"I've seen some of the Eva photos and I have to say, it is quite evident from them that the little girl was not enjoying herself."

I am old enough to have seen some under circumstances where it was legal to.

And I must argue that the photos themselves don't document the state of mind of the model.

Mann and Sturges are essentially documenting moments in the regular lives of kids. ( although anyone who's seen Sturges' process knows the great pains he goes to to reconstruct a candid glimpse. )

But not all models for art photography are being asked to be themselves. The models in Bill Henson's photos have a blank and faraway look. It would seem self-evident within an abuse narrative that their sullen withdrawn expressions stem from abuse; until you ask them what they think.

Keeping in mind that Irina seemed more interested in the "fetish" genre, her models ( adult and child ) have expressions very much like those of Helmut Newton's photography. ( Sullen="serious" art. )

Eva's testimony is that she experienced exploitation. It seems a shame then that she feels a need to withdraw from the truth of it in her retelling. ( "I have sweetened things, the truth is too trashy." ) The restrictions we place on the truth tell us a lot about the limitations ( presumed or real ) of the audience a story is aimed at. But the unvarnished truth ages better as audience tolerances shift.

It also seems strange that Eva's touch-points in her movie are all directors ( "Brian De Palma, Robert Aldrich, the B-movie .. Fassbinder heroines and Kubrick's Lolita," ) known for their roles exploiting invented "monsters." One doesn't watch Lolita, Raising Cain, or What Ever Happened To Baby Jane to learn anything about real exploitation. And we learn that those who cite Lolita as nonfiction aren't interested in the truth.

But at the bottom of it all we have a legal struggle between a child and mother for the control of images the child finds harmful. With a fourth trial over these it sounds as though the law supports the circumstances surrounding the model's consent. ( It would be interesting to know just what the requirements were at the time. )

By applying a higher standard to himself than the mere initial clearance, Jock Sturges sets himself apart. But could we apply the same standard to all? Could Brooke suppress all films her stage mother consented to? Can Jennifer Connelly suppress her "embarasing" juvenilia like Labyrinth? ( Or the nude scene in Once Upon A Time In America? ) And why can't adults change their minds as they find themselves further down the road? Would a right to retract consent be based purely on perceptions of sexual exploitation or on other grounds?

It seems to me that the laws concerning fraudulent circumstances negating consent ought to be applied across the board. But it is also clear that in a circumstance where children are effectively property, that all such consent is effectively coerced.

Yet another reason why I am only half-joking when I advocate the argument to replace all minors in professional entertainment with adult "little people."

Dante