A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
nutshell said:
Just because I close my eyes doesn't mean that it's not there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dakota, 12, to star in 'disturbing paedophile film'
- Thread starter Ody
- Start date
Just because I close my eyes doesn't mean that it's not there.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
nutshell said:
Now that sounds painful.
I suppose if I redefined child exploitation as not including a naked or partially naked child being encouraged by adults to engage in sexual-like activity in front of a camera for money for her parents and other adults, perhaps I wouldn't see child abuse or exploitation.
If I redefined abuse and exploitation to include this atrocity, then I'd have to question who I was.
If they can do it, why can't anyone else? - Because it's wrong!
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
nutshell said:Which part? Toothpicks in the eyes or actually watching this movie?
Both I suspect. I'd rather stick toothpicks in my eyes - or rather nails in the palms of Christ - than watch this filth.
Faint
Well-Known Member
Quite right. Spielberg should be ashamed of himself. People can be educated about the holocaust by reading history books, especially considering that most of the public LOVES reading as opposed to watching movies. Besides, all "Schindler's List" did was give people ideas about how to run around and execute jews in large quantities. Worse, it made them want to do it! It doesn't matter how an evil subject is presented in a movie...it's just wrong! Evil should not be mentioned or portrayed in a realistic fashion. Ever.nutshell said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
nutshell said:
No apology needed - when it comes to not supporting the exploitation of kids in the name of "art" - which in Hollywood is simply the name of money - I have no regrets, and you're wasting your sympathy.
I wonder - should we lament the hundreds of preists who cannot exploit the children in their church for at least charitable causes under the guise of art? If the masses have a taste for this kind of slime, there could be lots of money available.
nutshell
Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Obviously, our definitions of exploitation is different.
And your extension to include priests and charitable causes is a lame attempt, imo. Further, I don't believe the masses have a taste for this. I expect the Faint and I are in the minority on this one, and even though I don't oppose it, I suspect I won't be watching this film.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
nutshell said:
If we can assume, which I think that we can, that Dakota wouldn't normally engage in this kind of activity and was cohersed to do so by other adults with the intend to make money on the exposure of her body, then it is nothing less than exploitation that is on precisely the same level as other contexts.
Faint
Well-Known Member
Angellous, I see the point you're trying to make, but I'm afraid I haven't seen any detail about how this is a danger to Dakota. Please define "exploitation" as it pertains to Dakota Fanning's particular circumstances. Be sure to include details about how the scene is shot; discussions among the actors/director/and screenwriter before and after filming; how this violates Child Labor Laws; and more specifically how it violates the Child Protection and Obscenity Act all of which are enforced on big-time Hollywood sets.angellous_evangellous said:
Also, I would not say that Hollywood considers "art" only on a financial basis. That makes you sound like you're ignorant to the level of talent/artifice that goes into making productions of this magnitude...which I doubt you are. The same could be said of the music industry...you want to tell me that you've never enjoyed a mass produced CD or movie? It's the art you're enjoying...not the motives of the execs and money men behind the scenes. Unfortunately greedy and the artists are in a symbiotic relationship...but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Faint
Well-Known Member
Yes, while I wouldn't "make" my fictional 12 year-old do any film, I would probably encourage her especially if she was talented and if it was something she enjoyed doing. I might even explain to her that difficult roles can do wonders to advance a career, but it is not the only way to do such a thing. If Dakota were my daughter, I'd leave the decision in her hands as she is (a) old enough and intelligent enough to know what she's doing in this regard (google some of her interviews--she's no fool or helpless baby), and (b) she has done difficult (violent) roles in the past with great success--and doesn't seem worse off for it.beckysoup61 said:
Also, think about Natalie Portman who played a sexual role as a young teen in "Leon", in which she offered her virginity to an older Luc besson; pretended to drink alcohol *gasp*, and even held a gun to her own head at one point. Do you think she was permanently scared by any of that? Do you think she was exploited in that movie? Either way, she seems to have turned out successful and well adjusted as an adult.
standing_alone
Well-Known Member
beckysoup61 said:
Actually it does. Professional actors have a much better grasp of the artform than do amateurs and therefore would be much more equiped at handling such challenging roles.
beckysoup61 said:
If I had a twelve year-old and s/he was a professional actor that was capable of playing and handling difficult roles and showed interest in playing this role and were understanding of what playing that role entailed, I would certainly let them do it. If I felt they weren't of the maturity or stability needed to play the role, I wouldn't allow them to.