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

[Smoke]

Educating the public about rape.

That'll be a great help to all the people who might not have realized that rape is bad and can be traumatic for little girls.

They are still adults exploiting kids for money.

No doubt. But isn't that what they were doing when they cast her in Charlotte's Web, too? I have no doubt that this film is going to be tasteless, unnecessary, and anything but entertaining, but it's not as if they were really going to rape her -- and I think it's a little late in the day to start fretting about Dakota Fanning's lost childhood.

 

[Sunstone]

I'd have to see the film before judging it. The article left more questions unanswered than answered.

 

[Fluffy]

I have long come to the conclusion that the feeling of repulsion is fundamentally flawed and beyond this emotion, I have no reason to have a problem with this movie.

 

[Willamena]

That'll be a great help to all the people who might not have realized that rape is bad and can be traumatic for little girls.

If that's your idea of being educated about rape, then perhaps this is a movie for you.

 

[michel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=396762&in_page_id=1773




Seriously screwed up!!!!!!!!!. How could ANYONE classify this repugnant idea as entertainment? :banghead3

Is there a posibility that this film is trying to highlight the problem of abuse and of paedophilia?
</IMG>Maybe it isn't the best way to go about it, but...............

 

[Willamena]

Is there a posibility that this film is trying to highlight the problem of abuse and of paedophilia

Every possibility.

 

[MaddLlama]

Did anyone happen to see that movie from the 1970's with a young Brooke Shields playing a pe-teen prostitute?

 

[Sunstone]

Did anyone happen to see that movie from the 1970's with a young Brooke Shields playing a pe-teen prostitute?

Wasn't that called "Pretty In Pink". I never saw it, but I think I read the insiped Time Magazine review of it.

 

[Faint]

Did anyone happen to see that movie from the 1970's with a young Brooke Shields playing a pe-teen prostitute?

"Pretty Baby". I never saw it no, but it sounds along the lines of what we're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Baby_%28film%29 ) "In addition to the subject of child prostitution, some ire was raised because of scenes involving a 12-year-old Brooke Shields appearing nude." and "Susan Sarandon provided a g-string for Brooke Shields to wear in most of her nude scenes so she would not have to be totally nude." I'd have to know the storyline/context before I comment on this.

Another one is "Taxi Driver" featuring a 13 year-old Jodie Foster playing a prostitute. Or the 1968 film of "Romeo & Juliet" with a 16 year-old Olivia Hussey topless.

I'm sure I could find more examples. But I'm wondering at what point does this become child exploitation? In other words what is the criteria for abuse as far as cinematic art is concerned?

 

[Willamena]

I'm sure I could find more examples. But I'm wondering at what point does this become child exploitation? In other words what is the criteria for abuse as far as cinematic art is concerned?

I would say that criteria must be set by the young actress.

 

[MaddLlama]

I'm sure I could find more examples. But I'm wondering at what point does this become child exploitation? In other words what is the criteria for abuse as far as cinematic art is concerned?

Acting isn't the same thing as abuse. When Brooke Shields was filming Pretty Baby there was an interview with her, and she was very mature about the whole thing. She said her mother had threatened to pull her out of the film because of the nude scene, but Brooke wanted to do it because she felt that it was still tasteful.

Movies dealing with serious issues such as rape and pedophelia are of course going to be met with reistance, but as far as abuse goes, as long as Dakota Fanning is just acting and isn't actually being abused, then I don't see a moral problem with it.

 

[Ðanisty]

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.

See, I don't assume at all that Dakota was coerced into doing this. We haven't heard from her one way or another on this, but it is my guess that she found this as a challenging role and wanted to participate.

Any of you who are okay with this, would you let your 12 year old (or however old she is know) star in a movie about this and make her go through that?

Make her go through it? I wouldn't make anyone go through it. If I had a 12 year old daughter who was an actress and who understood the role and purpose of the film and wanted to be in the film, yes, I would allow her.

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.

Actually, the older man was played Jean Reno...Luc Besson was the director. I have the director's cut of Leon and I've watched all of the interviews on it with Natalie Portman. She wanted to do the film...she convinced her parents to let her. It didn't scar her. She was interviewed as an adult for the anniversary edition and she's perfectly well-adjusted and is still glad she took the role. She also spoke of how professionally it was handled by all the adults and how they were careful not to make her uncomfortable in any way. It's a fantastic film...one of my favorites.

 

[nutshell]

See, I don't assume at all that Dakota was coerced into doing this. We haven't heard from her one way or another on this, but it is my guess that she found this as a challenging role and wanted to participate.

Make her go through it? I wouldn't make anyone go through it. If I had a 12 year old daughter who was an actress and who understood the role and purpose of the film and wanted to be in the film, yes, I would allow her.

Actually, the older man was played Jean Reno...Luc Besson was the director. I have the director's cut of Leon and I've watched all of the interviews on it with Natalie Portman. She wanted to do the film...she convinced her parents to let her. It didn't scar her. She was interviewed as an adult for the anniversary edition and she's perfectly well-adjusted and is still glad she took the role. She also spoke of how professionally it was handled by all the adults and how they were careful not to make her uncomfortable in any way. It's a fantastic film...one of my favorites.

I think this movie is called "The Professional" in the U.S. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And for the record....it seems that movie has ruined Natalie Portman for life.

 

[Ðanisty]

I think this movie is called "The Professional" in the U.S. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.

And for the record....it seems that movie has ruined Natalie Portman for life.

If you mean that in the way that it was the best film she was ever in, I'd have to agree with you. I feel her acting went downhill after The Professional although I did enjoy V for Vendetta.

 

[nutshell]

You are correct.

If you mean that in the way that it was the best film she was ever in, I'd have to agree with you. I feel her acting went downhill after The Professional although I did enjoy V for Vendetta.

I thought her acting was pretty good in everything except the Star Wars films. Not just V for Vendetta, but Closer as well.

 

[Faint]

Actually, the older man was played Jean Reno...Luc Besson was the director. I have the director's cut of Leon and I've watched all of the interviews on it with Natalie Portman. She wanted to do the film...she convinced her parents to let her. It didn't scar her. She was interviewed as an adult for the anniversary edition and she's perfectly well-adjusted and is still glad she took the role. She also spoke of how professionally it was handled by all the adults and how they were careful not to make her uncomfortable in any way. It's a fantastic film...one of my favorites.

Doh! I knew that too...my bad. Shame on the Faint...

I think this movie is called "The Professional" in the U.S. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, when it was released in theaters and before "Leon" was released over here. I used "Leon" specifically because it includes the more racy scenes (which I mentioned and which pertain to this thread) which were not in the professional.

 

[Faint]

I thought her acting was pretty good in everything except the Star Wars films. Not just V for Vendetta, but Closer as well.

Garden State.

 

[nutshell]

Garden State.

Hmmm....I mixed on Garden State. I heard great things about this movie, but found it a big let down.



Anyway...back to the thread...has anyone actually heard from Dakota about this movie?

 

[sparkyluv]

I can't believe people are making a huge deal out of this. People are only getting carried away over it because it's Dakota Fanning. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Dakota fan and I'm excited about this movie. This is a movie that America needs to see. We don't like to think that child abuse exists so we push it to the side. It kills me that people are questioning whether Dakota wanted to do this movie or not. As smart and as talented as that little girl is, I guarantee you that she wanted to do this role. Who could pull it off better? People need to realize some things:

1.) Everything in filmmaking is staged, it's all choreography. Sex scenes are choreographed, fight scenes are choreographed, murder scenes are choreographed, sports games are choreographed, and I guarantee you this rape scene is choreographed. It's gonna look disturbing on screen, but I guarantee you it's seems so fake when you're filming it.

2.) It is not exploitation because she's not naked when filming it, she's wearing a body suit. And because of the nature of the scene, someone from child welfare has to be on set during filming and someone was. It is not child porn because she is not performing a sexual act. Go see "******* out of Carolina" or "Sleepers" and then try and call this movie (that people have yet to see and are going by articles written by people who weren't on set) child porn and child exploitation.

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.

What we see on screen is not what it really looks like during filming. The goal is to make it look so real that the audience is convinced. Position the camera the right way on her face, switch the lighting up, get Dakota to cry on que, add in extra sound during post-production, take out the man who plays the rapist during filming, and on screen it looks like she's being raped.

 

[Ody]

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.

??????????

Since when did I accept violence against minors in film?

Why do you have to put words in my mouth? Do you need to let off some anger?