Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Tatum O'Neal Defends Dakota Fanning Rape Scene; Also What Do You Think About This?
Topic Started: Jan 24 2007, 06:52 AM (1,414 Views)
BlueMolly2009
Member Avatar
LOLcat Freak
This is from andPOP

Quote:
 
(andPOP) - Former child star TATUM O'NEAL finds nothing wrong with DAKOTA FANNING appearing in a rape scene because the 12-year-old actress is just playing a part.

O'Neal was eight-years-old when she appeared in the film PAPER MOON with her father RYAN O'NEAL and was 10-years-old when she won an Oscar for her performance.

In the film HOUNDDOG, which is currently screening at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, Fanning plays a girl who endures a graphically suggested rape scene.

O'Neal explains, "I think it's her parent's decision. I think she is a real actress, she really is an actress.

"I think she's probably very smart and she probably looked and the script and said that she felt it was OK for her to do as an actress. I think it's OK."

The star admits it would be a different story if her 15-year-old daughter wanted to appear in the film adding, "Would I let my daughter? No. But I'm her mother. Dakota's mother thinks it's OK."



I'm not going to judge a movie I haven't seen, and it's one of my BIGGEST pet peeves when people criticize a movie they haven't seen. P
They are saying that the director of the movie should be arrested for having Dekota do the scene, and her mother is a bad mother for letting Dekota do this. Dekota defended her Mom and she doesn't see the big deal over it. A critic who saw the movie said the scene is not as bad as what people are saying. It's disturbing, but not what people are saying.
Molly
Myspace
My Twitter
My FriendFeed
My Facebook
Posted Image
Boston Chihuahuas (I took this while at a Starbucks)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wackadoo
Member Avatar

I would have to know more details, but my first reaction to this is that I hate to see Dakota doing a movie like that. She is a talented little actress but part of her charm is her innocence. I have always been impressed at how she carries herself and how her mom allows her to be the little girl that she is. I'm sorry to hear this.
Posted Image

RIP Steve. I love and miss you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Yeah I think that is unfortunate ... it's also unfortunate that I'm a little uncertain of just about everything that I've posted here (and elsewhere) tonight.

I'm not exactly sure what that means ... but it's kind of spooking me out.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Let me see, Dakota wanted to do this. She wanted this scene and from what I heard she is clothed and you basically just see her arm. I had Dakota being interviewed and it was up to her to do the scene.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BlueMolly2009
Member Avatar
LOLcat Freak
beatlechick
Jan 24 2007, 02:44 AM
Let me see, Dakota wanted to do this. She wanted this scene and from what I heard she is clothed and you basically just see her arm. I had Dakota being interviewed and it was up to her to do the scene.

Yeah it was her decision from the interviews I've seen with her. The press is beating up on her mother and blaming her Mom for letting her do it. Dekota is growing up, she can't be innocent too much anymore. The critics need to shut up and see the movie before they start blabbing about how horrible this is.
Molly
Myspace
My Twitter
My FriendFeed
My Facebook
Posted Image
Boston Chihuahuas (I took this while at a Starbucks)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
From what I understand, it is a very good and powerful scene.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I don't know but I think Dakota Fanning grew up way too fast. She's cute but some of the stuff that comes out of her mouth and her manner is that of an adult and I don't find that cute at all. I think it's a real shame. Anyway, I'm sure this sort of thing has happened before. There are many movies in which children are exposed to terrible things and child actors are certainly used then - without them, there would be less realistic portrayals of certain situations. I only hope that the people who object to Bindi Irwin having a show object to this as well because it's a hell of a lot worse. Although, I don't really know how I feel about it myself. I'm leaning towards feeling uncomfortable about it. I think that if Dakota Fanning were a normal child she could easily go many more years without having to face that side of humanity. It's very heavy and she's very young.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

IMO, it is questionable at best, at least on a personal level, for a parent or guardian to let Dakota Fanning or any 12-year-old enact, even in a limited fashion, a rape scene.

I honestly wonder what Brooke Shields would say about this because her comments would be more to the point since she portrayed a child prostitute in "Pretty Baby," also at the age of 12. Of course, from what I've read about it, that movie was all so much more graphic, and her mother really was crazed to permit it.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyMacca
Member Avatar
-Imagine-
Dakota Fanning is one intelligent little girl.

It was her choice whether she wanted to do this movie/that scene or not.
And she will do that scene with confidence, and grace.
Just like she did with her other roles. I'm pretty sure she can handle it.
And i'm so sure that there's a psychologist on set, or if need be, her folks
can take her to one, however I don't think she'll need one, she's a very strong girl.


She truly is one, amazing girl!
And for the record.. she really technically isn't a little girl anymore.
As in a year she'll be a .. TEENAGER!!!! :blink:
-Liz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iscreamer1
Member Avatar
Baking Fairy Cakes
I haven't seen this movie or know anything about it but you can be sure that the director was very prepared for it. I am sure they didn't just throiw her in front of a camera and say action. Any director with any experiance would have prepared her very well, possibly even brought a psych to the set. I have no doubt she was treated with (no pun intended) kid gloves.
Having said that, do I agree? I can't say without being on the position. I do know that no child of mine would ever do any nude scene though.
Laughter is the shortest distance between two people - Victor Borge

Posted Image


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
wackadoo
Member Avatar

I would have to see the movie to know how graphic it is but I think Dakota is too young to make this decision for herself. I can see if she were 16 but she's only 12. I know she's intelligent and mature for her age but she is still just a 12 year old child. I teach that age sometimes when I substitute and they are still very young. I guess I should go and see it before I give my opinion!!
Posted Image

RIP Steve. I love and miss you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

wackadoo
Jan 24 2007, 04:54 PM
I would have to see the movie to know how graphic it is but I think Dakota is too young to make this decision for herself. I can see if she were 16 but she's only 12. I know she's intelligent and mature for her age but she is still just a 12 year old child. I teach that age sometimes when I substitute and they are still very young. I guess I should go and see it before I give my opinion!!

I agree. In any event, I still think a major decision like this needs to be made by the parent of a 12 year old.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

BeatleBarb
Jan 24 2007, 04:56 PM
wackadoo
Jan 24 2007, 04:54 PM
I would have to see the movie to know how graphic it is but I think Dakota is too young to make this decision for herself. I can see if she were 16 but she's only 12. I know she's intelligent and mature for her age but she is still just a 12 year old child. I teach that age sometimes when I substitute and they are still very young. I guess I should go and see it before I give my opinion!!

I agree. In any event, I still think a major decision like this needs to be made by the parent of a 12 year old.

Well stated, wack and Barb. Regardless of how intelligent Dakota Fanning is (and I'm sure she probably is), a 12-year-old is still a child. Legally her parent or guardian is the one to make the decision whether she is to do the scene or even the movie. Speaking as a mother, I'm uncomfortable with children acting in scenes at a young age that may be too graphic in their content, whether the content is violent or sexual in nature.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Jacaranda
Jan 24 2007, 09:59 AM
BeatleBarb
Jan 24 2007, 04:56 PM
wackadoo
Jan 24 2007, 04:54 PM
I would have to see the movie to know how graphic it is but I think Dakota is too young to make this decision for herself. I can see if she were 16 but she's only 12. I know she's intelligent and mature for her age but she is still just a 12 year old child. I teach that age sometimes when I substitute and they are still very young. I guess I should go and see it before I give my opinion!!

I agree. In any event, I still think a major decision like this needs to be made by the parent of a 12 year old.

Well stated, wack and Barb. Regardless of how intelligent Dakota Fanning is (and I'm sure she probably is), a 12-year-old is still a child. Legally her parent or guardian is the one to make the decision whether she is do the scene or even the movie. Speaking as a mother, I'm uncomfortable with children acting in scenes at a young age that may be too graphic in their content, whether the content is violent or sexual in nature.

Well said, Lisa. I also agree with Barb and Mary Ann.




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

She probably won't even be old enough to see the movie when it comes out, but she actually has to be involved in it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
BlueMolly2009
Member Avatar
LOLcat Freak
Why don't they arrest Dekota's mother for child abuse since she let her daughter get raped on set. :rolleyes:
Molly
Myspace
My Twitter
My FriendFeed
My Facebook
Posted Image
Boston Chihuahuas (I took this while at a Starbucks)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Molly, isn't your reply just a bit extreme?? :unsure:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I don't care how artistic it is supposed to be, you wouldn't get within 200 miles of her if she were my daughter.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

BlueMolly2006
Jan 24 2007, 08:11 PM
Why don't they arrest Dekota's mother for child abuse since she let her daughter get raped on set. :rolleyes:

Dakota Fanning's mother won't be arrested because nothing illegal went on. It's just a question of whether it borders on unethical or not.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Any child who grows up in the entertainment industry is bound to witness aspects of the adult world that many people find unsavory. You can call it loss of innocence, but innocence comes from within, not from without. You can call it growing up too fast, but some of us would change very little if given the chance. There may be something beneficial about living a sheltered life behind a white picket fence and not dealing with the psychology of man until you are an adult, but some children are fully capable of learning about and expressing their art at an age when most of their peers are watching endless television and eating too many deep fried animals on sticks.

My only hope here is that Dakota Fanning's career not end up like Tatum O'Neal's.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User


quite honestly this is not on my list of things to watch. i smell hypocrisy of the Hollywood order this is not about raising awareness, there is no need, it was done over the last thirty years in the theatre and telly here, and in the US how many shows have been done.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Jan 25 2007, 05:31 AM
There may be something beneficial about living a sheltered life behind a white picket fence and not dealing with the psychology of man until you are an adult, but some children are fully capable of learning about and expressing their art at an age when most of their peers are watching endless television and eating too many deep fried animals on sticks.

While a nice sophism or two can take you some places, it is disingenuous to suggest that parents protecting a young child's best interests when it comes to violence and inappropriately sexualized imagery equates to sticking them in front of the boob tube in a plastic bubble while feeding them corn dogs.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyMacca
Member Avatar
-Imagine-
mm corn dogs :drool:
-Liz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

Jacaranda
Jan 25 2007, 03:41 PM
mozart8mytoe
Jan 25 2007, 05:31 AM
There may be something beneficial about living a sheltered life behind a white picket fence and not dealing with the psychology of man until you are an adult, but some children are fully capable of learning about and expressing their art at an age when most of their peers are watching endless television and eating too many deep fried animals on sticks.

While a nice sophism or two can take you some places, it is disingenuous to suggest that parents protecting a young child's best interests when it comes to violence and inappropriately sexualized imagery equates to sticking them in front of the boob tube in a plastic bubble while feeding them corn dogs.

Maturity levels can certainly differ among children, but I've got to agree with you Lisa.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

BeatleBarb
Jan 25 2007, 11:00 AM
Jacaranda
Jan 25 2007, 03:41 PM
mozart8mytoe
Jan 25 2007, 05:31 AM
There may be something beneficial about living a sheltered life behind a white picket fence and not dealing with the psychology of man until you are an adult, but some children are fully capable of learning about and expressing their art at an age when most of their peers are watching endless television and eating too many deep fried animals on sticks.

While a nice sophism or two can take you some places, it is disingenuous to suggest that parents protecting a young child's best interests when it comes to violence and inappropriately sexualized imagery equates to sticking them in front of the boob tube in a plastic bubble while feeding them corn dogs.

Maturity levels can certainly differ among children, but I've got to agree with you Lisa.

Gotta go with Jacs on this one, too.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Jacaranda
Jan 25 2007, 03:41 PM
mozart8mytoe
Jan 25 2007, 05:31 AM
There may be something beneficial about living a sheltered life behind a white picket fence and not dealing with the psychology of man until you are an adult, but some children are fully capable of learning about and expressing their art at an age when most of their peers are watching endless television and eating too many deep fried animals on sticks.

While a nice sophism or two can take you some places, it is disingenuous to suggest that parents protecting a young child's best interests when it comes to violence and inappropriately sexualized imagery equates to sticking them in front of the boob tube in a plastic bubble while feeding them corn dogs.

Well, exactly. Being sheltered from the horrors of the world as a child and expressing ones art as a child are not mutually exclusive. Sticking a child in front of the TV and feeding them processed food is hardly protecting them.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

I would imagine that the children who watch television all day and gorge their way to obesity are exposed to more harm and more sexual and violent images than those who grow up with fulfilling careers in the performing arts. Most children (and many adults) are either incapable of or unwilling to distinguish between the realities of life and the fiction of television and film. I assume Dakota Fanning knows that if her character dies that she is not actually dead.

If it is fallacious of me to give my opinion based on my own personal experience growing up in the adult world of performing arts, what does that say about those giving their opinions based on the abstract?

I have been hearing all of my life how children should be allowed to be children and not live in the adult world. Who says being an actor or a musician is not being a child? I am far better off having the childhood I had than I would be if I had grown up in front of a television set. I am eternally gratefull that my mother allowed me to have the childhood I had and did not "protect" me from the big bad bogeyman of life. Living in the real world was a much better education.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

mozart8mytoe
Jan 25 2007, 11:03 PM
I would imagine that the children who watch television all day and gorge their way to obesity are exposed to more harm and more sexual and violent images than those who grow up with fulfilling careers in the performing arts. Most children (and many adults) are either incapable of or unwilling to distinguish between the realities of life and the fiction of television and film. I assume Dakota Fanning knows that if her character dies that she is not actually dead.

If it is fallacious of me to give my opinion based on my own personal experience growing up in the adult world of performing arts, what does that say about those giving their opinions based on the abstract?

I have been hearing all of my life how children should be allowed to be children and not live in the adult world. Who says being an actor or a musician is not being a child? I am far better off having the childhood I had than I would be if I had grown up in front of a television set. I am eternally gratefull that my mother allowed me to have the childhood I had and did not "protect" me from the big bad bogeyman of life. Living in the real world was a much better education.

My issue is only that you represent the "protected" children in such a negative light. I hope to hell I have struck a balance between the harsh realities of life and the ideals of youth in the best possible way.

I am reminded of a shopping trip with Analise when she was six. I told her I would buy her an outfit for a field trip. She chose a pair of low-rise skin tight jeans, and a Strawberry Shortcake top. I was so saddened by the obvious juxtaposition these two articles of clothing represented.


And you're Godda**ed right, she had to put the jeans back.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

beep
Jan 25 2007, 11:53 PM
My issue is only that you represent the "protected" children in such a negative light.

I do not feel that I have. I am only responsible for what I have said, not for how much others may agree or disagree with someone's misinterpretation of what I have said.

Which is more disingenuous, comparing children with careers to children who watch endless television or saying that such a comparison equates parents who protect their children with parents who use the television as babysitter?
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

mozart8mytoe
Jan 26 2007, 12:00 AM
beep
Jan 25 2007, 11:53 PM
My issue is only that you represent the "protected" children in such a negative light.

I do not feel that I have. I am only responsible for what I have said, not for how much others may agree or disagree with someone's misinterpretation of what I have said.

Which is more disingenuous, comparing children with careers to children who watch endless television or saying that such a comparison equates parents who protect their children with parents who use the television as babysitter?

Well, as I stated, I try to keep a balance. I don't shield them, but I don't immerse them, either. All in due time, all in due time.

But I see your point, now. You had the luxury of having a rare and wonderful viewpoint as a child.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

And good luck with that. Being a parent is difficult whether your child is an actor, musician, gymnast, soccer hooligan, couch potato, or simply a kid.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Jan 26 2007, 05:00 AM
Which is more disingenuous, comparing children with careers to children who watch endless television or saying that such a comparison equates parents who protect their children with parents who use the television as babysitter?

I daresay there are children with careers that watch endless television and children without careers that don't see any or are at least limited in what they watch. How much television children watch was not the original issue. I didn't in any way intend to say that children with careers are not protected, not raised properly, or are better or worse than any other child. That is truly another subject.

Of course, children with a passion for creativity and the arts are special and should be encouraged, just as children with a passion for sports or science should be. And honestly, children with careers or without careers can gorge their way to obesity just as easily. Generalizing does not help the argument.

The original topic of course was Dakota Fanning and the rape scene. I think that there is a very fine line to walk regarding the use of minors in violent and explicitly sexual material, particularly as actors; as a parent, the use of minors in this way makes me uncomfortable.

As for me, I strive to bring balance to my daughter's life. She has limits on TV, eats healthy food, gets plenty of exercise and physical activity and intellectual and artistic stimulation. It's a significant responsibility for any parent, whether your child has a profession or not.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

It's worth noting that the way many scenes like this are filmed has hardly any relation to the actual situation. The filming is a very mechanical process and then it's all cut together to create something dramatic. Of course she will look traumatised on the screen but that's called acting.
Film making is all about illusion. It's both possible and common for children appearing in films with adult concepts to not know or understand what the film is about until they are old enough to see it.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

Bill
Jan 26 2007, 03:34 PM
It's worth noting that the way many scenes like this are filmed has hardly any relation to the actual situation. The filming is a very mechanical process and then it's all cut together to create something dramatic. Of course she will look traumatised on the screen but that's called acting.
Film making is all about illusion. It's both possible and common for children appearing in films with adult concepts to not know or understand what the film is about until they are old enough to see it.

I know that Bill, as I've both acted in amateur film and written for TV professionally.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

Grace has one smart, wonderful Mom!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

That wasn't aimed at you Lisa, just a general observation. :)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

I love you Barb. :wub: Have you lost weight lately? ;) :lol:
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

Bill
Jan 26 2007, 03:42 PM
That wasn't aimed at you Lisa, just a general observation. :)

I kinda figured that Bill, but I thought since I was the one that has been shooting my mouth off the most in here, I figured I might as well some more. :P
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

Jacaranda
Jan 26 2007, 03:43 PM
I love you Barb. :wub: Have you lost weight lately? ;) :lol:

Haha.....NO! But you think I look thinner...lol.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Jacaranda
Jan 26 2007, 10:45 AM
Bill
Jan 26 2007, 03:42 PM
That wasn't aimed at you Lisa, just a general observation.  :)

I kinda figured that Bill, but I thought since I was the one that has been shooting my mouth off the most in here, I figured I might as well some more. :P

Your comments are welcome and respected, Lisa. They are very poignant.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Dakota Fanning has hit back at commentators that have criticised her family for allowing her to film a scene for new movie Hounddog.

Several religious groups have claimed the film “celebrates paedophilia” because it features 12 year old Dakota’s character being raped. The scene lasts less than a minute and doesn’t show any long shots of the sex act, just close ups of Dakota’s face and hands.

Speaking in an interview on Tuesday, Dakota said: “It’s not a rape movie, that’s not even the point of the film.”

“It’s not really happening. It’s a movie, and it’s called acting. I’m not going through anything. [The other child actors] Cody and Isabelle aren’t going through anything, their characters are. And for me, when it’s done it’s done. I don’t even think about it anymore.”

Dakota can handle constructive criticism of the film but: “when it gets to the point of attacking my mother, my agent … my teacher, who were all on the set that day, that started to make me mad.”

“Pretty much everybody who talked about it attacked my mother, which I did not appreciate. That was extremely uncalled for and hurtful.”

Dakota added that she would want to see the film even if she had not been in it: “I know my mom would take me to see it.”

“You have to prepare your children for things that happen in the world. Everything isn’t rosy.”

The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on Monday.

(source)

The 'bold' is my particular editorial. ;)
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Bill
Jan 26 2007, 03:34 PM
It's worth noting that the way many scenes like this are filmed has hardly any relation to the actual situation. The filming is a very mechanical process and then it's all cut together to create something dramatic. Of course she will look traumatised on the screen but that's called acting.
Film making is all about illusion. It's both possible and common for children appearing in films with adult concepts to not know or understand what the film is about until they are old enough to see it.

I was going to post a near-identical point to this today, Bill so - needless to say - I agree with you on this. ;)
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

JeffLynnesBeard
Jan 26 2007, 11:26 AM
Dakota Fanning has hit back at commentators that have criticised her family for allowing her to film a scene for new movie Hounddog.

Several religious groups have claimed the film “celebrates paedophilia” because it features 12 year old Dakota’s character being raped. The scene lasts less than a minute and doesn’t show any long shots of the sex act, just close ups of Dakota’s face and hands.

Speaking in an interview on Tuesday, Dakota said: “It’s not a rape movie, that’s not even the point of the film.”

“It’s not really happening. It’s a movie, and it’s called acting. I’m not going through anything. [The other child actors] Cody and Isabelle aren’t going through anything, their characters are. And for me, when it’s done it’s done. I don’t even think about it anymore.”

Dakota can handle constructive criticism of the film but: “when it gets to the point of attacking my mother, my agent … my teacher, who were all on the set that day, that started to make me mad.”

“Pretty much everybody who talked about it attacked my mother, which I did not appreciate. That was extremely uncalled for and hurtful.”

Dakota added that she would want to see the film even if she had not been in it: “I know my mom would take me to see it.”

“You have to prepare your children for things that happen in the world. Everything isn’t rosy.”

The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on Monday.

(source)

The 'bold' is my particular editorial. ;)

If it's "not even the point of the film", then why show it? What makes it necessary? And truthfully, I cringed when they mentioned that it only shows her face and hands, as to me more expression will come from those areas than any other body sections they could have filmed.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Surely something can be essential to the plotline of a film and yet not be the actual point of the film?

Plus, as regards to "only showing her face and hands" it was an important fact to clear up - there is something close to media hysteria regarding this movie at the moment & reassuring people that it isn't graphically sexual is, at this stage, important.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

JeffLynnesBeard
Jan 26 2007, 11:48 AM
Surely something can be essential to the plotline of a film and yet not be the actual point of the film?

Plus, as regards to "only showing her face and hands" it was an important fact to clear up - there is something close to media hysteria regarding this movie at the moment & reassuring people that it isn't graphically sexual is, at this stage, important.

The artist in me says it's OK that she did it and that it may be very good piece of film with merit, and not simply shock value.

But the father trumps all of that and says that no good can come from it. And why put a little girl in that position at all? Just write it in the script that she was raped, or show it in a less graphic way. Great cinema doesn't have to spell it all out for us to grasp it's meaning.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

Beep, your comments are very welcomed and respected too. ^_^ I feel the same about everyone here.

I really agree with what you are saying here. This is a very sticky point for any of us who have artistic leanings and are parents and believe in artistic freedom.

Being the parent of a little girl trumps most things for me at the moment I'm afraid, and I have to look at this issue from this viewpoint. However I do feel it is a complex issue not one that can be simply moralized away.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

beep
Jan 26 2007, 04:57 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Jan 26 2007, 11:48 AM
Surely something can be essential to the plotline of a film and yet not be the actual point of the film? 

Plus, as regards to "only showing her face and hands" it was an important fact to clear up - there is something close to media hysteria regarding this movie at the moment & reassuring people that it isn't graphically sexual is, at this stage, important.

The artist in me says it's OK that she did it and that it may be very good piece of film with merit, and not simply shock value.

But the father trumps all of that and says that no good can come from it. And why put a little girl in that position at all? Just write it in the script that she was raped, or show it in a less graphic way. Great cinema doesn't have to spell it all out for us to grasp it's meaning.


No, but controversy and the big mighty dollar reqiures it. Artistic expression my arse, this subject has been done to death in recent years, mostly in informative ways ( here in the UK) if this isn't about money then let people see it for free.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Jacaranda
Jan 26 2007, 05:05 PM
Beep, your comments are very welcomed and respected too. ^_^ I feel the same about everyone here.

I really agree with what you are saying here. This is a very sticky point for any of us who have artistic leanings and are parents and believe in artistic freedom.

Being the parent of a little girl trumps most things for me at the moment I'm afraid, and I have to look at this issue from this viewpoint. However I do feel it is a complex issue not one that can be simply moralized away.


Yes it can. Quite simply the rape of children should not be on any screen. The perverts will love her angiush. If you need to dramatise something as horrorific as this something is very wrong with you or your projected audience.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Violence towards children and rape of adults is horrific as well, isn't it? I don't want to see that stuff either... I turn away at violence and either cry or yell at the TV at rape (or get on Strawberry fields and say things like 'men are scum' :P )... but it's a point.

I think our disagreement comes from whether or not a 12 year old is old enough to perform something like this, not censorship. I read a review on IMDB saying that the film 'only' shows the anguish on her face so it's not a big deal. I stupidly thought that the idea of what was happening in the scene was what bothered people and not the amount of skin being shown. I think I'd rather see my child playing in the bathtub than fully clothed and being molested.

I do object to people calling for her mother's arrest. I am sure her mother loves her and thought long and hard about it but this sort of thing isn't anything new. I heard of a film called B*stard out of Carolina, which apparently is worse and which I have no interest in seeing.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
BlueMolly2009
Member Avatar
LOLcat Freak
I don't get why they want to arrest her Mom. Areest her for what? :hmm:
Molly
Myspace
My Twitter
My FriendFeed
My Facebook
Posted Image
Boston Chihuahuas (I took this while at a Starbucks)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Iluvpeter
Jan 26 2007, 01:44 PM
The perverts will love her angiush.

This hadn't even crossed my mind. :( :angry:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
wackadoo
Member Avatar

I agree...there are a lot of perverts out there. Yuck is my thought on all of this. I realize that the directors, teachers, etc. will protect her the best way they know how to do but is this good for little Dakota's mind? I don't know...my kids were in the entertainment business for awhile and I had to turn down so much crap because they were constantly throwing stuff like this out there and I hated it. It's why we ultimately chose not to stay in the business.
Posted Image

RIP Steve. I love and miss you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Iluvpeter
Jan 26 2007, 06:39 PM
beep
Jan 26 2007, 04:57 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Jan 26 2007, 11:48 AM
Surely something can be essential to the plotline of a film and yet not be the actual point of the film? 

Plus, as regards to "only showing her face and hands" it was an important fact to clear up - there is something close to media hysteria regarding this movie at the moment & reassuring people that it isn't graphically sexual is, at this stage, important.

The artist in me says it's OK that she did it and that it may be very good piece of film with merit, and not simply shock value.

But the father trumps all of that and says that no good can come from it. And why put a little girl in that position at all? Just write it in the script that she was raped, or show it in a less graphic way. Great cinema doesn't have to spell it all out for us to grasp it's meaning.


No, but controversy and the big mighty dollar reqiures it. Artistic expression my arse, this subject has been done to death in recent years, mostly in informative ways ( here in the UK) if this isn't about money then let people see it for free.

You could say that about any art form - if Paul McCartney wants to express himself artistically and "it isn't about the money" then why doesn't he give his albums away for free? I find it slightly disconcerting that you (and other people worldwide) are now condemning a film that they haven't yet seen. By all means watch the movie and then comment on what artistic merit it may or may not have, but it is unfair at the very least to cynically dismiss something you haven't seen.

I'm certain that one of the reasons that there is such media furore is because it is sweet little moppet Dakota Fanning. I would be willing to put money on the fact that this subject would never have come up if there had been some unknown child actor playing Fanning's role. In fact, the movie would probably have been released, watched and rated like any other movie dealing with such sensitive issues - and there have been plenty without this media circus. I believe that people are probably more upset at the 'loss of innocence' they perceive Fanning to have experienced. I read yesterday that Dakota has received death threats from an extremist Catholic group, which I though was very Christian of them.

Thing is, it's Dakota and her parents' call. I'm sure that all parents here have an idea of how to responsibly raise their children and I'm equally confident that Dakota's parents have carefully considered this matter and have made what they believe to be the right decision. I'm positive that most parents wouldn't react very well to other people telling them what's best for their children and, if you wouldn't appreciate people telling you how to raise your kids, then it possibly isn't your business telling Dakota's parents how they should be raising theirs. I also speak from the standpoint of being a parent and, from that, I recognise that my way of bringing up children may differ from the next parents'.

I'm not going to comment too much on the suggestions that censorship was appropriate. Even though I am anti-censorship, I conceed that there are certain things that I believe that it is right and proper to censor. A scene which deals with the emotions of rape and does not feature graphic sexual content or linger gratuitously on said scene wouldn't be something that I would feel comfortable being censored and, as mentioned before, there have been plenty of films in the last 40 years which have had equally, if not more, shocking footage than this one which have passed the censor unedited. I don't remember people calling for the parents of the child actors in Once Were Warriors, Scum, Kids or Sleepers to be arrested for allowing their children to take part in dramatised rape scenes - but, of course, none of them featured one of Hollywoods most famous child stars.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User


Bollocks andy. This is not pushing the boundaries to inform or educate, this is cynical exploitation. I have never seen those four films and i never will. As for the child actress who? was and still is my response.

Fairness FAIRNESS double bollocks the bright sparks that are her parents have now lumbered the child with this scene for the rest of her life all else will disappear.

You want to discuss seriously the topic fine go ahead, you want to help abused victims fine go ahead, you want to make money out of child rape, no fook off.

Stuff the controversy and stuff the Oscars if it won any, I would not watch this filth. I suggest that anyone wanting to watch this filth take a good hard look at themselves.

Tell me where Paul has used sexual perversity to sell his work.

p.s i have never seen Kill Bill or that one with Travolta and Thurman coz i aint interested in shite.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Jacaranda
Jan 26 2007, 09:57 AM
Generalizing does not help the argument.

Do comments like this?
Jacaranda
Jan 25 2007, 10:41 AM

While a nice sophism or two can take you some places, it is disingenuous to suggest [something that was never suggested].


By the time I entered the conversation there were calls for Dakota Fanning's mother's arrest and suggestions that bad parenting is to blame for this actor's career choices. Whether the original issue was about Tatum O'Neal or Dakota Fanning or Shirley Mills, I am still free to point out that I believe American children watch entirely too much television. I would prefer that my hypothetical child appear in an artistic production that has a rape scene than watch Sponge Bob Happy Pants all day. That does not mean those are the only available options. That is simply the comparison I chose to make.

Comparing children with careers in the performing arts with children who watch television all day is neither a generalization nor a suggestion that parents of "normal" children are somehow inferior. Nor does making such a comparison suggest that all performing children are thin and healthy while all other children are fat and lazy. Not every analogy is an absolute.

Dakota Fanning
 
You have to prepare your children for things that happen in the world. Everything isn’t rosy.

Is it disingenuous for her to say that?

beep
Jan 26 2007, 11:35 AM
If it's "not even the point of the film", then why show it? What makes it necessary?

It might not be necessary at all. Since most of us have not seen the film it is hard to say why this scene was included or why it was shot the way it was. Without actually watching the film in question, this entire discussion is theoretical and, dare I say, generalized.

MaccaByrd
Jan 26 2007, 03:41 PM
I think I'd rather see my child playing in the bathtub than fully clothed and being molested.

As you know, nudity in American films is more taboo than violence. Any film that depicted 50 adults being raped and one child in a bathtub would be attacked for showing the nude child. "B*stard Out Of Carolina" stirred less controversy because it was filmed for cable and did not star a cute little pixie doll (not that Jena Malone is ugly). And that rape scene was far more graphic than this one is reported to be.

As for the perverts, I would imagine many of them are happy just to see children like Dakota Fanning being kidnapped by murderers ("Man On Fire"), dying of cancer ("ER"), raped by her father ("CSI"), or in the arms of Tom Cruise (that creepy Mars movie). Should we then not have any children in any films? Do the predators get to be the arbiters of art?
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

You can take exception to what I say, Mozart, but please give up on beating the dead horse, namely my one statement. I am sorry I insulted you, I didn't intend to. You made the analogy about obese children watching endless television, not me. You use absolute terms and couch your language in the extreme, which certainly is fine, if you're comfortable with it. You or I can introduce any topic into any debate we want to, of course, but just because does regard the same general subject doesn't necessarily make it valid or to the point.

As an artist, Dakota Fanning and her mom, her agent, her dad and whoever are entitled to make any decision they want regarding her career. But just because she or any other child with a career in the arts is a working artist does not automatically make them less obese, less likely to watch TV, more intelligent or in any way superior to any other given child. That is the subtext of your argument that I find objectionable. Or at least my view of it anyway.

But in the end, the only thing I'd ever really intended to say is that use of children in overly sexualized or violent material makes me extremely uncomfortable and should be very seriously considered before it's permitted. Whether that really ever happens is anyone's guess.
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

If this is a debating technique, I find it troubling.

Jacaranda
Jan 28 2007, 11:55 PM
You use absolute terms and couch your language in the extreme

Ironically (or perhaps not), that is what I just said that you are doing.

Jacaranda
Jan 28 2007, 11:55 PM

But just because she or any other child with a career in the arts is a working artist does not automatically make them less obese, less likely to watch TV, more intelligent or in any way superior to any other given child. That is the subtext of your argument that I find objectionable.

You are either not reading what I have written or you are having a hard time understanding it. It might be best to read the actual text rather than try to interpret the supposed subtext. Anyone is free to completely misunderstand anything I or anyone else writes here, but I prefer not to be told what I really meant, as opposed to what I actually said. Disagree with me all you want when I say the sky is brown, but do not tell me that I said the sky is green.

In any event, life is too important to waste on internet p*ssing contests with complete strangers. I have said what I wanted to say. I am not responsible for what other people say I said.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Jan 29 2007, 06:17 AM
In any event, life is too important to waste on internet p*ssing contests with complete strangers. I have said what I wanted to say. I am not responsible for what other people say I said.

I agree, absolutely. ;)
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reverend Dave
Member Avatar

I haven't seen this film and probably never will, so I can't say anything about it, but I was more disturbed by the Lissa/Lisa fracas than the idea of an actress doing a rape scene. What really troubles me is the fact that they both pretty much agree with each other that this child should have the right to do this. I've seen a lot of strange online arguments, but this one could have easily been avoided.

I'm not trying to take sides and either of you can tell me to mind my own business, but I think words like sophism, disingenuous, generalizing and extreme can be insulting or at least condescending. Disagreements quickly turn ugly when people resort to attacks. There are always friendlier ways to disagree with someone.

If I may say so, I think Lissa's saying that some children are mature and experienced enough to participate in the arts while others really are too young and have little experience with extracurricular activities besides watching TV. She seems to be coming from the child's viewpoint. I saw no suggestion that protecting your child equates sitting them in front of the TV all day, but I think that is how Lisa interpreted it. This struck a nerve, as I'm sure it would with most parents. In defending her side - the parents' viewpoint - maybe she used some words that didn't need to be used. I don't know Lisa and I don't know her intentions, but I'm sure she didn't mean to say that the TV analogy was purposefully deceitful.

After Lissa pointed out that she is not making that equation, Lisa pretty much agreed with Lissa and then accused her of generalizing. This is where I began to think that maybe this is a personal dispute and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Internet debates have a way of creating grudges that often spill over from one topic to the next. I hate to bring Bill into this, but he knows what I'm talking about. Sorry, Bill.

My point is that I hate to see that kind of thing happen here. Everyone says this is a friendly place and it really is. People are so nice and polite most of the time. I'd hate to see these little misunderstandings turn to grudges that carry on from one topic to the next.

Maybe I'm naive or maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I'd like to believe that this was just a misunderstanding that seems not to be resolved. Both parties should be credited for letting the dead horse die and not endlessly dragging this back and forth.
With great power comes great responsibility. With great age....
What was I going to say?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Reverend Dave
Jan 29 2007, 11:26 PM
I hate to bring Bill into this, but he knows what I'm talking about. Sorry, Bill.

I was gonna welcome you back Rev Dave, it has been too long of a MIA.

But then you had to bring Bill up. :lol:

(Spillover, post # 154,773)
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Suffice to say that I'm sorry I wasn't cool enough to sum it all up the way M8 did in her last paragraph. :blush:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jacaranda
Member Avatar

Reverend Dave
Jan 30 2007, 05:26 AM
I'm not trying to take sides and either of you can tell me to mind my own business, but I think words like sophism, disingenuous, generalizing and extreme can be insulting or at least condescending.

Please don't say that you're not taking sides when you criticize my exact words. Yes, those words can be viewed as insulting but then again so can use of the term "internet p*ssing contest."

At least in theory, we can all use whichever words we would like as long as they are not obscene or direct insults to the person, which mine were not. You may have missed my apology to Lissa but it was sincere.

Why was it necessary to analyze this all when it was over?
Posted Image
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." General Melchett, Blackadder Goes Forth




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
mozart8mytoe
Jan 25 2007, 05:31 AM
Any child who grows up in the entertainment industry is bound to witness aspects of the adult world that many people find unsavory. You can call it loss of innocence, but innocence comes from within, not from without. You can call it growing up too fast, but some of us would change very little if given the chance. There may be something beneficial about living a sheltered life behind a white picket fence and not dealing with the psychology of man until you are an adult, but some children are fully capable of learning about and expressing their art at an age when most of their peers are watching endless television and eating too many deep fried animals on sticks.

My only hope here is that Dakota Fanning's career not end up like Tatum O'Neal's.

These children who sit and watch endless amounts of television and eat deep fried animals on a stick aren`t much different from the kids in the entertainment industry who get way too much adulation way too soon. Thus believing their own press and succumbing to drug addiction and all the horrors that having way too much too soon can bring.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"