The Disturbing History Behind Shirley Temple Films

She played played prostitutes, they simulated oral sex and strip teases in the films with kids. Watch.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 35October 9, 2018 7:19 PM

FUCK OFF, PEDO- OBSESSED POO SHOES TROLL!!!!

by Anonymousreply 1October 30, 2017 6:15 AM

That's some of the most absurd and crazy shit I've ever seen. Searching for something that just wasn't there. You believe this shit OP?

by Anonymousreply 2October 30, 2017 6:18 AM

Thepedos are the ones who produced this "documentary." Hear they're making another one about "Leave It to Beaver."

by Anonymousreply 3October 30, 2017 6:39 AM

R1, R2 = retards

Having the AA boy strip and dance and Shirley seduce the senator. Are you high??!

by Anonymousreply 4October 30, 2017 6:50 AM

People are so gullible. The connections to Nabokov are completely untrue and unconvincing. It's upsetting to see the comments section on videos like this. Everyone seems to buy it. Critical thinking is dead.

by Anonymousreply 5October 30, 2017 6:53 AM

R4 the AA boy stripped to something that would be overdressing in most gyms -- cmon really ?

by Anonymousreply 6October 30, 2017 7:06 AM

Sorry but you are all wrong. The pedophilia connection was an open scandal in Shirley Temple's time. Critics deplored it in the press. I'm not talking about any actual activity, but I mean the way she was made to appeal to the pedophilic tastes of many men in the American audience. It was considered creepy even back then and it was openly condemned.

by Anonymousreply 9October 30, 2017 7:36 AM

R9 I think thats because they were always looking for dirt in the movies back then. I don;t think that proves anything. Nuns used to prohibit black patent shoes because they shined so much you could se up a girl;s dress. There was a certain hysteria about sex.

by Anonymousreply 10October 30, 2017 7:43 AM

R9 that's fine, but the video you posted is fucking idiotic nonsense conspiracy shit.

by Anonymousreply 11October 30, 2017 7:50 AM

Weird, I've just watch that video this morning and now it is posted here in DL this afternoon. You guys are stalking me?

by Anonymousreply 12October 30, 2017 7:57 AM

In her autobiography " Child Star", Shirley Temple recalled that while filming one of the" Baby Burlesk" shorts, several black children were left injured & bleeding from a stunt that went wrong, the director thought it was absolutely hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 13October 30, 2017 7:58 AM

MGM's Arthur Freed exposed himself to Shirley and expected a blow job. She, being too young to understand, giggled at his wiener. Pretty sick stuff.

by Anonymousreply 15October 30, 2017 8:05 AM

And it haunted me for the rest of my life.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16October 30, 2017 8:12 AM

Time Magazine covered this.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17October 30, 2017 8:13 AM

“Baby Burlesks” is a disturbing short film series Temple did as a child where they put her and other children in adult situations. They were definitely written by pedophiles.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 18October 30, 2017 8:17 AM

I'm not going to watch the whole documentary, but the issue with sexuality and Shirley Temple movies has been talked about for decades, and the people freaking out as though it was some made-up fantasy by a pedo are hysterics who don't know jack shit about movie history.

There have been a lot of connections made between Lolita and Shirley Temple, including this interesting bit of trivia noted in the Village Voice about a dozen years ago:

[quote]Lolita appeared in September 1955 as part of Olympia’s “Traveller’s Companion” series. This was too late—at least to accompany the travelers the publisher had in mind. The press did the bulk of its semi-salacious business in books bought for France’s long summer vacations in July and August. Lolita missed this window of opportunity. As a result, it sold few copies and attracted little attention—until the night before Christmas. In the London Sunday Times‘ winter holiday issue, Graham Greene listed Nabokov’s unknown novel as one of the three best of the year. (Two facts bear noting here: Greene exercised great influence, and some years earlier he had been sued by Shirley Temple’s parents and her studio for a review of Wee Willie Winkie in which he made reference to her “neat and well-developed rump”).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20October 30, 2017 8:30 AM

And to go along with r19, here's an article from the 1980s discussing the 1937 review of "Wee Willie Winkie" where Graham Greene makes it clear that he thinks the Shirley Temple films are pedo bait.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 21October 30, 2017 8:32 AM

I should add that the documentary -- which, again, I don't have the time nor the inclination to watch -- is linking Nabokov to Shirley Temple precisely because of this whole link between critic Graham Greene, his comments in the 1930s, and his later comments about Nabokov's Lolita in the 1950s.

by Anonymousreply 22October 30, 2017 8:33 AM

Why didn't anyone notice [bold]my[/bold] neat and well-developed rump???

by Anonymousreply 23October 30, 2017 8:45 AM

Methinks R20/R22 protests too much about not watching the documentary.

by Anonymousreply 24October 30, 2017 8:47 AM

I would have satisfied Arthur Freed. I would have done anything to become the new Shirley Temple.

by Anonymousreply 26October 30, 2017 9:15 AM

There may be an interesting documentary to be made about those shorts. This ain't it.

by Anonymousreply 27October 30, 2017 12:05 PM

We already know about the suggestiveness of the Baby Burlesks. How did Shirley get out of Hollywood in one piece?

by Anonymousreply 28October 30, 2017 12:49 PM

She played "Morelegs Sweetrick" in one of them, decked out like Dietrich in feathers and saucy attire.

by Anonymousreply 29October 30, 2017 12:56 PM

[quote]There may be an interesting documentary to be made about those shorts.

Eh, her shorts aren't interesting enough for a whole documentary.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 30October 30, 2017 8:17 PM

She may not have, R28.

As a teen, she was cast in this creepy-as-hell movie with Ronald Reagan called "That Hagen Girl," where the whole plot is that Reagan left his small town years ago, comes back, and his ex girlfriend now has a teenage daughter played by Shirley Temple, who may very well be HIS daughter.

So what does he do? Start dating her.

by Anonymousreply 31October 30, 2017 11:16 PM

I don't like Baby Burkesk but this video is whack a doodle with it's weird references to MK Ultra and numerology.

by Anonymousreply 32October 30, 2017 11:30 PM

That's how these conspiracy theorists reel people in, R32. They take something already known and pretty basic like this, reference actual sociocultural studies and essays about it, then start talking about the number 33 and MK Ultra in the middle of it.

Our own "33" troll does the same. A thread can go on for 100 posts before she'll sneak in "and as you know, Kevin Spacey was 33 years old when this happened" or something similar.

by Anonymousreply 33October 30, 2017 11:34 PM

R33 Right. And when you say that this documentary is terrible, they straw man you.

"This documentary sucks"

"So you think pedophilia is ok???"

by Anonymousreply 34October 31, 2017 3:48 AM

Bump.

You have to understand that these films were "Pre-Code" films, made prior to 1934 when the "Hayes Office" set standards for Hollywood films regarding semi nudity, sexual content, and violence in films.

Adult films prior to 1934 have lots more sexual innuendo than those post 1934. Check out Astaire's "The Gay Divorcee" vs. "Swing Time."

So, I think that these Baby Burlesks shorts can be viewed on several levels. Clever and cute vs. pervvy. Both viewings are legit.

by Anonymousreply 35October 9, 2018 7:19 PM

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pa3TmqOorZ6csm%2BvzqZmraCimq6le5BycGpwYGmAbq7Am7BmmqWnuaa%2F0K6cZqyYmnqltdKtrKuamaO0brTIrKuoqqlir6a0yKebZquYnr%2Btsdhmq56loKGybrLIpaSs