from one adventure to the next, with no concern about tomorrow. The movie brought back memories for me, of how it felt to be truly free. And any piece of cinema that can do that, has got to be something special. On a side note, I find it profoundly sad to read so many people trashing this movie, based on some beach scenes early in the film, where the kids are swimming and playing while nude. There is not one single frame of this movie where sexuality is even hinted at. The characters didn't even seem to be aware of their being naked, so I have to wonder why it is such a big deal for the audience. I think people need to grow up. I would have no problem letting my own kids watch this film; in fact I believe they would have a deeper understanding of it than many adults. Recommended for fans of directors like Pier Paolo Pasolini, Derek Jarman, and even Ingmar Bergman. The cinematography brought to mind Jarman's "Sebastion," and the characters are filmed in the same unassuming way that Pasolini photographed his actors in "Arabian Nights." And for some reason I was reminded of the children's film "The Black Stallion," especially the scenes where the little boy bonds with his horse on the desert island. Just don't look for anything vulgar in this movie; you won't find it here..

Bah, That Was Awfully Lame

[denis888 · 1/10 · 14 October 2016]

I read about this movie, somebody said it was an under-appreciated masterpiece, so I gave it a try. What? What was that? Awfully made movie with a lame plot, nonsensical jumps in narrative, poor acting, and above all, dull plot, or no plot at all. I am sorry, but who, in their sane mind, would watch 90 minutes of totally naked teen boys frolicking on a beach, if not some sick pervert? They say, it is innocence and purity. Nay, it is a shame and porn, male porn and pedophile feast. Do not watch this movie if you want to save you some time, ad mark my word - there is NOthing sane or decent here. Yeah, right, and such a soft core porn could have been made only in the 70's with their terrible music score, bad lighting and shaky pace. Forget, do not tempt and do not watch

Childhood, The Search for Meaning,

[thinker1691 · 8/10 · 22 December 2004]

This film is destined to be listed among those which have little meaning, but has all the force of a classic. The film follows the summer exploits of a group of European boys who are invited to a 'Play' near an Italian seaside. Once there, the play becomes a search for answers. Each boy begins a quest to learn what life means to himself. From the audience point of view, the scenic tour encompasses the sea, land and some of the most beautiful landscapes available in Italy. The haunting melody accompanies the children's quest and despite it's non-resolution, offers an artistic interpretation of what the director was creating. The actors are quite uninhibited with the abundance of nudity, but they carry the Avant Guard movie to it's abrupt end. All in all, a good film for those with an open mind. *****

Male erotica

[atlantis2006 · 19 February 2011]

One could hardly discern Aikman's intentions as a filmmaker at first glance. There is no real conflict in this movie, which means that in the strict sense, according to grammatology and narrative guidelines, there is no story at all.

This statement, however, could be quite deceitful, as one could easily argue that there is, indeed, a story of some sort, albeit not a traditional one. "The Genesis Children" deals with male beauty: there is a strenuous emphasis in the naked bodies of a group of boys, and that alone serves as reminder of certain theories. Can beauty be found in physical form? Or, as Plato would have it, can real beauty only pertain to the Ideal and thus belong to the sphere of ideas and not to the real world? There is also another conception of beauty that could be useful. When Nietzsche defined the Apollonian beauty he referred to symmetry, cleanness, perfection; and clearly some of that approach is present in Aikman's film, however, Nietzsche would also consider the Dionysian aspect almost as vital or, perhaps, even more relevant. Throughout the narrator's soliloquy this dichotomy comes forward "amidst beauty there is decay", thus accepting that, indeed, one cannot understand beauty while looking only at the bright side of it.

Nietzsche once concluded that art may deconstruct or defile modernity's values. Perhaps, in this most controversial production, the director intended to confront morality with creativity. One could wonder how this movie came to be. After all, it displays the naked bodies of eight young actors, all of them underage, and at points the camera seems fixated on certain areas of their anatomies (all of it would be absolutely forbidden by today's legislations in most countries).

Some of these boys have barely reached the onstage of puberty, while others have just started adolescence. There are long scenes in which they wander around naked, frolicking, playing in the water, and perhaps part of the audience could have considered all that nudity a bit gratuitous. After all, some people might argue than to watch the penises of several boys dangling around while they run to the ocean would not really advance the plot in any direction. Nonetheless, if there is no plot then why should the viewers be concerned with such visual trinket? Certainly, these young boys do not decide for themselves to spend several days on a secluded Mediterranean beach, spending most of their time naked for no apparent reason. They had been summoned by a newspaper ad: "Wanted boys to act in a play to be performed before God at Pavicelli. Come unprepared for your parts". The man who has written the ad is a mysterious bearded individual that appears to them as a priest.

Since the first minutes up until the last ones, the boys comment constantly that they feel like they are being watched by someone. That would be no surprise, after all, it's clear that they are there to be observed. In an almost metalinguistic retort, one of the boys says that instead of someone "something" might be watching them.

As was previously explained, the absence of a "story" shouldn't be a real hindrance; nevertheless, the lack of character development and some of the abrupt decisions the boys take can be a bit unfavorable story-wise. For example, after being naked for entire days, one of the boys gets up and decides to leave while shouting to the rest "You can stay here and run around naked in the sun if you want to, but I think it's obscene". If it was obscene, why did he indulge in such activities for so long? Why does he suddenly find it obscene at one point when he had no conflicts about it before? Perhaps, a more character-based approach would have served better the intentions of the director. Nevertheless, as any artistic work that deviates greatly from established norms, it bears some interest but I would not recommend it to impatient viewers.

The third part of a trilogy

[drprh · 8/10 · 18 September 2017]

I found Falconeer's review most convincing. Therefore the following cites Falconeer (by "") at some points, while adding several own thoughts.

First -- I can only underline Falconeer's remark that "the creators obviously have an almost reverent love and respect for this special time of life before we must accept responsibility ... So I find it profoundly sad to read so many people trashing this movie, based on the scenes where the kids are playing and swimming plainly nude." Having surmounted the threshold of doing away with their clothes, "the characters don't even seem to be aware" any more of any peculiarities "of their being naked, so I have to wonder why it is such a big deal for the adult audience ... kids ... would have a deeper understanding of it than many adults". Yes, indeed.

Second -- "Genesis Children is showing the difficult journey that we all take" in order to become what we always were, and to that end the boys are taking part in a 'play to be performed before God'. At a certain point close to the end of the film, after having engaged in a 'ritual' of burning an old van which they had rammed into their self-built shelter the day before, a turning point of the play is reached, where some of the boys decide to leave the place and the play. Here I locate what is perhaps the central sentence of the film: 'Aren't you going home?' asks one of those who have put on clothes again and are about to leave. 'I am home', replies one of those who stay. In a somewhat cryptic manner one could say that some have not moved during the play and are therefore bound to leave and continue their quest for 'home', while the others do have moved and therefore can stay.

Now I want to put forward another essential point. One can view the message of this film as the third part of a trilogy. On Aikman's own home page (still available) there is noted 'Often compared to Lord of the Flies'. This other classic, filmed after the famous novel by William Golding just 10 years before The Genesis Children, refers in turn quite explicitly to Ballantine's novel 'Coral Island' from the mid-19th century. In all 3 cases the theme is the acting of a group of (male) kids left alone on some island or shore (i.e. deprived of a direct civilized environment and set out in a purely natural setting), with an undertone of investigating where evil comes from or how it is overcome. But while in Ballantine's novel the point of view is clearly optimistic in the colonial sense common in the 19th century (Wikipedia: 'obsessed with the purity of God, Trade and the Nation, and written for the future rulers of the world'), Golding decidedly destroys the optimistic world-view of a self-proclaimed master-race. In his story, which like Ballantine's still features dominance, struggle and victory or defeat, these impulses do not create an ever growing sphere of ordered civilisation, but lead into complete destruction within the shortest possible time. Here Aikman's film appears as a response to Golding's 'solution', and its purpose is, I believe, to feature less crude impulses than dominance or struggle and victory. There is never aggression or any struggling for dominance between these children, who in the beginning practise a fully cooperative way of living with astonishing ease and great naturalness. I think Aikman wants to show that this way of living is endangered in the first place in a more subtle way -- 'boredom, hunger and homesickness were our enemies, and that's why we started to argue'. Instead of aggression it's a feeling of futility with regard to the quest for 'home' by some of the boys, which finally divides the group.

This leads to my final point. Other reviewers were concerned that so much nudity might be considered a bit gratuitous. Much nudity? If I count all the nudity scenes, I end up with about 1/8 of the film, and even in this moderate part nudity often can only be intuited, because the boys are visible only in the distance as silhouettes against the light or otherwise blurred. The nudity scenes are not to bluntly showcase naked bodies but do have some particular message. They never lack respect and reverence, and above all they are presented as sort of sacred dance and breathe a sabbatical ease and peace, underlined by the music score changing to liturgical songs and church bells and evoking allusions to Psalm 126 ("release of captives"). I wished -- pedophiles-hunters, calm down, there's nothing here for you to get -- they would take 1/4 of the film or more. By the way, that they appear predominantly in the first quarter of the film is also a reference to Lord of the Flies. And gratuitous? I suggest to view it just the other way round: in the natural environment into which the Genesis Children are placed there's no need for a specific reason for being naturally naked, rather there have to be reasons for wearing clothes. And in fact, there are a few scenes where I find it a bit gratuitous that the boys appear more or less clothed. Where Golding sees civilisation compromised and endangered by the brute struggle for dominance exploding to plain war in the end, it seems that Aikman wants to show (among others) civilisation and humanity compromised long before by the much subtler struggle for dominance and by the hiding game clothing is a part of, and he wants to explore what still can compromise when these dangers are removed, and to what extent they can be removed at all. In this sense, there is quite a surprising finale, which rounds out the numerous (but in their essence not explicit) religious overtones of the film.

Btw, it is also a quiet film. Out of 84 min. total runtime just under 25 min. (29%) contain speaking (thereof 6 min. background narrator voice). The rest is underlined by the music score or by just the natural sounds of the beach. I consider this noteworthy.

Ok here we go

[andrebernardoaranha · 10/10 · 28 July 2023]

This movie is very controversial because of the underaged boys nudity , but that is exactily what the movie talks about, the inocence, in the movie Nothing sexual happens, the boys are simply naked, walking and goofing around , if they were dressed there would be no problem, they behave like the people in the genesis part of the bible probabilly would explaining the title "the genesis children" . The children see no problem with their behave in the film it's WE the audience that see the malice, the wrong with their'e attitude , just like adam and eve AFTHER they ate the forbidden fruit. I acknolege that the film is controversial, but i URGE the audience that try to see the movie throug the childrens eyes, with inoccence.

an essay

[Kirpianuscus · 28 August 2018]

Its theme remains obscure. The grow up, the naturism, the freedom, the lost or Paradise or the temptation and presence of authority. Its plot - just a convention. Clear - the influences. The lovelz scenes on the beach and in Rome. The boys . The eulogy to naturism. The desire to give a start point for reflection. A beautiful film. Maybe too naive or tool of too idealistic perspective about life. But usefull for the feeling behind it. And, maybe, is the most significant purpoise. Or only virtue.

Decent vigorous innocent

[matthalsen · 9 September 2019]

Really incredible a trip without drugs but with comradeship and brotherhood of you boys from very young (and very safe, I would know) to almost grown out of teen years but they are all youthful robust harmless and morals are they teach the adults who thankfully aren't present in the film at least what I saw to respect them they are youth not adults but it is not a exploitive film the fact that me a leftie libertarian thinks graphic put anywhere (to me 'show me' just reaches qualifications for this ) is or was allowed pretty darn soon after this much more wholistic much more respectful of all youth production was made, and it was this , this, that they raised stinky stinks about shows it's not or never has been about respecting kids letting THEM be free and us TRYING HEH OUR BEST TO ,AS ADULTS GET ALONG WITH OTHER ADULTS AND CAMP WITH OTHER ADULTS, FORM LOVE WITH OTHER ADULTS AND LOVE EVERYONE ITS ABOUT CRITICIZING JUST LIKE IN A DICTATORSHIP WHAT IS FREE WHAT IS NOT CONTROLLED YET WHAT IS HARMLESS ...we ought to appear as adults not hassling kids not hurting not coercing not dating little kid children or really in any way their older brothers yes we should know all those boys are kids beautiful children but what if ...one was nineteen uh oh no I don't say uh oh I say love peace safety to that young lad as well! And we must make sure we respect girls and women 💪 as much always!!!! So I say it's innocence not waste in effort I say it's intentions are opposite of predators

Not what you may think, better

[matthalsen · 11 September 2019]

This film is not a downer it is survival adventure nudism in a setting that is non coercive non abusive for sure non harmful but helpful. Helpful in the way it lets you realize we all us are just human we are all we got. If we cannot look down on these boys we as 'civilization," should be off well ,a great start. But they themselves aren't entirely responsible for forming civilization , probably obvious to us as they are still growing learning to lean on each other and learning to trust to play vigorously as teens as well as children and I like the way the teens are considered what they are, children. But with this because everything is so well honest you don't get a sad, event like a boy being abused by a sadistic prison guard or a club (scouts) where it has always been considered safe to undress and nude or non nude swimming both has always been the rule! So even there is one scene of the little guy , his older friends surround him as playful and he is safe okay , but it does look a little like something they wouldn't do. But no harm is intended and the youngest is not harmed not assaulted not touched even they are playing and I think that is better than laughing when a teen boy lands on a little boy while playing football in the "toxic masculinity" thing by Gillette. I mean they have a point laughing at THAT on that 2019 current now commercial shows much more avoidance of care respect for youth compared to this film. Hint, remember if you are adults act so don't down kids playing for me I will be responsible , yeah and respectful but because of this not in spite of it I am going to romantically attach some day another age as I am man will be there first I must be there for him and we will and I already do know we do not put down abuse or degrade kids THIS MOVIE IS A MUST FOR A PERSON WHO WANTS TO BE HIMSELF OR HERSELF BE RESPONSIBLE AND IS ALTHOUGH ADORING OF YOUTH , WHEN IT IS ROMANCE HE OR SHE IS NOT ADORING BUT DOESN'T PAY ATTENTION WHY? BECAUSE HER OR HIS THOUGHTS ARE ON PEOPLE 'AROUND," HINT LOL HIM ,LR YES HER AMEN HALLELUJAH PEACE