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."

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by mcan

1. Nothing is WRONG with nudity. Doesn't matter what age you are. As long as the meaning of the film is aside from TITALITING an audience, it is not porn, and age doesn't even enter the picture (from a legal standpoint). This is how SEVERAL young actresses have appeared nude in countless movies since the '60s. Recently, two very young actresses appeared nude in American Beauty. If you believe that nudity has no place in art, than you're making a moral assumption. You might be right. Maybe there is a God, and he sees nudity as TERRIBLE, but we don't know that.

2. Saying that a rape scene in a movie is wrong is just pigheaded and dumb. Yes, nearly everyone is aware that rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make movies about it. Everyone knows that genocide is wrong too, but we still make movies like "Schindler's List." And you know what, young kids are tortured and killed in all sorts of movies. They know it's fake when they're filming it. If any actor of any age is mature enough to make an educated decision about playing any type of role, and it's OK with that person's guardian, then YOU are the prick for telling them that they're judgement is BAD and yours is GOOD. Do I think that it's wrong to let a child who can't tell real from imaginary do something that could potentially give them psychological problems. Yes. I wouldn't put a 4 year old in a monster movie and scare the kid to death on set. But i HIGHLY doubt that Dakota has these types of issues. I'm quite sure that she is capable of distinguishing fiction from non...

3. Art isn't always squeaky clean and fun. Not every movie can be Superman, and even though I liked that movie, thank GOD there are alternatives... Some movies are disturbing and deal with matters that I pray nobody ever has to deal with, but sadly I know they do. Do some movies overstep the bounds of taste for shock value alone... Yes, I concede that they do. But disallowing people to push the boundries leaves us with a second rate Macarthyism. And what's more I can't over state the EXTREME arrogance that it takes to protest or boycott a film, book, or any piece of art based on content WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE FILM!!!!! If you see it, and think it's abbhorent, then walk out and call your senator. I'm sure you can find one that would LOVE to burn another artist at the stake.

4. Lastly, about the argument that child molestors will watch the movie and get off to it. Perhaps they will. That takes a sick mind. But it's not a valid argument for censorship. Some serial killers take their inspiration from Beatles' songs. Should they not have been allowed to write their music? Teens used to kill themselves to heavy metal. Should we not allow them to record? Gangs used to kill people for their shoes. I guess we should close the doors to Nike. Some pedophiles buy TigerBeat magazine and jack off to it while they stalk their next victim... But we don't stop the presses, do we? Why not? Because, that magazine shouldn't be held liable for someone using their product in a way in which it wasn't inteded to be used.

[Consistent1]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

I don't know what your issue is, but he made a damn good post.

[Halfcan]

Comparing nudity to Child rape???

Schindlers list-to Child rape??

Teen beat-to Child rape??

Superman-to Child rape???

Your right-nice points indeed.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by mcan

1. Nothing is WRONG with nudity. Doesn't matter what age you are. As long as the meaning of the film is aside from TITALITING an audience, it is not porn, and age doesn't even enter the picture (from a legal standpoint). This is how SEVERAL young actresses have appeared nude in countless movies since the '60s. Recently, two very young actresses appeared nude in American Beauty. If you believe that nudity has no place in art, than you're making a moral assumption. You might be right. Maybe there is a God, and he sees nudity as TERRIBLE, but we don't know that.

2. Saying that a rape scene in a movie is wrong is just pigheaded and dumb. Yes, nearly everyone is aware that rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make movies about it. Everyone knows that genocide is wrong too, but we still make movies like "Schindler's List." And you know what, young kids are tortured and killed in all sorts of movies. They know it's fake when they're filming it. If any actor of any age is mature enough to make an educated decision about playing any type of role, and it's OK with that person's guardian, then YOU are the prick for telling them that they're judgement is BAD and yours is GOOD. Do I think that it's wrong to let a child who can't tell real from imaginary do something that could potentially give them psychological problems. Yes. I wouldn't put a 4 year old in a monster movie and scare the kid to death on set. But i HIGHLY doubt that Dakota has these types of issues. I'm quite sure that she is capable of distinguishing fiction from non...

3. Art isn't always squeaky clean and fun. Not every movie can be Superman, and even though I liked that movie, thank GOD there are alternatives... Some movies are disturbing and deal with matters that I pray nobody ever has to deal with, but sadly I know they do. Do some movies overstep the bounds of taste for shock value alone... Yes, I concede that they do. But disallowing people to push the boundries leaves us with a second rate Macarthyism. And what's more I can't over state the EXTREME arrogance that it takes to protest or boycott a film, book, or any piece of art based on content WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE FILM!!!!! If you see it, and think it's abbhorent, then walk out and call your senator. I'm sure you can find one that would LOVE to burn another artist at the stake.

4. Lastly, about the argument that child molestors will watch the movie and get off to it. Perhaps they will. That takes a sick mind. But it's not a valid argument for censorship. Some serial killers take their inspiration from Beatles' songs. Should they not have been allowed to write their music? Teens used to kill themselves to heavy metal. Should we not allow them to record? Gangs used to kill people for their shoes. I guess we should close the doors to Nike. Some pedophiles buy TigerBeat magazine and jack off to it while they stalk their next victim... But we don't stop the presses, do we? Why not? Because, that magazine shouldn't be held liable for someone using their product in a way in which it wasn't inteded to be used.

Good post.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Comparing nudity to Child rape???

Schindlers list-to Child rape??

Teen beat-to Child rape??

Superman-to Child rape???

Your right-nice points indeed.

I'm not saying they are same thing. I'm pointing out the flaws in the logic by creating a parrallel. The SEVERITY of the crime has no bearing on your argument.

Crime is bad ----> Movie containing crime is bad

Kid involved in morally wrong movie ----> Parents and Director should be arrested.

Those are the arguments put forth and, IMO, layed to rest by my post.

Make a different argument, and I'll deal with that. What, exactly is the problem with this movie again?

[greg63]

I can't believe I'm saying this but, I agree with Go Chiefs. They don't have to get explicit in order to reveal what's happening.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Comparing nudity to Child rape???

Schindlers list-to Child rape??

Teen beat-to Child rape??

Superman-to Child rape???

Your right-nice points indeed.

Looking at this post again, I think you're oversimplifying.

I did NOT compare Schindler's List, Teenbeat, nor $uperman to "Child rape." I compared those things to Dakota's new movie.

I did, however, compare: Teen suicide, serial killers, genocide, gang killings, and child molestation to child rape.

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Comparing nudity to Child rape???

Schindlers list-to Child rape??

Teen beat-to Child rape??

Superman-to Child rape???

Your right-nice points indeed.

.


did you read the post?

[Halfcan]

The directer is trying to push the limits of art by using Child Porn to create a buzz to make more $$$. I have to agree with Gochiefs also. Viewing a child under 18 nude is a crime the last time I checked-and I am surprised you could even support an arguement for this kind of filth. You must not have kids.

[Consistent1]

Originally Posted by greg63

I can't believe I'm saying this but, I agree with Go Chiefs. They don't have to get explicit in order to reveal what's happening.

And we REALLY know how explicit this is? I am sure it is not "explicit" at all when compared to many things out there. I must have missed that early screening buddy, sorry. I don't really think that it is a great thing for a kid to be involved in things like this in the big picture. Let's be real though, how many kids are being abused by parents to get drugs, etc.? There are no takes for that shit.

The world is not as kind and gentle as most of us would like and artists are not the ones to blame for portraying it in a sensible fashion.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by greg63

I can't believe I'm saying this but, I agree with Go Chiefs. They don't have to get explicit in order to reveal what's happening.

While you and I might vary on our meaning of "explicit" I agree that there are certain lines of taste that probably would be best not to cross. I haven't seen the film though, so I can't tell you what, exactly they are doing, or whether or not it's effective, or necessary.

[stevieray]

1. Nothing is WRONG with nudity. Doesn't matter what age you are. As long as the meaning of the film is aside from TITALITING an audience, it is not porn, and age doesn't even enter the picture (from a legal standpoint). This is how SEVERAL young actresses have appeared nude in countless movies since the '60's
_________________________________________________

really, how many were nude that were twelve?

__________________________________________________

2. Saying that a rape scene in a movie is wrong is just pigheaded and dumb. Yes, nearly everyone is aware that rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make movies about it. Everyone knows that genocide is wrong too, but we still make movies like "Schindler's List." And you know what, young kids are tortured and killed in all sorts of movies.
____________________________________________________

Rape scene invovling a twelve year old. Was Schindlers list explicit about a child being tortured or murdered?

All sorts of movies? examples, please.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

.


did you read the post?

Actually I read the Cliffnotes for Dummies version. The nudity at any age in Rant #1 kind of put me off, but I did skim the rest.

And age DOES matter in a legal standpoint when it comes to nudity and the depiction of a little girl getter raped. How is that art???

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by stevieray

1. Nothing is WRONG with nudity. Doesn't matter what age you are. As long as the meaning of the film is aside from TITALITING an audience, it is not porn, and age doesn't even enter the picture (from a legal standpoint). This is how SEVERAL young actresses have appeared nude in countless movies since the '60's
_________________________________________________

really, how many were nude that were twelve?

__________________________________________________

2. Saying that a rape scene in a movie is wrong is just pigheaded and dumb. Yes, nearly everyone is aware that rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make movies about it. Everyone knows that genocide is wrong too, but we still make movies like "Schindler's List." And you know what, young kids are tortured and killed in all sorts of movies.
____________________________________________________

Rape scene invovling a twelve year old. Was Schindlers list based upon a child being tortured or murdered?

All sorts of movies? examples, please.

[Miles]

Originally Posted by tk13

If it is real, that is pretty disturbing. A good filmmaker could create the same sense of dread without actually filming all of those scenes.

I havent read through this whole thread yet but that was exactly what i was thinking after reading the header. If the director is good enough the same thing can be accomplished without having to show it, if not even more effect.