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 Mecca

She has kind of like a curly mullet esq kind of haircut.........then we wonder where the Chiefs fans jokes come from.

Lol mullet

[hypersensitiveZO6]

www.mulletsgalore.com

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Donger

I asked this question earlier. Perhaps it was answered, but I'm not going to go back through all these posts: Was this child rape a historical fact? Did what is filmed actually happen in real life?

I don't think it's a specific "true story" of a real girl. It shouldn't be either. That just makes it seem that further away from the average movie goer. But, this type of thing DOES happen. Sexually motivated kidnappings happen all the time in this country. Molestation by family members and people known to the victim happen countless times every day. Probably one every couple of minutes in this country. My bet is you know of a half a dozen people who have been abused, and never told anybody. My bet is a half dozen on this board have been abused. It's stupidly common. Did you see the Dateline with the child predators. They caught a new one every half hour by baiting them with actors pretending to be children who invited them to their house. These guys come crawling out of the woodwork as soon as you sound the horn.

Why do these people exist? How come so few people know how bad the problem is? What are we going to do about? What is societies role in protecting children? These are very important questions, and if a movie puts the problem under a microscope and makes people think about it, the way movies for the past few generations have made us think about race relations and war, then I think it's a great idea.

But, I repeat, again... "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT COOL TO JEOPORDIZE THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF ANY ACTOR OR ACTRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A ROLE." This goes for 12 year olds who are playing parts that are deemed dangerous because of their content, or 35 year olds who are in an action movie and have to jump from a train. Every precaution must be made that the actor both feels and actually is safe. But, that doesn't mean that 12 year olds should be banned from taking on mature roles, nor does it mean that actors should never jump from trains in movies. It just means that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure that actor is safe.

--This isn't a religious debate and it's really not a porn vs. nudity debate. It's the fact that she's a 12 year old girl.

--I think people would still hold the opinions they hold if it was full out nudity with simulated hip movement.... but I guess we'll have to see.

--I reacted so negatively because of my love for my kids and all kids. It has nothing to do with religion or being a prude-it is because it is morally wrong.

--WHAT about her being a 12 year old girl? Is it her maturity level? Or simply what year she was born? Are you worried for her safety? Are you worried for her mental well being? "It's just wrong" isn't the reason the laws against child porn were invented. Nor is that the reason for age of consent laws. Nor is that the reason for any law. Tell me why this movie is or should be breaking laws. If you believe that 12 year olds just SHOULDN'T be involved in anything that deals with these types of mature issues, then you're making a MORAL argument. Where do you get your morals? Religion? Philosophy? Parents? Either way, I don't believe it's acceptable for us to assume that our morals are infallible, or that others are flawed without a logical argument as to why.

--I think the scene you are describing would go beyond the reasonable limits of good taste, and would probably start to qualify as real life child porn. I SERIOUSLY doubt what you are describing is anything like what we'll see. Have you seen Mystic River? I think it'll be more like that. Perhaps she will be bare chested. But if the scene looks at all like it could be on Showtime (where sure there isn't penetration but it sure as hell isn't for the sake of the plot) then this film has overstepped the lines, and I'd be pretty upset.

--Nothing to with religion? Ok, so where did you get that moral absolute that it is wrong for a 12 year old portray adult themes in a movie? I'm not disagreeing with the morality of child rape... Obviously, rape is wrong, period. Sex with a 12 year old is wrong, period... But how is playing a kid in a movie who is being sexually molested and tortured even a question of morality? What is your moral standard, and why should it be forced upon the rest of the world by law?

[Hammock Parties]

I have one question for those of you supporting this movie.

Why does anyone need to see a 12-year old being raped?

[mcan]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

I have one question for those of you supporting this movie.

Why does anyone need to see a 12-year old being raped?

Why does anyone need to see a man get shot in a war movie?
Why does anyone need to see a child get killed by her pscho mom in a Lifetime original picture?
Why does anyone need to see black men being lynched by a mob in a movie about the KKK?
Why does anyone need to see a man hang himself in a prison movie?
Why does anyone need to see a trophy wife cheat on her husband in a thriller?


Whe does anyone need to see any kind of atrocity on film? I mean, we all know it's wrong, so why even make the movie. Just pass around a chain email and tell everybody that these things are wrong... Is that your argument?

[Hammock Parties]

You didn't answer my question.

Why does anyone need to see a 12-year old getting raped?

I'm guessing no one here WANTS to see that, but obviously there's some NEED to see it, since the film is being made.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by mcan

I don't think it's a specific "true story" of a real girl. It shouldn't be either. That just makes it seem that further away from the average movie goer. But, this type of thing DOES happen. Sexually motivated kidnappings happen all the time in this country. Molestation by family members and people known to the victim happen countless times every day. Probably one every couple of minutes in this country. My bet is you know of a half a dozen people who have been abused, and never told anybody. My bet is a half dozen on this board have been abused. It's stupidly common. Did you see the Dateline with the child predators. They caught a new one every half hour by baiting them with actors pretending to be children who invited them to their house. These guys come crawling out of the woodwork as soon as you sound the horn.

Why do these people exist? How come so few people know how bad the problem is? What are we going to do about? What is societies role in protecting children? These are very important questions, and if a movie puts the problem under a microscope and makes people think about it, the way movies for the past few generations have made us think about race relations and war, then I think it's a great idea.

But, I repeat, again... "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT COOL TO JEOPORDIZE THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF ANY ACTOR OR ACTRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A ROLE." This goes for 12 year olds who are playing parts that are deemed dangerous because of their content, or 35 year olds who are in an action movie and have to jump from a train. Every precaution must be made that the actor both feels and actually is safe. But, that doesn't mean that 12 year olds should be banned from taking on mature roles, nor does it mean that actors should never jump from trains in movies. It just means that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure that actor is safe.



--WHAT about her being a 12 year old girl? Is it her maturity level? Or simply what year she was born? Are you worried for her safety? Are you worried for her mental well being? "It's just wrong" isn't the reason the laws against child porn were invented. Nor is that the reason for age of consent laws. Nor is that the reason for any law. Tell me why this movie is or should be breaking laws. If you believe that 12 year olds just SHOULDN'T be involved in anything that deals with these types of mature issues, then you're making a MORAL argument. Where do you get your morals? Religion? Philosophy? Parents? Either way, I don't believe it's acceptable for us to assume that our morals are infallible, or that others are flawed without a logical argument as to why.

--I think the scene you are describing would go beyond the reasonable limits of good taste, and would probably start to qualify as real life child porn. I SERIOUSLY doubt what you are describing is anything like what we'll see. Have you seen Mystic River? I think it'll be more like that. Perhaps she will be bare chested. But if the scene looks at all like it could be on Showtime (where sure there isn't penetration but it sure as hell isn't for the sake of the plot) then this film has overstepped the lines, and I'd be pretty upset.

--Nothing to with religion? Ok, so where did you get that moral absolute that it is wrong for a 12 year old portray adult themes in a movie? I'm not disagreeing with the morality of child rape... Obviously, rape is wrong, period. Sex with a 12 year old is wrong, period... But how is playing a kid in a movie who is being sexually molested and tortured even a question of morality? What is your moral standard, and why should it be forced upon the rest of the world by law?

Why are you typing full pages to defend a simulated rape scene on a 12 year old? It is starting to sound very creepy. SHE IS 12 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mcan]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

You didn't answer my question.

Why does anyone need to see a 12-year old getting raped?

I'm guessing no one here WANTS to see that, but obviously there's some NEED to see it, since the film is being made.

I meant to imply that the need is the same for all of these questions.

1. It's essential to the plot of the movie. In the story being told, the girl gets kidnapped and raped. She finds comfort in Elvis records to help her make it through a terrible ordeal. Perhaps she doesn't make it through. Sadly, many real children don't.

2. Film is a visual medium. There are ways of shooting around certain things to protect the mental well being of the child, but not showing what happens to her is like reading a book about Dinosaurs where the words read, "This is the part about Dinosaurs. I won't describe them, but trust me, they're cool..."

3. The film is from HER perspective. It's about HER struggle. If we don't see her plight, we don't empathize as much as we should.

4. Film is the most powerful of media to bring about social change. The nazis learned to use film as propoganda FOR hateful deeds, and got a whole country to go along with them. It wasn't all documentary stuff either. They sanctioned movies. Goebbels actually hired directors and was in charge of making sure pro German films coincided with certain political movements of the nazi party. They invented German film awards and bestowed them as military honors. Showing atrocities on film has often had the same effect for what most people consider to be positive social change. Obviously, some is documentary: kent state, Vietnam, etc... But there are countless films that have helped to further our enlightenment of other people, whether they be a minority, homosexual, or handicapped, or have brought our awareness of a certain problem to a higher, more enlightened level.

[tk13]

I don't understand why this has to be an all or nothing proposition. You're acting like it has to be a full blown rape scene, or just a narrative where it says "SHE GOT RAPED! SHE GOT RAPED!" on the screen. No in between. That is simply not the case. There are directors out there that would create the same sense of dread without filming an actual nude rape scene.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by mcan

4. Film is the most powerful of media to bring about social change.

This is the answer I was expecting. While you are correct, it doesn't apply to this film. No social changes need to be made to combat child rape/pornography. As a society, I think we're already doing enough to stop it.

This is just shock value.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Why are you typing full pages to defend a simulated rape scene on a 12 year old? It is starting to sound very creepy. SHE IS 12 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry the posts are so long. I guess I think that certain issues are delicate and require some explaining and some sound judgment and reasoning.

But what's ironic is that the theme of my post was primarily asking this question: "She's 12 years old... So what about her being 12 should make her unable to play this role?"

"She's 12" isn't argument. It's just a simple assurtion of fact. You have to make a valid point in there somewhere. An example of some logic (that I don't agree with but at least would be an attempt) would be:



All 12 year olds are emotionally immature ->
Emotionally immature people are easily scarred for life by traumatic events ->
All 12 year olds are incapable of deciphering reality from simulation ->
----------------------------------------------------------
If a 12 year old participates in a simulated traumatic event, that 12 year old will probably be scarred for life.



That's a logical argument. I believe that the logic is flawed by the words "all" and because "emotionally immature" is a vague term. But at least that would be an attempt to put reason behind your assurtion that this movie is morally wrong. Just saying "She's 12" doesn't cut it...

[mcan]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

This is the answer I was expecting. While you are correct, it doesn't apply to this film. No social changes need to be made to combat child rape/pornography. As a society, I think we're already doing enough to stop it.

This is just shock value.

asjklasdfjkl;asdfasgawg hil;jkl; jkl; jkl; jkl; jkl; jkl jio' nkl; jkl asdg jkl;asgasg jkl'awdg jkl'asdg jkl'asdgjkl'asdg jkl'asdgjk'asdgjkl'asdg jkl;hkl; asg jkl;asdg jkl;jkl jkl; jkl; asdg jkl;asdg jkl;jkl asg jklasdg asdg asdg jkl'asdg jkl'asdg asdg jkl'asdg asdg asdg jkl;asdg jklasdg jklasdg jkljkl


We're DOING ENOUGH!!!!!!!

HOLY asjkl; asdg jkl; jkl; jkl; asg jkl;jkl' jkl' jkl' jkl iqe5y 8o0j9- klnmkdfjkl kljkl' kjkl' jk' adfh ';ajkld fo;e35iyio;546
546
546dfmkad'ru'5yu9erhji df


CRAP!!!!



OK, so I understand that's just your opinion, and I go out of my way to make sure not to tell people that their opinion is wrong, but geez man... I think you are the FIRST person that needs to see this movie, if you think we're doing enough...

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by tk13

There are directors out there that would create the same sense of dread without filming an actual nude rape scene.

Yes, I think it could be done much more tastefully. The human imagination can paint a picture much more vivid than anything that can be acted out.

You could easily create an extremely emotional before/after sequence. Just show her face right before it happens, maybe with some ominous footsteps and a line from the rapist. Then cut immediately to black.

From that black scene, cut to footsteps fading and a door slamming. Then cut to her face again. Zoom out and show her crumpled body (tastefully, no one needs to see her naked ass or anything. The scene communicates what just happened wonderfully. Showing the act just makes people uncomfortable.)

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by mcan

I think you are the FIRST person that needs to see this movie, if you think we're doing enough...

I guess I'm ignorant. What more can we do as a society, and is this movie really going to help?

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

I guess I'm ignorant.

Your greatest post!