Dakota, 12, to star in 'disturbing paedophile film'

[angellous_evangellous]

Sometimes to understand the true horror of it all, you need to see the horror.

We're given the gift of empathy and imagination so that we don't have to see such things.

I heard on the radio today that a corpse was delivered to its mother in Uzbeckistan so badly damaged that no one could determine the cause of death. The British ambassador sent pics to a pathology department of a university in the UK who issued a report that the fingernails had been ripped out and the body was badly beaten. The person died by being drowned in boiling liquid.

We've all seen images - I suspect - that we didn't need to see online. We have beheadings, impalement, beastiality and such. Google image "faceless Marine." There are also some pics of disembalment. I don't need to see any of this to know how horrible it is, and neither does anyone else. Stupidity is not an excuse.

There's no reason for us to desend into the heart of darkness.

The usage of a child in this manner is completely unacceptable and I can't imagine how it can be legal in the US.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I can watch action flicks full of violence, like Kill Bill - over and over. We know the violence is fake, so we can tolerate it.

I cannot stomach one rape scene, ever, no matter the context, what is shown/not shown, whether the director or actors are A-list or not. I automatically get up and walk out of the theater or turn the channel immediately. The same applies to child abuse. It is such a powerful reaction, I simply have no choice.

It can never be well-done enough in a movie. There is no way except via the printed page to convey the true horror of such a thing, the feelings of the victim during such an act. The pain, suffering, fear, and the death of innocence, the betrayal, the inestimable damage being done, none of it can be shown on film, unless that film were an actual depiction of an actual rape or abuse of a child.

Unless we're willing to view that, we shouldn't be willing to view a re-enactment using a little girl whose mother hopes it gets her an Oscar, because what we will really be seeing on screen is an act of child abuse.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

a little girl whose mother hopes it gets her an Oscar, because what we will really be seeing on screen is an act of child abuse.

That just sounds diabolical to me.

 

[standing_alone]

The usage of a child in this manner is completely unacceptable and I can't imagine how it can be legal in the US.

It IS just acting - and, as I remember my theatre teacher in high school, as he was talking to one of the actors in a play - something to the effect of (paraphrased quite poorly, because my theatre teacher was a genius, while I, well, I'm not) - that while actors have to portray their characters convincingly and in essence, become them, they can't be of a state where actions involving the character cause real damage to them, the actor. Being that this child's carreer is acting and thus, I would be willing to call her a professional actor, I'm sure she knows how to handle such scenes in a movie.

We know the violence is fake, so we can tolerate it.

I cannot stomach one rape scene, ever, no matter the context, what is shown/not shown, whether the director or actors are A-list or not.

But the rape in the movie is fake, too, just like any other violent scenes.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It IS just acting - and, as I remember my theatre teacher in high school, as he was talking to one of the actors in a play - something to the effect of (paraphrased quite poorly, because my theatre teacher was a genius, while I, well, I'm not) - that while actors have to portray their characters convincingly and in essence, become them, they can't be of a state where actions involving the character cause real damage to them, the actor. Being that this child's carreer is acting and thus, I would be willing to call her a professional actor, I'm sure she knows how to handle such scenes in a movie.

It doesn't matter in this case.

Would it be defensible for exactly the same scenerio to take place but not on a Hollywood set?

Neverminding, of course, that we could question the validity of the child's consent to do such a scene on the basis of her mother's pressure.

 

[standing_alone]

It doesn't matter in this case.

Why doesn't it?

Would it be defensible for exactly the same scenerio to take place but not on a Hollywood set?

The thing is, as I pointed out, is that this girl is a professional actor and this scene is being acted out in a way in which the actor is trained and I'm sure that it will be handled quite professionally by all involved in the making of that scene. There's alot that goes into acting, it's not like they're just throwing the girl in there, saying, "That person is going to pretend to rape you." I'm sure she's being "coached" (lack of better word) through the entire thing.

Neverminding, of course, that we could question the validity of the child's consent to do such a scene on the basis of her mother's pressure.

Well, since we can't know for certain, we can only speculate.

 

[Smoke]

I'd have to see the film before making a judgment, and it doesn't sound like a film I'd want to see. The Daily Mail calls it a "disturbing paedophile film," and I certainly think any film about the rape of a child ought to be disturbing.

I think I might, if I did watch it, find this film less disturbing than Lolita, in which the child is portrayed as the predator, or The Bad Seed, in which the child is a vicious monster.

That's meant to be bad, but I bet you wouldn't have anything to say if her character got shot between the eyes instead.

I remember watching The Bad Seed on television when I was a kid; my mother kept saying, "Patty McCormack's mother must be terrible;" "I don't know what's wrong with Patty McCormack's mother."

That's meant to be bad, but I bet you wouldn't have anything to say if her character got shot between the eyes instead.

I always find it odd that people are often more accepting of violence than of sex, but in the case of rape, we have both violence and sex -- and it's a particularly horrible form of violence. Better than being shot between the eyes, I guess, but far worse than mere "illicit" sex.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm sure she's being "coached" (lack of better word) through the entire thing.

Not that much different from other forms of child abuse and exploitation.

 

[standing_alone]

Not that much different from other forms of child abuse and exploitation.

Oh come on now. There's a difference between acting out a scene of abuse and being abused. I mean, if there's not a difference between acting and experiencing real life events, we better start finding out if all those actors in war movies are suffering from PTSD.

 

[Smoke]

There's no reason for us to desend into the heart of darkness.

I'd say that's up to the artist, even though in this case I doubt the film is going to be what I'd consider worthwhile art. Macbeth is pretty disturbing, and Titus Andronicus even more so. No doubt we're talking about a much lower form of "art" here than Shakespeare, but I don't think we can judge a film on its subject matter alone.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to see this film.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh come on now. There's a difference between acting out a scene of abuse and being abused. I mean, if there's not a difference between acting and experiencing real life events, we better start finding out if all those actors in war movies are suffering from PTSD.

Based on what I've seen, this is child abuse and exploitation and deserves to be investigated by the proper authorities.

EDIT: To me, this simply looks like a chance for Hollywood to get young actresses nude at the earliest possible age with, it seems, little regard for the law or the well-being of the actresses.

 

[!Fluffy!]

It IS just acting - and, as I remember my theatre teacher in high school, as he was talking to one of the actors in a play - something to the effect of (paraphrased quite poorly, because my theatre teacher was a genius, while I, well, I'm not) - that while actors have to portray their characters convincingly and in essence, become them, they can't be of a state where actions involving the character cause real damage to them, the actor. Being that this child's carreer is acting and thus, I would be willing to call her a professional actor, I'm sure she knows how to handle such scenes in a movie.



But the rape in the movie is fake, too, just like any other violent scenes.

Can someone here articulate better than I did in my previous post, the difference between watching a rape scene and "any other violent scenes"? I tried but don't think I made the point.

 

[standing_alone]

Based on what I've seen, this is child abuse and exploitation.

So what have you seen on the set of that movie that makes it child abuse?

If you weren't on the set of that movie, as I assume you weren't, you really have no evidence that this is child abuse. So perhaps I should ask, what makes you assume that this is child abuse? All I have seen you make are emotional statements with nothing to back them up.

Going off of what little I know about acting (based on two years of participation in stagecraft/crew in high school) and the work that goes into it by many different people, I doubt that the actor was left in a situation that left her the potential of being emotionally traumatized or harmed in any way by acting out this scene.

 

[standing_alone]

Can someone here articulate better than I did in my previous post, the difference between watching a rape scene and "any other violent scenes"? I tried but don't think I made the point.

I understand where one may be more repulsed by a rape scene in a movie - I understand there's a difference - I was just pointing out that those scenes, too, are fake.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can someone here articulate better than I did in my previous post, the difference between watching a rape scene and "any other violent scenes"? I tried but don't think I made the point.

Well in this case, other types of violence don't involve naked kids pretending to be raped by an adult.

 

[Smoke]

EDIT: To me, this simply looks like a chance for Hollywood to get young actresses nude at the earliest possible age with, it seems, little regard for the law or the well-being of the actresses.

Probably so. I don't think there's anything sick about nudity, mind you, but there's something sick about adults taking a prurient interest in children, and I can't help suspecting that this film is meant to appeal to the worst in moviegoers.

 

[evearael]

...from the aricle:

A source close to the film said: "The two taboos in Hollywood are child abuse and the killing of animals. "In this movie, both things happen." Fanning's mother, Joy, and her Hollywood agent, Cindy Osbrink, see the movie, written and directed by Deborah Kampmeier, as a possible Oscar vehicle for the pint-size star.

...

"It's not just the rape scene - the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress," Fanning's agent, Osbrink, said. "And I've never been so proud of her in my life. In every scene she gets better and better."

Sick.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Probably so. I don't think there's anything sick about nudity, mind you, but there's something sick about adults taking a prurient interest in children, and I can't help suspecting that this film is meant to appeal to the worst in moviegoers.

I agree in both cases. It seems, however, that nudity in Hollywood is almost exclusively sexual.

 

[Willamena]

Educating about what? Educating men about how to rape young girls? No offense, but this film looks like it will neither be educating or entertaining (except to those who like watching little girls get raped)

Educating the public about rape.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Educating the public about rape.

We don't need Dakota Fanning to be exploited for our "education."