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."

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by stevieray

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?

Are you certain that girl's parents did not say to Ut if he could use that picture or not?

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by mmaddog

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
*******

Nah that's cool, I wasn't persay bashing you with my comment. If you're personally religious that's fine with me provided you don't want to convert me or anything. I just don't enjoy when I hear things like "I'm shocked at the number of pervs on this board". Things like that is what I'm talking about........

If it personally offends you hey I understand that, some people are offended by things others aren't. I'm not saying you must watch the movie or even support the movie. When I jump up and say things it's more for the outrageous shit like "this is child porn this guy should go to jail" or "you guys are pervs for not being against it".

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Are you certain that girl's parents did not say to Ut if he could use that picture or not?

The question is...are you certain?

mmaddog
*******

[luv]

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.

She's not just nude, she's supposed to appear to be getting raped. It's not child porn, but I still don't think it's right. The body of a 12 year old girl is art? Are you guys nuts? No one's questioning you for watching it, but you've done nothing but retaliate to Iowanians comments (which were effective in getting you to get all bent out of shape about them). I am questioning the intent of the mother for allowing her daughter to appear in such a scene. A director and an agent are one thing, but her mother too?

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by mmaddog

The question is...are you certain?

mmaddog
*******

That's not "the question". But no, I'm not. I know Ut was around her family for a while, including when he took her to the hospital. But if her parent's were there, and said yes it's okay, then you would have no problem with that?

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by Mecca

If it personally offends you hey I understand that, some people are offended by things others aren't. I'm not saying you must watch the movie or even support the movie. When I jump up and say things it's more for the outrageous shit like "this is child porn this guy should go to jail" or "you guys are pervs for not being against it".

Thats cool....

My personal preference in this case will be to never see the movie...mostly because it doesn't interest me.

mmaddog
*******

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by luv

She's not just nude, she's supposed to appear to be getting raped. It's not child porn, but I still don't think it's right. The body of a 12 year old girl is art? Are you guys nuts? No one's questioning you for watching it, but you've done nothing but retaliate to Iowanians comments (which were effective in getting you to get all bent out of shape about them). I am questioning the intent of the mother for allowing her daughter to appear in such a scene. A director and an agent are one thing, but her mother too?

You'd get bent out of shape too if someone accused you of having a folder of child porn on your computer because that is frankly an assinine thing to say to someone. That's his schtich poke, prod say some outlandish bullshit that you'd never really say to someone unless you wanted to get punched in the face, the usual.

Questioning her and her mother is fine, I don't know either of them so I'll defer before I pass judgement.

[HolmeZz]

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.

[luv]

Originally Posted by Mecca

You'd get bent out of shape too if someone accused you of having a folder of child porn on your computer because that is frankly an assinine thing to say to someone. That's his schtich poke, prod say some outlandish bullshit that you'd never really say to someone unless you wanted to get punched in the face, the usual.

Questioning her and her mother is fine, I don't know either of them so I'll defer before I pass judgement.

I'm saying that the reason he keeps using it is because it gets the intended reaction. Learn to play along with him. Tell him you have so much of it that it won't fit in one folder. That type of thing.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by luv

I'm saying that the reason he keeps using it is because it gets the intended reaction. Learn to play along with him. Tell him you have so much of it that it won't fit in one folder. That type of thing.

I generally ignore him......but I thought that comment was a bit much. I think most people around here have seen me post enough to know my demeanor, I rarely get bent out of shape about anything.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

That's not "the question". But no, I'm not. I know Ut was around her family for a while, including when he took her to the hospital. But if her parent's were there, and said yes it's okay, then you would have no problem with that?

Yes..I have a problem with it..parents permission or not.

What is the necessity of using that photo? Is it to display the horrors of war? There were plenty of other photographs that could have done that with ease....and did. Was it absolutely necessary to show a naked girl running down the street to display the horrors of that war....you know that answer.

mmaddog
*******

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by mmaddog

What is the necessity of using that photo? Is it to display the horrors of war? There were plenty of other photographs that could have done that with ease....and did. Was it absolutely necessary to show a naked girl running down the street to display the horrors of that war....you know that answer.

mmaddog
*******

Well, I really didn't expect you to disagree with the showing of that Pulitzer Prize winning photo. One that was not in the least staged, but "was as true as the Vietnam war itself". But I think to classify it as just "showing the horrors of war" is too broad and simple for it. It was a Napalm attack, an attack that set this girl's clothes on fire, which resulted her in throwing them off. screaming too hot, too hot, before she fell to the ground. Her family was attacked, her brother can be seen in the picture.

[luv]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Well, I really didn't expect you to disagree with the showing of that Pulitzer Prize winning photo. One that was not in the least staged, but "was as true as the Vietnam war itself". But I think to classify it as just "showing the horrors of war" is too broad and simple for it. It was a Napalm attack, an attack that set this girl's clothes on fire, which resulted her in throwing them off. screaming too hot, too hot, before she fell to the ground. Her family was attacked, her brother can be seen in the picture.

The photographer did not intentionally place the girl into that situation. And I highly doubt it was shown for entertainment purposes.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by luv

The photographer did not intentionally place the girl into that situation. And I highly doubt it was shown for entertainment purposes.

I think you're right, he didn't intentionally place her there. But he knew what message and visual he was looking for, and took the opportunity.

And I highly doubt it was shown for entertainment, just as a highly doubt Dakota Fanning being raped is for a few good laughs.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Well, I really didn't expect you to disagree with the showing of that Pulitzer Prize winning photo. One that was not in the least staged, but "was as true as the Vietnam war itself". But I think to classify it as just "showing the horrors of war" is too broad and simple for it. It was a Napalm attack, an attack that set this girl's clothes on fire, which resulted her in throwing them off. screaming too hot, too hot, before she fell to the ground. Her family was attacked, her brother can be seen in the picture.

And I am supposed to be impressed by the fact that it was a Pulitzer Prize winner?

During that time we were barraged with horrific photos of the war....every day. It was then...and still is to this day sensationalistic journalism. Every day someone is trying to top the last pic that horrified us.......we daily get bombarded with pics of bloodied and battered bodies. Why.....why is that necessary? To remind us that war is evil....vile and has consequences?

mmaddog
*******