I would probably not have bothered to comment on this film if I had not been disturbed by the constant references made to it here in North America as a porn film. Our obsession with what is, or should be, regarded as pornographic remains a relic of the 'guidance' provided to film makers by the Hayes committee many, many years ago and it is now really time that we relegate it to the past. So far we have not progressed far beyond establishing a somewhat arbitrary division between what we now term 'soft' and 'hard' porn, with both carrying the same pornography label. It is time for us all recognise that neither the R rated (soft porn?) release version of this film, nor the unrated version (hard porn?) available on DVD were in any way pornographic.
In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.
Pornographic? - Hardly!.
Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.
R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.
Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.
I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of "scientific proof" that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.
Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved.
In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.
Pornographic? - Hardly!.
Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.
R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.
Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.
I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of "scientific proof" that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.
Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved.