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."

[Donger]

Nothing's Shocking.

And, personally, I'm dismayed that her parents, ANY parents, would allow this. Yes, it's just 'art' but at what price? Decency?

It makes any rational person question their motivation, IMO.

Regardless, this film will never see a $0.01 of my money.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by mcan

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.

Sorry, but I have a 14 year old daughter, and I am shocked that any parent would willingly put their kid in a situation like this-movie or not-Oscar or not.


There is no "fine" line here-it is just plain wrong.

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

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???

First, no you didn't read it? The Cliffnotes for dummies must have skipped over the arguments laid down before you. Maybe you need cliffnotes for the braindead.


Second, don't see the movie and don't bitch about it or see the movie then bitch about it.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Clearly, you and I just disagree about the nature of PORN. I respect that. But I have to reitterate that it's not a crime for any underage to be "nude." The law makes a clear distinction between nudity and pornography. One is OK, the other is a felony. America is, of course, historicaly conservative with these laws, but there are MANY MANY MANY movies where an underage actress is nude. The expressed purpose of the nudity is the issue.

However, by you calling it "filth" I'm assuming that you have a moral objection to nudity in general. If your argument is that you believe that all nudity is equivelent to pornography, then I have no counter arguement or any way to dissuade you from a moral belief. It would be like trying to convince a Jewish man that it's ok to eat meat on Friday.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by Donger

Nothing's Shocking.

And, personally, I'm dismayed that her parents, ANY parents, would allow this. Yes, it's just 'art' but at what price? Decency?

It makes any rational person question their motivation, IMO.

Regardless, this film will never see a $0.01 of my money.

Exactly, this is Child porn, plain and simple. The law is pretty clear on the subject so I would expect some indictments.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Exactly, this is Child porn, plain and simple. The law is pretty clear on the subject so I would expect some indictments.

I don't agree with that. Unless it actually took place, it's 'simulated child rape.'

That's revolting, but I don't think it's illegal.

[Miles]

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.

Great points.

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Sorry, but I have a 14 year old daughter, and I am shocked that any parent would willingly put their kid in a situation like this-movie or not-Oscar or not.


There is no "fine" line here-it is just plain wrong.

and I have a 15 year old daughter and I agree that I would have some severe reservations about her performing this act.

Who's to say, however, that something like this won't help prevent it from actually happening.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by mcan

Clearly, you and I just disagree about the nature of PORN. I respect that. But I have to reitterate that it's not a crime for any underage to be "nude." The law makes a clear distinction between nudity and pornography. One is OK, the other is a felony. America is, of course, historicaly conservative with these laws, but there are MANY MANY MANY movies where an underage actress is nude. The expressed purpose of the nudity is the issue.

However, by you calling it "filth" I'm assuming that you have a moral objection to nudity in general. If your argument is that you believe that all nudity is equivelent to pornography, then I have no counter arguement or any way to dissuade you from a moral belief. It would be like trying to convince a Jewish man that it's ok to eat meat on Friday.

I have no problem with nudity, if they are 18 and an adult-not a 12 year old. Plus it is nudity in the contest of being abused-big difference.

[Donger]

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.

A question for you:

Is this child rape scene a re-enactment of a true event or a fictional event?

I don't know. Do you?

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

and I have a 15 year old daughter and I agree that I would have some severe reservations about her performing this act.

Who's to say, however, that something like this won't help prevent it from actually happening.

Prevent it from happening?

[Consistent1]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Exactly, this is Child porn, plain and simple. The law is pretty clear on the subject so I would expect some indictments.

Who knows? Maybe the scene just show her getting pushed down or something that implies rape, but is still slightly rough? There are not that many people making films that are willing to commit commercial suicide with any kind of decent budget. I bet this is all blown out of proportion.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Donger

A question for you:

Is this child rape scene a re-enactment of a true event or a fictional event?

I don't know. Do you?

I think it's just another thing to desensitize our children into emotional flatliners..where nothing bothers us...where there is no wrong or right..just people being manipulated.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Showing a little girl half naked and then involving her in a love scene with an adult=child porn. The Mom should lose custody of Dakota-IMO

It's called a MOVIE, it is NOT real. I think you need to understand the difference in porn and regular movies before making a statement like that.

[greg63]

Originally Posted by mcan

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.

Agreed.





Nite Planet again!