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

[Ody]

I doubt the kid will be traumatized by filming a rape scene. Just my hunch she won't. Acting a rape is a far cry from being raped.

That isn't the problem I have, its the depraved violent rape of children that disgusts me. How they can go ahead and put this on the big screen is beyond me! :cover:

 

[nutshell]

The bottom line is everyone is jumping to conclusions. What we imagine and what will be on the screen are probably very far removed from one another.

 

[Fluffy]

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

I would say that this is totally illogical when the law clearly states that children are not able to make these kinds of choices for themselves since they lack the mental capabilities and the worldly experience. If they were then this would not be a problem since a child of any age could consent to sex and paedophilia would not be a sin.

I have seen a lot of people on this thread defend the movie and similar movies based on the apparent maturity of the actress. However, this defense is not accepted in a court of law in paedophilic cases when the age is as young as 12 simply because the law does not believe that it is possible for a child that young to be mature enough to make an informed decision (and therefore give consent).

That isn't the problem I have, its the depraved violent rape of children that disgusts me. How they can go ahead and put this on the big screen is beyond me! :cover:

Having said that, they are not putting "depraved violent rape of children" onto the big screen.

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

I thought her acting in V for Vendetta sucked until the errr turning point in the movie when her acting seemed to change as radically as her character (which was a good thing and saved an excellent movie).

 

[Storm Moon]

Um... wasn't there a movie out several years ago about a priest raping these young boys? So funny how people whine about that in which they don't understand. Dakota Fanning is just that: an ACTRESS. She's not 'really' going to be hurt here! Sheesh, wake up.

 

[darkpenguin]

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.


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."


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.

I'm surprised that Lolita didn't get a mention sooner yet nobody questions Kubrics genious film making and he made a film which was much worse than this one sounds!
I think a film that raises awareness and makes us hate the sickos that carry out these crimes even more so then we allready do has to be a good thing?!?

 

[Valjean]

[SIZE=+0]If Miss Fanning is being exploited in this film how is it she wasn't being exploited in her other films? I don't recall any controversy surrounding these. Does an acting gig suddenly become exploitation when it portrays something distasteful? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Fanning, her parents, and other staff no doubt received, analysed and chose to do this script many months ago, with full knowledge of everything it portrays, how it would probably be filmed and, not least, that it was all make-believe.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Children appear in films and on TV all the time. They're shot, incinerated, beaten, tortured and mistreated in every imaginable way, but there's no outcry. No-one's clamoring for CSI -- Special Victims Unit to be removed from prime time. No-one called for the censorship of Schindler's List. It's all acting. It's all choreographed. From any angle other than the camera's the whole operation appears utterly fake.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Nudity? What's wrong with nudity? If American's can't separate nudity from sexuality the problem is between their own ears. They create their own pornography. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][For that matter, what's wrong with sexuality? Why is such an ordinary, mundane human drive/activity so perilous to a child's mental health?][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]I suspect the controversy over the scene is likely to be more disturbing to the actress than the actual scene. It probably wouldn't have occurred to her that this particular scene was exploiting and traumatizing her if groups of adults didn't suddenly appear howling and gnashing their teeth about it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]I see w*r portrayed all the time on film and TV. What could be more obscene than w*r? What could be more dehumanizing, more psychologically damaging than the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children. How could children be forced to portray such unspeakable horror?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Yet we love w*r. We celebrate it and honor it's practitioners. We piously attend Sunday services condemning everything the military stands for, then drive home in cars with "support our troops" bumper stickers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]Forgive me if I can't se how make-believe play-acting is going to be more damaging to a professional actress than the norms of the society around her.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]

 

[nutshell]

What's w*r?

 

[MaddLlama]

War, I think.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is this movie "out" yet? Has anyone seen it?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As a performance artist who has had experience working with the art of film, and who also has family who are currently filmmakers, I can tell you that filming a rape scene is RADICALLY different than an actual rape.


There are too many elements to consider when crafting a scene to understand that being on a set with camera angles, direction, make-up, costuming, lighting design takes away so much of the "reality" than we often see as the finished product.........and there hasn't even been mentioned the emotional impact a film has once it's gone through the process of editing and adding the score.



Fanning is in no danger on set. The audience will likely see a realistic rendition of child rape, but in order to evoke a highly emotional response. There is no argument here that those of us who support the filmmaker and the crew in making this film happen that child rape is disgusting, is horrific, and that paedophilia is one of the worst kind of evils. However, the portrayal is nothing more than that..........a portrayal, and certainly not the real thing.



Art imitates life, and is meant to inspire an audience - whether a captive audience or not - to leave feeling inspired to live better. There have been plenty of artistic renditions in the written word, in the graphic arts, in musical prose, and on stage, that have given accurate portrayals of the darkest sides of humans including the emotional states of the victims.



And children on film in disturbing imagery? Sparkyluv presented a few examples of child rape already put on screen in convincing fashion such as in ******* Out of Carolina, which I've seen and thought was very well produced. But there have been countless other films where young children have been kidnapped, tortured, and murdered in graphic detail, and I highly doubt that any number of them were ever traumitized while on set.



Why no outcry for scenes from City of God? A young Brazilian gangster tortures a young 10-year-old kid by asking where does he want to get shot, in the hand or the foot? To see the shock and the fear is raw and unapologetic on screen, but the film was very good in portraying the gritty reality of life in the slums in Brazil. Were these children being exploited, too?



In my humble opinion, no.



I can understand the desire to protect our children with the making of this film..........and that is, what I hope, will be the outcome - more children will be protected from the brutality of paedophilia.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Does this remind anyone of A Clockwork Orange?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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.

Non-sexual nudity in actors and actresses of all ages used to be a lot more common in movies. Unfortunately, some of the more aggressive laws and statutes in recent times have removed a lot of these harmless displays of the human body. Combine that with the rise of pornography fueled by sexual repression, and this is the outcome that results.

BTW, this is going to sound downright sick, but studies have shown that quite a few adults show positive sexual response to pedophilic stimuli. (http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html <- Skip down to "Discussion." Disclaimer: This article is NSFW.)

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Personally, I don't think this will bring any light to the rapees plight, it'll give ideas to sick people and just play out more sick fantasies.

If they were to actually forcus on a rapees plight then they wouldn't have a movie about a young girl getting raped. It would show none of that, that can not be theraputic at all.

Whomever is going to see, go ahead..but I for one, will NOT support something as disgusting as this ( and this isn't even from a relgious standpoint -- it's from the standpoint of moral friend of many rapees -- most of my high school friends were raped by either a guy they knew, boyfriend, etc.)

Becky, what's your take on Saving Private Ryan?

 

[nutshell]

Here's a recent article about this issu:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16773090/

What interested me is the possibility the scene may violate federal child-pornography laws. Most of the discussion here has been about the morality of the scene - now, we're introduced with a legal argument against it.

Remember Legal does not equal Moral and vice versa.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

From the article:

The disturbing scene lasts a few minutes but is not graphic. There is no nudity, the scene is very darkly lit and only Fanning’s face and hand are shown.

This is soooooooooooo not child pornography. There is a big difference here in contructing a film from different clips and angles, and setting up a camera to record someone doing a minor.



Peace,
Mystic

 

[nutshell]

From the article:






This is soooooooooooo not child pornography. There is a big difference here in contructing a film from different clips and angles, and setting up a camera to record someone doing a minor.



Peace,
Mystic

Here is a federal chil-pornography law:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

Certainly, there is room for argument.