Dakota Fanning to be raped onscreen

[Hammock Parties]

This is disturbing. I hope people boycott this movie because there's no need for crap like this.


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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1773

Child actress Dakota Fanning will appear in a controversial new movie featuring paedophile scenes.

War of the Worlds star Dakota, 12, has signed up to appear in Hounddog.

The screenplay calls for Fanning's character to be raped in one explicit scene and to appear naked or clad only in "underpants" in several other horrifying moments.

A source close to the film said: "The two taboos in Hollywood are child abuse and the killing of animals.

"In this movie, both things happen." Fanning's mother, Joy, and her Hollywood agent, Cindy Osbrink, see the movie, written and directed by Deborah Kampmeier, as a possible Oscar vehicle for the pint-size star.

But despite Fanning's status as a bankable actress - whose movies, including last year's War of the Worlds have earned more than half a billion dollars since 2001 - the alarming material seems to have scared off potential investors, according to the New York Daily News.

The film charts the life of a girl who is abused and finds solace in the music of Elvis Presley.

Fanning's carefully choreographed rape scene has already been filmed. But then the production - which also stars Robin Wright Penn, David Morse and Piper Laurie - was stopped because of a lack of money.

But emergency investors were found and the movie is set to be finished by the end of the week.

"It's not just the rape scene - the whole story is challenging Dakota as an actress," Fanning's agent, Osbrink, said.

"And I've never been so proud of her in my life. In every scene she gets better and better."

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Rausch

They'd go to prison.

If it was a proven fact, recorded, and indisputable that anyone here over 18 filmed a girl under 16 half naked, you'd be in jail.

100%, no doubt, federal-****-you-in-the-azz prison...

I don't think that's true. Sure, if you find some random 12 year old and convince her to take her clothes off and shoot it on your home camera, it'd be hard to convince anybody that you were making art, and not just trying to take advantage of an underage girl.

But, if I wrote a script that included an underage girl being raped.
-Cast an actress that I believed to be mature enough to be able to handle the scene emotionally.
-Got permission from that actresses' legal guardian.
-Shot the scene on a closed set, and took every precaution that the letter of the law was followed when it comes to art vs porn.

I seriously doubt anybody would even try to bring any charges upon me. The legality of the scene and situation would be taken care of BEFORE the scene was filmed.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by mcan

I don't think that's true. Sure, if you find some random 12 year old and convince her to take her clothes off and shoot it on your home camera, it'd be hard to convince anybody that you were making art, and not just trying to take advantage of an underage girl.

But

No but, you do it an you'll go to jail.

IT'S AGAINST THE ****ING LAW.

End of story, game over, Mario lost all 3 lives.

She's neck-ed, under 16, you filmed it.

Go ahead, try it...

[Moooo]

This topic is something that you will get a different response from different people.

I personally think its good to see them address this.

Those who are sexually abused many times never feel normal, like there's something wrong with them. Being such a taboo thing in our society, many times children who have something happen to them have no one to relate to. Perhaps a movie like this could make some people not feel so alone, and maybe if its popular enough it will help some people open up about their past and help them realize there are others out there who have gone through the same thing.

Though on-screen nudity I didn't think was legal in any sense for a minor. I think you could get away with doing a scene like that without exposing some 12 year old, but the principle behind a movie like this isn't wrong in the slightest. Its wrong to turn your back on it.

Moooo

[chief2000]

It's the arts.

Just like the Maplethorpe exhibits.

Just don't watch it.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by tk13

I think you make some fine points, and we probably are repressed in some ways.

But that doesn't mean she's mature enough to make a decision like that. You said it yourself. It's too young to be having sex. Why? Because you aren't mature enough to handle it, or understand it.

Also, not a good argument. I'm too young to be president (by law), but I'm certainly not too young to play the president on TV. I believe the age at which any individual is ready to have a mature and intimate, sexual relationships is drastically different for everyone. Teaching kids that there is some magic "maturity" that happens when they reach 18 is probably what's causing most people to be so messed up about sex in the first place.

When you're 14, 15, 16 you want it... But it's BAD.
When you're 18, suddenly it's OK, but you really don't feel any different. Your tastes have changed, and you've experienced some things that have made you grow up a bit. But when you're 22, you'll look back at your 18 year old self and think you were immature as hell. Then, when you're 30, you'll back and think you were just a stupid 22 year old... No matter how old you get, you'll always think "if I only knew then..."


Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The topic is:
Is underage nudity automatically wrong? Or does the intent behind the nudity make it wrong?

I'm obviously in the "intent" camp.

[tk13]

Just to clarify, I have zero problems with the actual concept of the movie. Great idea, definitely a serious social issue, more power to them.

But to go to some of the graphic lengths suggested is unnecessary. There's many an artist out there who can put your mind in the direction they want you to go and let you figure out the rest. I prefer it that way sometimes. You could even make it brutally uncomfortable. Have a closed door, have the sounds, everything. But to actually simulate the act on film, that's pretty rough. I completely understand the art argument, but I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think the actress has the maturity to understand the decision she'd be making. Or the gravity of what the scene will mean to people who have experienced something like this. Maybe her parents and the director do, but she doesn't. She's just being used as a million dollar pawn.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Moooo

This topic is something that you will get a different response from different people.

I personally think its good to see them address this.

If you'd just quit here I'd agree.

Sexual abuse is far more common than the average person realizes.

It really should be pointed out.

But making (and don't ****ing kid yourself by thinking some 12 year old girl is begging to just rip her clothes off in front of about 300 people plus supporting crew and caterers) who's underage go nude to prove underage girls shouldn't be exploited.......uh.........

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Rausch

No but, you do it an you'll go to jail.

IT'S AGAINST THE ****ING LAW.

End of story, game over, Mario lost all 3 lives.

She's neck-ed, under 16, you filmed it.

Go ahead, try it...

Then how come they didn't arrest the director of this movie? I'm confused. You say it's open and shut, but that scene has already been filmed, and they're still filming... No cops. No courtrooms. Just an internet talkboard discussion with vastly varying opinions about the limits of what is and what is not appropriate...

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by tk13

Just to clarify, I have zero problems with the actual concept of the movie. Great idea, definitely a serious social issue, more power to them.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by tk13

But to go to some of the graphic lengths suggested is unnecessary.

Agreed.

And they should be prosecuted.

A (truly) nude 12 year old is not art, it's sadism and exploitation...

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by mcan

Then how come they didn't arrest the director of this movie? I'm confused.

So am I...

LOOK IT UP.

Even in Kalifornia THAT IS ILLEGAL...

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Rausch

If you'd just quit here I'd agree.

Sexual abuse is far more common than the average person realizes.

It really should be pointed out.

But making (and don't ****ing kid yourself by thinking some 12 year old girl is begging to just rip her clothes off in front of about 300 people plus supporting crew and caterers) who's underage go nude to prove underage girls shouldn't be exploited.......uh.........

Again, if you feel that just SEEING her breasts is exploiting her, than I'm not going to change your mind. I have a different opinion, and think nudity is no big deal.

[Moooo]

Originally Posted by tk13

Just to clarify, I have zero problems with the actual concept of the movie. Great idea, definitely a serious social issue, more power to them.

But to go to some of the graphic lengths suggested is unnecessary. There's many an artist out there who can put your mind in the direction they want you to go and let you figure out the rest. I prefer it that way sometimes. You could even make it brutally uncomfortable. Have a closed door, have the sounds, everything. But to actually simulate the act on film, that's pretty rough. I completely understand the art argument, but I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think the actress has the maturity to understand the decision she'd be making. Or the gravity of what the scene will mean to people who have experienced something like this. Maybe her parents and the director do, but she doesn't. She's just being used as a million dollar pawn.

I disagree with it having the same effect. The more senses you can involve in something such as this, the more intense it will be. But people to a point want to be able to detach themselves from something. Take an instance like 9/11. Whenever you see the footage its horrible, but when you hear it it makes it that much more vivid. Imagine if you could feel the impact of it, or smell the fire, it would make it too much to handle for the average person, moreso than they want to handle, that's for sure.

The reason this offends people is because it will put a high level of realization to something people don't want to expose themselves to. To argue whether or not it should be done is one thing, but to say it won't succeed in making it more difficult for the viewer to detach themself from the film doesn't hold water.

Moooo

[tk13]

Originally Posted by mcan

Also, not a good argument. I'm too young to be president (by law), but I'm certainly not too young to play the president on TV. I believe the age at which any individual is ready to have a mature and intimate, sexual relationships is drastically different for everyone. Teaching kids that there is some magic "maturity" that happens when they reach 18 is probably what's causing most people to be so messed up about sex in the first place.

When you're 14, 15, 16 you want it... But it's BAD.
When you're 18, suddenly it's OK, but you really don't feel any different. Your tastes have changed, and you've experienced some things that have made you grow up a bit. But when you're 22, you'll look back at your 18 year old self and think you were immature as hell. Then, when you're 30, you'll back and think you were just a stupid 22 year old... No matter how old you get, you'll always think "if I only knew then..."


Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The topic is:
Is underage nudity automatically wrong? Or does the intent behind the nudity make it wrong?

I'm obviously in the "intent" camp.

You are completely wandering off in left field here. I don't even know where you're going. None of that has anything to do with any of this. This girl is 12 years old. Whether or not you could pass as the president has nothing to do with whether a 12 year old girl is sexually mature or not. It's not even in the same ballpark. It's like saying eating hot dogs is as serious as getting stabbed in the face.

I would agree that everybody matures at a different rate, and a set age isn't going to work for everybody. But I'm fairly confident 12 isn't it. Maybe it is 15 or 16. But not 12. And that's what this girl is. She's not even fully grown yet. You know she's not mature enough to understand a mature sexual relationship, and what's good and what's bad.

[Miles]

Originally Posted by mcan

Then how come they didn't arrest the director of this movie? I'm confused. You say it's open and shut, but that scene has already been filmed, and they're still filming... No cops. No courtrooms. Just an internet talkboard discussion with vastly varying opinions about the limits of what is and what is not appropriate...

Lack of taste doest't mean illegal. I am trying to think of something like this depicted in a foreign film but come up empty.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by mcan

Again, if you feel that just SEEING her breasts is exploiting her, than I'm not going to change your mind. I have a different opinion, and think nudity is no big deal.

And if you support the idea of a 12 year old girl having her privates shown on screen is ok then I'm not going to change your mind.

Just know that having it on your computer or a picture of it in your home WILL send you to jail in all 50 states...