Dakota Fanning Rape Scene in New Movie

If she's naked{except for panties} in some scenes, that is grounds for calling it child inappropriate content. Do they actually think that this is going to help, to make the rape scenes as explicit as they say they do, and more to the pojnt to have a pre-pubescent girl running around w/out her clothes on set beeing filmed pretty much in the nude? that is just gonna make Dakota's nudity masturbatory material for the pedophiles whom happen to see this movie.

I'm not opposed to expressing the horrors of such things on film. But like the author of this thread said, use a freakin body double, or something.
I may see this movie out of curiosity, just to see if it IS as explicit as they make it sound, or if the charges of such are simply puritanical hype. Dakota is indeed a wonderful actress, and I agree that she is highly intelligent and mature at her age{or "seems" to be}, and the fact is that she si close to the age of phsyical adulthood{as opposed to our stupid, unnatural/anti-natural, arbitrary laws of 18/21,etc}, but age 12 is still a little bit questionable to have a girl running around nude, beeing graphically pretend raped for our entertainment...er...um... education{as if we really need to se it to knwo what it would be liked}, if the intent is to show pedophiles the horror they put their victims through, don't they think the pedophiles allready know this-given that they do it themselves? won't this just give them masturbatory material. Dakota is a pretty young girl, and that won't bode well for keeping this from beeing a big favorite for pedophiles to watch.

Using simple relativistic, yet utilitarian ethics; what is the practical ethical value of filming this this way using a real,live, pre-teen girl.
I've seen plenty of movies on similar subjects, where young girls and boys were stars in the movie, and the very "implication" of what was going to happen or BEGINNING to happen and then camera panning away, fading to black, sounds of rape happening w/out showing, use of idget adult body doubles and whatnot for for graphic scences that may include nudity or partial nudity, were always used. This I'm fine with for the arts sake. but what they imply is done in this movie sems to cross a line a little too much.
I could be wrong, I suppose we'll see.

I'm "iffy' on this one.
I personally have little issue with it. However, I just wonder if perhaps filing such things in such gaphic details using a real live young girl whom is nude{and pre-pubescent/ ie:having the beginnings of breasts and womanly form,etc}; then there is the fact that it is a scientific fact that between ages 12-14, human go through as many hormonal,body,psychollogical changes and turmoil as in the first two years of life, how will this fact play out for Dakota as she enters that stage having played in such a graphic{sexually} movie as she entered into that stage?

I worry about the psychological affects. I mean Drew Barryore and other child actors in the sketchy hollywood biz were royally messd up psychologically by the combination of what it is like to first of all even be in so many movies during their childhood in a biz such as the hollywood movie biz and all the stresses that such things and such fame can cause, second of all in movies that had fairly graphic things or ideas to them or in them that they particpated in on a daily basis,thirdly-any other factors.
Drew was incredibly intelligent and mature too, as were most child actors, and look at the crap they went throughm the addictions, and other things. I worry about other child actors; particualryl when they ahve a seemingly veyr intelligent and mature demeanor, and when most of their movies have beeen on very dark subjects and things such as horror and whatnot{or where they play troubled,spolied children,etc}. Most of Dakotas movies have been dark, horror,etc. How will this fact bode for her?
I dn't know. But I wonder and have some concern.
Not that I am against children and pre-pubescent kids beeing in horror movies or movies with dark subject matter,etc, but when most or all of the flicks they are are of that nature, that troubles me.

Hmmm???

Anyways, I will wacth this movie ou tof curiosity. Perhaps the allegations of explicitnes and nudity,etc, are overplayed and hyped up to be more graphic than they really are.

{Quote;nothingbuttheblood/}Considering people at this board think 12 year olds who want to have sex should be able to why would showing a "fake/hollywood" rape scene matter. {Unquote/}

yeah, 12 year olds having consented sex with other people in their age range. Not the same thing as graphic rape scenes featuring a twelve year old naked girl and adults dooing the raping.

In Reason:
irrev:Bill

I won't see the movie, but I don't see most movies anyway. Why? I don't care about realism--I want to see creativity. I'd rather imagine what's going on, if there's something disturbing going on.
I'd rather see a good informational video about the topic of the movie than consider it entertainment.

CSmrw said:

I don't really have a prblem with twelve year olds having sex. It's not about that. It's about adult manipulation. I can't see how an actor can do a scene where they are getting tortured without having to get into a certain mindframe, and I have an even harder time figuring out how a child actor can get into that mindframe at the direction of a group of adults without it being damaging to them on some level. Even with the best psychological professionals on hand I just can't see how this benefits anyone but those looking to exploit this young person's talents.

Click to expand...

Well said.. I agree wholeheartedly.

This is exploitive tasteless and awful, I can't believe we have sunk this low as a society...

AnnetteHamilton said:

This is exploitive tasteless and awful, I can't believe we have sunk this low as a society...

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Child rape has gone on since the beginning of society.

marblehead said:

What are you talking about? Child rape has gone on since the beginning of society.

Click to expand...

But it isn't often exploited for the purposes of entertainment. At least, not in mainstream culture.

People are saying that child abuse/rape needs a higher profile. It does. But I don't think Hollywood is really in any position to do anything about it. At the end of the day movies rarely change anything, especially in cases like this one where everyone knows that it does happen. What I think people need to know is how often it happens. But that's nearly impossible to do now that we've been conditioned to brush it off after the various ritual abuse scares decades ago.

My beef isn't with the fact that Hollywood's exploiting the sexual abuse of children, but with the potential effects that getting into the mindset that performing such a scene would require might have on an impressionable child. There are plenty of other options that would suffice- resulting in the same cinematic effect- and don't involve a child taking place in a simulated rape.

The movie will probably bring awareness, in some form, to the problem of child CSA.. which is a good thing. But at what (unnecessary) cost? This girl is being shamelessly exploited for the sake of manufacturing controversy for the purpose of selling tickets.

The subject matter is nothing new to Hollywood.

Brooke Shields was deflowered by an old guy who paid for her in Pretty Baby--all offscreen of course

The kids were raped in The Prince of Tides. Sorta off camera but not totally.

The Angelica Huston-produced movie about the child raper/abuser ...out of Carolina was as graphic as I care to get. It made me sick, brought back stuff I would have rather forgotten about, and made me angry.

What is different is the graphic lengths they want to go to. And at this point people will see it for the oggle factor--to see what the hoopla is about. Kinda like back in the day when everyone saw Mommie dearest because of the "horrible" wire hanger scene everyone was talking about.

Just because it's going to be a part of a movie doesn't mean that it's exploitation, if it was then pretty much everything would be exploitation.

I think people should be more concerned about what happens in real life than what happens in a movie. I'd hope it's done in a way that doesn't psychologically harm Dakota, but it just seems to me that people get too upset over the subject matter of a movie.

E-beth said:

The subject matter is nothing new to Hollywood.

Brooke Shields was deflowered by an old guy who paid for her in Pretty Baby--all offscreen of course

The kids were raped in The Prince of Tides. Sorta off camera but not totally.

The Angelica Huston-produced movie about the child raper/abuser ...out of Carolina was as graphic as I care to get. It made me sick, brought back stuff I would have rather forgotten about, and made me angry.

What is different is the graphic lengths they want to go to. And at this point people will see it for the oggle factor--to see what the hoopla is about. Kinda like back in the day when everyone saw Mommie dearest because of the "horrible" wire hanger scene everyone was talking about.

Click to expand...

Actually, this was why I mentioned Passion of the Christ. I'm sure Gibson had intended it to be a moving something or other, but what I saw was a drawn out snuff flick and a bad telling of a good story. But everyone saw it because it "had to be seen".

Of course, unlike Passion this might be a very good film on it's own merits, but I doubt seriously a graphic torture sequence will improve it at this point.

But I tell you what, just by publishing this trifling article they have already upped their opening night ticket sales by 20%.

fromdownunder said:

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

I find it totally beyond comprehension that this was allowed by her parents, the studio who are making the movie, well.... everyone. For a (possible) Oscar (TM) moment?

She is a twelve year old! Who knows what effect this might have on her in the future? I don't give a damn how "mature" she, or her parents think she is, or if anyone thinks that doing such a scene will not affect her in some way.

I don't know that it will. But, I am certain that she does not either. Nobody knows, and it is a risk that should not be taken with a little girl.

Now, semi rant being over, I have no problem with the concept - I think the idea of paedophelia should be filmed and made public to increase awareness of this practice. But to let a little girl participate when at least two practical and less risky options are available:

1. use a body double of an older person for the rape scene; or

2. have the event occur off screen and let people simply imagine the terror that she would be going through (or in this blase age, can't film goers imagine anything any more?)

Morally reprehesible is a phrase I have never used before on a BB. I am now making an exception, just for this. Should I say I am disgusted, or is it pretty obvious?

Norm

Click to expand...

On the one hand, I think that she probably is mature enough to handle the assignment. However, I hate the idea that she has played that role because I have liked her acting so much in the past and I think this image will spoil it for me.

Despite flaunting with controversy, it seems very unlikely that the film will show anything of a inappropriate contentographic nature, almost certainly using lighting and camera angles for modesty.

On the issue of subject matter, art is often pushing the envelope, even commercialized art. The fact is that this sort of thing occurs and I very much doubt the film will glamorize it in any way. I've heard similar protestations of outrage against the book Lolita, always from people who haven't read it.

However, in terms of use of a body double, it depends strongly on the material. You can fake a body but not a face and if the scene requires the actors voice and expression it's hard to just use a replacement.

The discussion actually hits home to me in an unusual way. I acted in a film earlier this year which had this very thing, a rape scene in which my character assaults the protagonist whose character (and actress) were both 13. Nothing graphic was shown, no nudity, but we used a body double and I'm glad we did. It wasn't a pleasant thing to shoot.
That said, once the shoot was over, everyone was able to separate it from the reality of what we were doing, something you need to be able to do as an actor.

There's no easy answer, especially in this case where the actress is below the age of informed consent. However, I doubt it will leave any emotional trauma with her.
Ironically, no one ever kicked up a stink about her being oppostie psycho killers and homicidal aliens.

fromdownunder said:

Thanks for that. Not sure about the psycho killers(which movie?) but weren't all the homocidal aliens CGI and acted in front of a blue screen, so there was nothing for her to actually see?

Norm

Click to expand...

Psycho killers was Hide and Seek. Very really being chased by an actual person. But of course, it's acting

very_irreverand_Bill said:

If she's naked{except for panties} in some scenes, that is grounds for calling it child inappropriate content.

Click to expand...

Partial nudity of an underage person in a visual recording, in and of itself, is not grounds for a child inappropriate contentography charge; and given that this is a legitimate film, obviously having *some* level of artistic merit, and not some underground film trip circulating on the internet or something, I think the chances of a successful prosecution of the producers/director on child inappropriate contentography grounds would be exceedingly low. I wouldn't be too surprised if some Bible-belt prosecutor tried to make a case of it but such a case would have very little chance of being ultimately successful in my view because of the way the US Supreme Court has ruled on such cases in the past.

fromdownunder said:

Well, this is part of my point. Lindsey Lohan is not exactly unique. I will cite off the top of my head, Jackie Coogan, Judy Garland, Linda Blair, Drew Barrymore, one of the Olsen twins, and (too many to name) TV "kid" stars, as child stars who were exploited and spat out and went, well not crazy, but went through at least part of their life bewildered and confused because of what had happened.

And none of them had to go through a traumatic simulated rape scene at age 12. Maybe it won't affect her. Natalie Portman apparently got through Leon OK. But I am just arguing - why take a risk?

Norm

Click to expand...

What? I don't remember anything like that happening in Leon.

Perhaps the reactions displayed in this thread is the point. The filmmakers want you to be repulsed by the topic; they want you to be absolutely disgusted and turned off. The topic is heinous and imagining sweet little Dakota Fanning being hurt in such a vicious way highlights the atrocity of the issue.

But the extreme reaction gets you talking about something that no one likes to acknowledge even occurs. If the point of the film is to raise awareness of the horror of child rape, they have already succeeded without a single public viewing.