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

So am I...

LOOK IT UP.

Even in Kalifornia THAT IS ILLEGAL...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

In the United States, child pornography is prohibited under both federal and state laws with some state laws including more or less restrictive definitions compared with federal law. Under federal law, child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors (i.e. under 18) engaged in a sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals. Various federal courts in the 1980s and 1990s have concluded that "lewd" or "lascivious" depiction of the genitals does not require the genitals to be uncovered. Thus, for example, a video of underage teenage girls dancing erotically, with multiple close-up shots of their covered genitals, can be considered child porn.

Questions arose in late 1990's as whether the depiction of mere nudity of minors could constitute obscenity. After the U.S. Customs Service seized in 1998 over 200 Nudist magazines sent from Europe that featured nude depictions of minors, a court case ensued in which an appellate court ruled in 2000 that depictions of nude minors engaging in activities otherwise normal for their age, cannot be held obscene [1]. The court based it rulling partly on a previouse Supreme Court rulling that had concluded that mere nudity in and of itself does not constitute obscenity.

Further complicating the issue in the U. S. is that there is no clear legal definition in federal or state law as to what exactly constitutes a "lewd" or "lascivious" exhibition. In addition, these terms are often to be interpreted according to "contemporary community standards." Defining the standards of a community where residents come from a wide variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and where moving from place to place is commonplace so that the nature of a community is continually changing, has proved extremely challenging.

In United States vs. Knox, the court ruled that a picture a minor's clothed sexual organ could constitute a 'lascivious exhibition.'

Texts are not considered child pornography in USA, because, legally, any text has artistic merit.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Miles

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.

And it would have no relevance because it wouldn't apply to the laws here in the states...

[Moooo]

Originally Posted by Rausch

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...

I think if it was done in a non-sexual manner it wouldn't be a big deal. Nudity does not always equal sexuality. A body is a body. However when you're making a violent sexual act out of it, that's different.

If they were gonna show her in some necessary way that had no sexual implications, I see nothing wrong with that. However the same thing with an implication of sexuality (no matter how presented) seems preverted.

Moooo

[Miles]

Originally Posted by Rausch

And it would have no relevance because it wouldn't apply to the laws here in the states...

Yep just curious of what these European examples he has.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by mcan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

In the United States, child pornography is prohibited under both federal and state laws with some state laws including more or less restrictive definitions compared with federal law. Under federal law, child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors (i.e. under 18) engaged in a sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals. Various federal courts in the 1980s and 1990s have concluded that "lewd" or "lascivious" depiction of the genitals does not require the genitals to be uncovered. Thus, for example, a video of underage teenage girls dancing erotically, with multiple close-up shots of their covered genitals, can be considered child porn.

Questions arose in late 1990's as whether the depiction of mere nudity of minors could constitute obscenity. After the U.S. Customs Service seized in 1998 over 200 Nudist magazines sent from Europe that featured nude depictions of minors, a court case ensued in which an appellate court ruled in 2000 that depictions of nude minors engaging in activities otherwise normal for their age, cannot be held obscene [1]. The court based it rulling partly on a previouse Supreme Court rulling that had concluded that mere nudity in and of itself does not constitute obscenity.

Further complicating the issue in the U. S. is that there is no clear legal definition in federal or state law as to what exactly constitutes a "lewd" or "lascivious" exhibition. In addition, these terms are often to be interpreted according to "contemporary community standards." Defining the standards of a community where residents come from a wide variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and where moving from place to place is commonplace so that the nature of a community is continually changing, has proved extremely challenging.

In United States vs. Knox, the court ruled that a picture a minor's clothed sexual organ could constitute a 'lascivious exhibition.'

Texts are not considered child pornography in USA, because, legally, any text has artistic merit.

Prove me wrong.

Take pictures of any girl under 16 showing her breasts or fu-fu and try and publish it. Better yet, take it to the local police station and turn it in as a crime.

See what happens...

[tk13]

Originally Posted by Moooo

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

I don't agree with that at all. Sure if you do a terrible job at it, it won't be nearly as good as the real thing. But you could easily make a horrifically uncomfortable scene that would get the point across just fine. This is a very uncomfortable topic, you don't need to add any fuel to the fire.

I guarantee you that you put a scene of a rattling bedroom door with a girl screaming and bedposts shaking, that's gonna disturb people.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Miles

Yep just curious of what these European examples he has.

There really are plenty.

Not that they matter...

[Moooo]

Originally Posted by tk13

I don't agree with that at all. Sure if you do a terrible job at it, it won't be nearly as good as the real thing. But you could easily make a horrifically uncomfortable scene that would get the point across just fine. This is a very uncomfortable topic, you don't need to add any fuel to the fire.

I guarantee you that you put a scene of a rattling bedroom door with a girl screaming and bedposts shaking, that's gonna disturb people.

I guarantee you if you show it, it will disturb them more. Sight is most people's predominant sense. To add it to something like this, making the percieved sensation of the scene multidimensional, will make it more vivid, period.

Whether or not that vividness is counterproductive by offending people or not is another debate.

Moooo

[Miles]

Originally Posted by mcan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

In the United States, child pornography is prohibited under both federal and state laws with some state laws including more or less restrictive definitions compared with federal law. Under federal law, child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors (i.e. under 18) engaged in a sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals. Various federal courts in the 1980s and 1990s have concluded that "lewd" or "lascivious" depiction of the genitals does not require the genitals to be uncovered. Thus, for example, a video of underage teenage girls dancing erotically, with multiple close-up shots of their covered genitals, can be considered child porn.

Questions arose in late 1990's as whether the depiction of mere nudity of minors could constitute obscenity. After the U.S. Customs Service seized in 1998 over 200 Nudist magazines sent from Europe that featured nude depictions of minors, a court case ensued in which an appellate court ruled in 2000 that depictions of nude minors engaging in activities otherwise normal for their age, cannot be held obscene [1]. The court based it rulling partly on a previouse Supreme Court rulling that had concluded that mere nudity in and of itself does not constitute obscenity.

Further complicating the issue in the U. S. is that there is no clear legal definition in federal or state law as to what exactly constitutes a "lewd" or "lascivious" exhibition. In addition, these terms are often to be interpreted according to "contemporary community standards." Defining the standards of a community where residents come from a wide variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and where moving from place to place is commonplace so that the nature of a community is continually changing, has proved extremely challenging.

In United States vs. Knox, the court ruled that a picture a minor's clothed sexual organ could constitute a 'lascivious exhibition.'

Texts are not considered child pornography in USA, because, legally, any text has artistic merit.

I generally trust wikipedia but not for oversimplification of legal issues.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by Moooo

I guarantee you if you show it, it will disturb them more. Sight is most people's predominant sense. To add it to something like this, making the percieved sensation of the scene multidimensional, will make it more vivid, period.

Whether or not that vividness is counterproductive by offending people or not is another debate.

Moooo

I don't disagree with that. Not one bit. That's not my point. Just don't think it's necessary to get the point across. Not at the risk of exploiting a 12 year old girl.

I mean if you want to be as disturbing as possible, why don't you just film an actual rape? That'd be more disturbing than anything. Then you would really stick it to the audience.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Moooo

I guarantee you if you show it, it will disturb them more. Sight is most people's predominant sense.

So I should make a KKK movie to show why they're wrong?

I'll bet that works to open all kinds of minds...

[Miles]

Originally Posted by Rausch

There really are plenty.

Not that they matter...

I am still curious of what these great examples are outside of naked fat kids painted 500 years ago on display at the Louvre.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Miles

I am still curious of what these great examples are outside of naked fat kids painted 500 years ago on display at the Louvre.

You underestimate the depravity of Frog culture...

[Miles]

Originally Posted by Rausch

You underestimate the depravity of Frog culture...

They can't make beer for shit or pizzia but still don't follow.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Miles

They can't make beer for shit or pizzia but still don't follow.

Good...