Movies and TV Dakota Fanning to be raped onscreen - Page 18

Hammock Parties · 07-21-2006, 08:32 PM

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."

**Fire Me Boy!** · 07-22-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefPote

But why should you have to pay for that reality? The news is free as long as you own a TV. I agree with Luv, I want to be entertained for a short while when eating my popcorn and candy. Not deal with the reality of rape.

As I said earlier, it just depends on what you think entertainment is... when I want to be entertained, sometimes I just want to laugh, so I watch a comedy. Sometimes I want something more, something purely emotional... so I watch things like Requiem for a Dream, Leaving Las Vegas, Amistad, Schindler's List, Hotel Rwanda, and countless others. I like movies that make me think, that challenge my reality, that make me uncomfortable.

But I also have a somewhat skewed point of view.

chiefs4me · 07-22-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian

So the CLiff notes are....
mecca....an unemployed 25 year old
Kcchiefsman....as who wants to hump a robot
Mcan, who is surrounded by theater twits and can't help himself

All think this is a great idea.

Somehow, I wouldn't be surprised if half of the people supporting this crap, already have a folder full of pics of naked 12 year old girls on their hard drives.

The mom should be hit in the face with a hammer for allowing this. No decent parent would allow their 12 year old to be Faux-raped. It CANNOT do anything positive for their psychological development.

Is ANYONE who thinks this is a good idea, a parent?

Stop the freaking world...I actually agree with Killer......

I am also shocked and disguisted at the number of pervs this board seems to have....

HolmeZz · 07-22-2006, 05:40 PM

No 12 year old should be appearing nude in a movie.

This is a case of pedophilia. Just because it's happening in a movie doesn't make it okay. If some guy down the street wanted to make a movie that called for nude kids, he'd be locked up on the spot. If the director had a creative bone in his body, he'd be able to convey his message without having to see a nude 12 year old girl and a simulated rape of her.

Jenson71 · 07-22-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolmeZz

No 12 year old should be appearing nude in a movie.

This is a case of pedophilia. Just because it's happening in a movie doesn't make it okay. If some guy down the street wanted to make a movie that called for nude kids, he'd be locked up on the spot. If the director had a creative bone in his body, he'd be able to convey his message without having to see a nude 12 year old girl and a simulated rape of her.

This image appeared in Time magazine in 1972. The conditions this girl suffered were very worse (and actually real) than what Dakota Fanning might suffer with.

And I don't believe the photographer went to jail for this picture.

EDIT - It was an AP picture, not one for Time, sorry.

Mosbonian · 07-22-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcan

But, I don't think nudity should be so taboo, at any age. From 1 to 100, all it is a body, and it isn't good or bad. Sure, we keep ourselves covered on the street, because the average person has the right to go around and NOT get offended by nudity. But that's why we put "nudity" on ratings. So that only people not offended by nudity go to see that movie. Seems fairly simple. So, even if you see Dakota's bare chest in the movie, I don't think that (in and of itself) is bad or good. It just is..

I will respectfully disagree with the above.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcan

As for simulated sexual activity with a minor (nude or not), now we are walking a much more slippery slope, and great care has to be taken that the child actor is safe and completely aware. I believe that the brightest of 12 year olds and their guardians, are capable of making informed decisions. I also believe that people are generally good, and that if anybody involved (including the director, or the actor's union) thought the movie was going too far, or that they were jeopardizing Dakota's mental health, they would stop filming, and either find a different way to shoot the scene, or cast someone else. Perhaps someone older. .

I also respectfully disagree with the above....only a little more intense. I just cannot believe that a 12 y/o is capable (no matter how much more mature she is than the average 12 y/o) of fully understanding this and making an informed decision. I also DON'T believe that people are generally good, especially when it comes to making decisions that involve money or fame for themselves (directors or the actors). And I question any parent who would agree to allow their daughter to perform a "simulated" rape scene.

I know that in your posts you have stated that you would find another way to do this.....why can't the director do the same?

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian · 07-22-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

This image appeared in Time magazine in 1972. The conditions this girl suffered were very worse (and actually real) than what Dakota Fanning might suffer with.

And I don't believe the photographer went to jail for this picture.

Sorry....but trying to compare a real atrocity with a contrived and staged one is lame.....

mmaddog
*******

Jenson71 · 07-22-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmaddog

Sorry....but trying to compare a real atrocity with a contrived and staged one is lame.....

mmaddog
*******

I took issue with the quote I quoted. How no 12 year old should be nude on film.

And you would be opposed to a movie that recreated the napalm attack on this girl's village, featuring a young nude Asian girl?

HolmeZz · 07-22-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

This image appeared in Time magazine in 1972. The conditions this girl suffered were very worse (and actually real) than what Dakota Fanning might suffer with.

And I don't believe the photographer went to jail for this picture.

Are you serious with that logic?

Mosbonian · 07-22-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

I took issue with the quote I quoted. How no 12 year old should be nude on film.

And you would be opposed to a movie that recreated the napalm attack on this girl's village, featuring a young nude Asian girl?

Nudity for shock value is baseless and demeaning....

mmaddog
*******

Jenson71 · 07-22-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmaddog

Nudity for shock value is baseless and demeaning....

mmaddog
*******

What was the point of Ut's picture, and how do you see that differing from the point of the Fanning movie?

Mecca · 07-22-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

I took issue with the quote I quoted. How no 12 year old should be nude on film.

And you would be opposed to a movie that recreated the napalm attack on this girl's village, featuring a young nude Asian girl?

Apparently we're all just pervs and pedophiles because we don't equate nudity with porn and pedophilia. I just think some people who are posting on here have serious hangups about things are are flipping out......"my god a nude child it must be child porn!".

It's just a statement for what our culture is, this country was founded by puritans.......people so uptight even the British told them to get out. Just like you can seperate a movie from reality you should be able to seperate nudity and porn.

JBucc · 07-22-2006, 06:23 PM

Just get a little long blonde haired surfer dude to be her body double. He might have to tuck it in though.

stevieray · 07-22-2006, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

What was the point of Ut's picture, and how do you see that differing from the point of the Fanning movie?

That girl didn't have a choice, the paernts do.

I think that so many young guys who aren't in productive relationships have so much to say about such a controversial subjec, is very telling of how much they value women. I realize that this doesn't apply to everybody posting, but I'm sure it does for some.

Up next...snuff films?

Mosbonian · 07-22-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Apparently we're all just pervs and pedophiles because we don't equate nudity with porn and pedophilia. I just think some people who are posting on here have serious hangups about things are are flipping out......"my god a nude child it must be child porn!".

It's just a statement for what our culture is, this country was founded by puritans.......people so uptight even the British told them to get out. Just like you can seperate a movie from reality you should be able to seperate nudity and porn.

Interesting how you want everyone to understand your point of view, but have little or no tolerance for opposing views.

You had no trouble bashing "religion" but get your underoos all tight when someone questions your point of view.

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian · 07-22-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Apparently we're all just pervs and pedophiles because we don't equate nudity with porn and pedophilia. I just think some people who are posting on here have serious hangups about things are are flipping out......"my god a nude child it must be child porn!".

It's just a statement for what our culture is, this country was founded by puritans.......people so uptight even the British told them to get out. Just like you can seperate a movie from reality you should be able to seperate nudity and porn.

And just for grins and giggles.....for me it's not the nudity that I oppose so much as it is the necessity for the "simulated" rape.

Ask yourself and answer this seriously...is that scene really necessary to portray the the message?

mmaddog
*******

07-21-2006, 08:32 PM
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $1000478	Dakota Fanning to be raped onscreen 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."
Posts: 296,767

07-22-2006, 05:40 PM	#258
HolmeZz i guess its bittersweet poetry Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NeW HaVeN, CT Casino cash: $10004900	No 12 year old should be appearing nude in a movie. This is a case of pedophilia. Just because it's happening in a movie doesn't make it okay. If some guy down the street wanted to make a movie that called for nude kids, he'd be locked up on the spot. If the director had a creative bone in his body, he'd be able to convey his message without having to see a nude 12 year old girl and a simulated rape of her.
Posts: 16,520

07-22-2006, 06:23 PM	#267
JBucc MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Casino cash: $10004952	Just get a little long blonde haired surfer dude to be her body double. He might have to tuck it in though.
Posts: 12,016