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

but you're basing your beliefs on moral absolutes and not reality...

I guess I don't understand what you mean by this. What moral belief do you percieve that I have? What reality do you refer to?


I percieve that YOU have the absolute moral belief that all nudity of underage girls or boys is akin to pornography, and is therefore inappropriate, and further that no 12 year old has the maturity or understanding necessary to do something like Dakota is doing, and therefore Dakota (without even knowing it) is a victim of exploitation, and is participating in child porn.

I don't believe in arbitrary morality. I think there are acts of hate or selfishness that are almost always immoral, and there are acts of love and sacrifice that are almost always good, and then there is everything in between which has no moral good or bad associated with it. IE: vacuuming the stairs, or playing football. I honestly don't see any morality involved in an actress portraying something on screen. Even if that thing is (in real life) terrible. I also don't see any morality issue with nudity regardless of age. So, I can't very well see any moral reason to object when the two are combined.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Anyone?

I don't think anybody is around. Frankly, I should have gotten to bed hours ago myself. But, I appreciate the candid discussion.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

"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."

This comment right here tells me that she is not comfortable with doing it. Challenging? Whether or not she's being forced by her parents or manipulated by her agent to do this, she is obviously struggling with the concept. She should not have done it. It will have psychological implications for her. Right, wrong, whatever. My problem is that a 12 year old child has been tainted in some way in order to make art, porn, whatever.

[jAZ]

I hate movies like this. I don't think it can be called a boycott if I just don't really want to see it.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by jAZ

I hate movies like this. I don't think it can be called a boycott if I just don't really want to see it.

True. I don't watch horror flicks because I don't want to see gruesome murder. Same thing applies here.

[Jenny Gump]

Originally Posted by tk13

I can't believe this is for real. Those quotes almost seem too gung-ho to be true...haha.

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.

And really, what is most disgusting is that filming those scenes would probably do more for the actual pedophiles that want something to get off to, rather than affect people who would be repulsed by it. Not a good idea.

I agree. There is an intense story that needs to be told here, one that is often brushed aside in our society. Not only the story of rape, but that of child abuse, neglect, and mistreatment.

A compelling story could be told without the use of graphic visual detail.

[Jenny Gump]

Originally Posted by Moooo

I had a full awareness of what I was doing when I had sex, yes. The sex itself I don't regret but the relationship I do. And I know 50 year old people who have regrets about being with certain partners, so that's a moot point.

I can honestly say I would have had a full comprehension of this stuff at her age. Like I said before, I had 90% comprehension of it at the age of 7.

Moooo

I agree that some children are more understanding of the world around them at twelve than others. However, there is no way in the world that any child, female or male, is developmentally ready for something like this at 12. I hope (and may have missed this already) that there was at least some counseling for her prior to and after the shooting.

Seeing rape scenes at a young age can really disturb a child as I speak from my own experiences. I cannot imagine a child being a part of one.

[Rudy tossed tigger's salad]

I think most 12 year olds have a general understanding of what rape is, so simulating a rape scene isn't asking too much or exploiting an accomplished hollywood actress. I would imagine that Fanning knows has a say in her roles as she is probably a very mature 12 year old. As for the nudity, i think "Appear naked" is a way of describing shots of her bare shoulders, but she won't actually be naked. Shots in her underwear is a little controversial too, but it isn't like there hasn't been shots of underaged teenage girls in their underwear before. This film would make me uncomfortable and I wouldn't watch it, but this is hardly child porn

I could be wrong and her parents are pushing this role on to her, but I just don't think that is the case.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

This should qualify as child porn and the directer put in jail.

So simulated child rape = child porn. How is this different from "Saw"... which is really, IMO, nothing more than a Hollywood snuff film. Should James Wan be put in jail?

[Fire Me Boy!]

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.

Outstanding post.

[Fire Me Boy!]

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.

So... what about National Geography?


And mcan's right -- the legality issue is about whether or not it is intendend to tittilate.

As for it tittilating some pervs, yeah, some will be turned on. Others will be repulsed. Many molesters sincerely believe they are not hurting their victims. JMO.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by Jenny Gump

I agree that some children are more understanding of the world around them at twelve than others. However, there is no way in the world that any child, female or male, is developmentally ready for something like this at 12. I hope (and may have missed this already) that there was at least some counseling for her prior to and after the shooting.

Seeing rape scenes at a young age can really disturb a child as I speak from my own experiences. I cannot imagine a child being a part of one.

My understandings of many a movie set involving children and potentially disturbing scenes also involves a number of psychologists and counselors prior to filming.

[ChiefFripp]

Can you imagine the dirty looks you'd get renting this one?

I doubt I could knowingly watch a movie if it goes straight ahead into a topic like and portrays it vividly . I could barely handle those scenes in The Butterfly Effect, and I don't mean because of Ashton Kutcher's acting.

...why couldn't it be Emily Watson damnit? j/k

[luv]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

My understandings of many a movie set involving children and potentially disturbing scenes also involves a number of psychologists and counselors prior to filming.

What I don't get is, if the same point can be made without actually showing the scene, then why shoot it? Especially if it causes the child to need counseling. If I was a parent, I would not knowingly let my 12 year old child do something after which they would need counseling. Enough things like that happen in life without purposefully placing them in that type of situation.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by luv

What I don't get is, if the same point can be made without actually showing the scene, then why shoot it? Especially if it causes the child to need counseling. If I was a parent, I would not knowingly let my 12 year old child do something after which they would need counseling. Enough things like that happen in life without purposefully placing them in that type of situation.

I'm not necessarily condoning showing the scene, but I'm not going to down it prior to seeing it. I can definitely appreciate the artistic value of it. But, as I've stated on this board more than once, as a filmmaker my belief is less is more -- the mind can imagine so much worse.

And what I said about the counselors was that they were there before shooting. Obviously, they would be there afterwards if needbe, but the point is to make the actor acutely aware of what is going on before the scenes take place. Dakota seems like a fairly bright 12-year-old. I'm pretty sure she understands the difference between real life and making a movie.

Linda Blair has said in some interviews that while she was making The Exorcist, everyone around her was very comforting and worried about what she was going through -- she said she didn't know what the big deal was, it was just a movie. She knew that at 14 years old. Why can 30-, 40-, and 50-year-old adults understand that?